Bristol photo 2006? - Palin's Peyton Place

Menu:

Controversial Baby bump pic. 2006 or 2007?

This photo has been in dispute as to the timing of the photo. At Palin's Deception, whom I highly respect, believes through her research that this photo was taken in 2006. And, in fact, at the adn. govenor photo site, this page is listed as being taken in 2006 along with what the childrens ages would have been in 2006.

Track (not pictured), birth date: April 20th, 1989 - 17 years old, Bristol, birth date: Oct 18th, 1990 - 16 years old, Willow, birth date: Jan 21st, 1994 - 12 years old, and Piper, birth date: August 26th, 2001 - 5 years old. The month and date this picture was taken is reported to be around Oct, 23.

At the 'Palin's Deception' web site, under 'Bristol Palin' pregnancy, go toward the bottom of the page and it has this and another photo that has been speculated as Bristol being pregnant where she says it has been disproven. There is another picture of the family taken outdoors where they are wearing jackets, but you can tell that they are also wearing the clothes that they are wearing here under the jackets. And, Willow's hair is pulled back in the same manner.

Audrey, the owner of the site, has a link to an article that states it was originally posted in Oct 23, 2007 and the photographer is Mark Lester. However, now when you click on the link, it says that the article was first published in Oct 23, 2006, and, there is no picture there.

Bristol Palin pregnancy(ies?) Go to the bottom of the page.
Also, other people have stated elsewhere that has soon as they heard the announcement from McCain who he chose to be his VP pick, they started doing research on her. Within a few hours, many stated that web sites were being removed, others were being changed. This is one of the photos that they have stated was changed around to different web sites and the date was changed. This is a blog site from one of the people who claimed this happened to them. Grandma Maggie's Unsolicited Advice So which one is it? If this was taken around Oct 2007, could Bristol be pregnant in it?

December 2006 Inauguration

This is a documented picture of the Govenor's Inauguration taken December 2006.  This would be approximately 2 months after the previous picture if that one had been taken Oct 2006.


This is the documented Dec 2006 picture.  Notice the flat abdoment and breast size.



 

This was supposedly taken around Oct 2006, however, many people have said this was originally listed as Oct 2007 and was changed just hours after McCain listed Palin as his running mate and new information of the childrens ages put on it.  If this had been taken on Oct 2006, then this would have been taken 2 months before the inauguration picture.  Also, it would have have to have been taken after Oct 18th for Bristol to be 16.

 

Close up of both of the torso area.  If those pictures were taken only 2 months apart, there is a fairly big difference in the abdomen and breast size.

If this picture was actually taken Oct 23, 2007. and if Bristol is pregnant in this picture, then she would be approx 11 or 12 weeks here.

Here are some pictures to compare of women at 11 and 12 weeks of a 1st pregnancy.

A pregnacy is different than gaining weight in women in how it affects her body.   The uterus will become hard, not soft, and will begin to 'pouch' out from below the belly button.  Also, the breast will become larger.  Just gaining weight will usually result in a weight gain all over the body, not just the breasts and front area of the abdomen.

I don't know for sure if Bristol is pregnant in this picture, but it strongly suggest that she is pregnant.  Also, there is more evidence to suggest that the date of this picture has been deliberately changed.  I will post more on that.

If it can be proven that this date was changed, it will be one of the best single pieces of evidence of a cover-up.

Update

2/3/2009

At 'Palin's Deception' blog, Audrey has just posted that she believes that this photo was taken in 2006.  Please check out her blog and see the blog listed for 2/3/09 that is titled, 'Once and for all'.  She makes some valid points and it is always wise when trying to uncover lies when dealing with a possible cover-up, to err on the side of caution.

Having said that, I continue to believe that this picture may have been taken in 2007 since that is the original date that it was listed as being taken on the web sites.  But please look at all of the evidence and see what your opinion would be.  Here is Audrey's blog at her web site.  Check out the comment section also since other people will post pictures that they have related to the topic!