Saturday, 23 May 2009

Bristol, babies, photos...



Some readers have been asking for a comparison between these photos because Tripp looks too small in the photo on the People cover.

I looked at the pictures very carefully and I think it's the same baby. His legs are flexed and he's leaning forward on the magazine cover while he's almost horizontal on the Matt Lauer interview screenshot. Flat out, so to speak...

I don't have a very sophisticated image editing program, but I flipped one of them and tried to have all pictures more or less the same size for comparison.

Over to you, my friends...

Click on each photo to enlarge.
.

22 comments:

Anonymous said...

Thanks for doing this, Regina. I still think that the Graduation Baby looks younger than the Zonked TV Baby. However, I am going to guess that the People Cover photo was shot several weeks before graduation. It was the custom in my high school to take "official" pictures of the graduates long before graduation because of the time it took to process the photos. OK, it was black and white film photography then, and digital is immediate. Still, I think that the People Picture was taken some time before graduation, based on your side-by-side pictures. Maybe other readers have other opinions. That's what's so nice about this forum; all ideas are respected and can be discussed. Thanks for doing it! (My word was "misten." Could be mister, mistaken, or whatever you like.)

lisabeth said...

Regina, OT slightly but look at the article in the NYT either today or yesterday. Very interesting. Google Levi Johnston NYT Rex Butler. I don't have the link but someone posted this on Gryphens blog.

KaJo said...

Considering TriPP is supposed to be nearly 5 months old, he sure hasn't got much hair. Oh, I know, babies tend to lose their newborn hair.

OTOH, look at all the other Palins, and Levi Johnston, TriPP's purported father, and Levi's sister AND mother. All brunettes (albeit bleached, in one case). Even TriG was born with a head of dark hair.

I wonder if TriPP's new head of hair will darken over time, so he begins to look like a Palin.

b-p-p said...

Here is a link to the NYT Fashion and Style article with Rex Butler
http://tiny.cc/vs4Nt

Anonymous said...

b-p-p, the tiny.cc URL didn't work for me.

I went to the NYT and found an article which is dated 5/24 about Levi. Is that the story everyone is referring to?

Anonymous said...

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/24/fashion/24levi.html?scp=1&sq=Levi%20Johnston&st=cse

wv - unrest

b-p-p said...

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/24/fashion/24levi.html?scp=1&sq=Levi%20Johnston&st=cse

That's it. You can also get there @ the b-p-p link

Sometimes it works better to put the Tiny URL or others in the address bar.

b-p-p said...

If I have trouble opening up, like in the 'KaJo' or 'b-p-p' link positions, sometimes it works to right click and go to 'open in a New Window'

LisanTX said...

Another thing that effects perception is the clothes Tripp is wearing. The one piece infant outfit and being barefoot make Tripp look like an infant; whereas the overalls and shoes make him appear older. Clothes make the man. :)

Anonymous said...

I thought maybe he just looked older because he is stoned.

ProChoiceGrandma said...

Several weeks ago when following info on Cathy Baldwin-Johnson, I came across this site:

http://www.providence.org/alaska/tchap/cares/prevention.htm

Under the section Parenting Help, the “downloaded free” does not work, but I sure wanted to see what it said about:
“Grandparents Raising Grandchildren” - (Sarah and Trig?)
“Soothing A Crying Infant” – (I wonder what was suggested, perhaps following this advice is why Tripp is always out cold in interviews)

ProChoiceGrandma said...

Try this tinyurl:

http://tiny.cc/ufMtI

Anonymous said...

Thanks, Regina, for the pictures.

With all this PR, and especially the cover of People, she can probably be their spokesperson without carting the baby around.

At least, she looks a little more comfortable holding him. In the GVS interview, she looked so detached from the baby, I could hardly watch it.

I'll keep in touch and I think I have something coming in the mail that you might be interested in.
If I get it, you'll be the first to know.

Ginger

Anonymous said...

Well, the Palin barbarians have taintged another poll on US News asking "Who is the biggest politcal threat to Obama?" Scarah was at 9%...they put out the call on all her websites for their sheeple to get on that poll and vote repeatedly. It is just stupid....it's an artifical number but if they enjoy spending their entire holiday weekend on their computers voting on and on for hours.....good for them. It is an artificial number that will not hold up in a voting booth. They are kidding themselves. They should let just one poll run it's natural course without their tampering to find out where their Scarah is actually at....I think it is where she was this morning.... 9%....until they forced her numbers up to over 76% What a bunch of losers........

FEDUP!!! said...

Anon @ 7:43 : I would say: Let them be in their illusions! I *HOPE* they will nominate her as the GOP candidate in 2012!
If they *really* think that GINO is Mr. Obama's biggest threat, I would say: Great! Stay in your little cave, becaue like that, it is more likely that there will be a Democrat as president for the next SEVERAL election cycles!

Anonymous said...

Try leaving a comment on one of the Palinbots sites.The blind adoration is incredible its obvious they dont read or see the facts,or just plain dont care.My comments were to the point and researched on my own because of a half truth,(The Pipeline) I had read that in all liklyhood it would not be built ! Her Statement that it was in progress got me searching.The rest is history she is nothing but a self server an inept one at that.Keep the info coming I would hate to see her misgovern anything else in this country.

b-p-p said...

Palin loses bet. Two gamblin' fools, two lawsuits filed against Sanford over stimulus dollars. Next?
Is it just me or does she look awful haggard?
http://tiny.cc/puck422
This is Sarah Palin, she could be seven or eight months pregnant.

trish in SW FL said...

she has been looking haggard lately. Ya think maybe something's worrying her?

Like, maybe the coming of the iceberg?

~trish

Anonymous said...

I would be v. interested to know......what is the likeliehood of two dk. brown eyes parents producing a baby with bright blue eyes?
Just sayin'. Can someone look @ Todd/Sarah and Sherry/Levi's Dad, and tell us if it is even possible for a bio child of Bristol/Levi to have blue eyes?

FEDUP!!! said...

Blue eyes are recessive, brown are dominant. Even if there was just ONE brown eyed parent wayyyyyy back when, brown will more likely come out. For this baby to have the deep blue eyes he seems to have, there must be a relative from *BOTH* sides that has had blue eyes, because he must have inherited the 'blue eyes' gene from both parents. If he inherited ONE blue eyes gene, and one brown, he would be brown eyed...
So, YES - there *must* be some blue eyed relatives on Levis side - or he is NOT the baby's daddy!

regina said...

I was writing about genes when my modem was fried, I'll try again.

Yes, brown is dominant, but they may carry recessive genes. If both brown eyed parents contribute the recessive blue eyed gene, a blue eyed baby will result.

What's NOT possible is for two blue eyed parents to produce a brown eyed baby, because recessives carry ONLY recessive genes, i.e. blue eyes.

I still remember Mendel and his peas from waaaay back. Oh, good school days!

Regina

FEDUP!!! said...

Comparing the two baby pics is a bit difficult because of the writing over the People cover, and also because Bristol is at different distances from the camera.
I know someone said clothes make little men or something to that effect... HOWEVER: IMHO, if you check out the length of her arm vs the size/length of the baby's body, there seems to be a definite, marked, difference in size. In the People cover, her arm is longer than the baby body PLUS legs, whereas in the interview pic, her arm is about the length of the baby body (w/o legs)