Somebody asked, Midnight Cajun I believe, WHY I did not say that Bristol was not Trig's mom back when I first heard it. To be honest, I had trouble accepting it. I walked around for a while trying to fit it in with what I had come to believe about "babygate". I went back to my source at least four times before I accepted it completely.
After that I did not originally post about it because NOBODY would have believed it. You can see today how hard it is for people to accept and that is after Levi has done these interviews and you have heard hints from me these last few months alluding to that fact. If I had just come out and said it, with NO confirmation from anybody, it would have been dismissed out of hand.
Now Kathleen asked why I said back on Sept. 2, "Just ask yourself this question, "When would Sarah Palin be most likely to fake a pregnancy and then adopt her daughter's baby? When she was mostly out of the public eye as the Governor of an "off the radar" state like Alaska? Or while standing on a stage in front of millions of possible voters and camera crews?"
This was in response to Levi's statement that Sarah wanted to adopt Tripp. I was not confirming that Trig was Bristol's baby, I was asking why Sarah would want to adopt her daughter's baby right when she was being considered for a VP pick? The talk about Sarah being a possible VP pick had already started before April 2008. If it was going to be a straight up adoption how would you explain taking on an infant while running to be the Vice President of the United States? And if you were planning to fake your own pregnancy would it not have made sense to do so before the national media was watching your every move? This was one of my first attempts to get people to start thinking about the birth dates.
There is a line of logic that continues on from the above paragraph. I cannot just come out in say it because that betrays my agreement. I apologize, but I also want you to keep in mind that if I HAD simply put everything I learned on this blog back in May or June I would NEVER have learned another thing. My sources would have never trusted me again. So when I tell you I am saying as much as I can, you are just going to have to accept that or decide to walk away. Your choice.
But do keep in mind what I have said in the past, and how much has been confirmed by Levi and other sources. There are a lot of facts and rumors that we know now that we certainly did not know back in the spring.
Another thing to keep in mind is that when Levi says he knows some HUGE things, he is not exaggerating one little bit. And there are others who are waiting in the wings as well. Author Joe McGinnis said that people in Wasilla could not wait to talk to him. And boy does HE have some stories to tell."
What I would like to say to Gryphen's comments is this:
I have the highest respect for Gryphen. He is the only one of the bloggers in Alaska who was willing to pick up babygate several months ago, and has done a lot to drive this issue forward. He has built up a great blog and gained a large readership. However, that does not mean that I agree with everything that he writes about "babygate", and yesterday was such a case.
Trig Truthing is an exciting, but also difficult exercise, and as many of you have experienced before, sometimes it can make your head hurt. Like yesterday. In my 12 months of being an active Trig Truther and belonging to a resourceful investigative team, I have learned that it is just far too easy to get confused about all the theories, to think round in circles and to get distracted by smokescreens that other people have created. Once the confusion starts, all the scenarios keep spinning round in your head and that makes it difficult to come to any meaningful conclusion about the whole "Trig-mystery".
What we have also have experienced is that evidence itself might be confusing or might be interpreted in different ways, and that it takes great patience and constant fact-checking with an open mind in order to meaningfully progress with the investigation. This was one of the main reasons why the Palindeception research team was formed in the first place in 2008: To have a group of dedicated people looking together at the evidence, giving open and critical assessments, before they are being published afterwards, or sometimes they are not published straight away at all because they need further clarification. After Palindeception stopped posting a few months ago, a new babygate research team was formed which is now working with palingates. To have such a group of people is invaluable, because it is just too easy to get lost - and at the times when frustration sets in, it is also much easier to stay focused if there is a group of people behind you who support your efforts.
Gryphen and I agree in one thing right now: Sarah Palin is not the biological mother of Trig. Regarding the other circumstances, I am afraid to say that don't know whether he is right or not, because I haven't seen his evidence. Let me say one important thing: We do not see this as a competition. I would be very happy for him if Gryphen is correct! He would certainly deserve to be the one who breaks the story. What particular evidence he has, I don't know. He hasn't told us, and I would never ask anyone to tell me his secrets. After Gryphen published his blogpost yesterday, I wrote him an email and offered to tell him what WE know, so that he could check it with his information, but I have received no reply so far. I am still very happy to do so. Gryphen and I are not in regular contact, we have exchanged a few emails during this year, but that's it.
The evidence we have received, circumstancial and direct evidence, strongly points to the fact the Bristol Palin was pregnant at the end of 2007. There were for example not only rumors reaching back to December 2007 that Bristol was pregnant, but there were also people in high positions claiming this as a FACT, including a top-member of the leadership of the Republican Party of Alaska. This is not the kind of evidence which one can just dismiss. If we want to dismiss this evidence, one would have to explain how it's possible that such important people in Alaska claim to know that it's true. Personally, I find the "deception within the deception" difficult to believe.
As it currently stands, I see it as a confirmed fact that Bristol was pregnant during the year 2007.
We don't know for a fact WHEN Bristol gave birth, although we have received some clues in the course of the investigation. It seems most likely right now that she has given birth in December 2007 or January 2008. As I understand it, Bristol possibly attended Anchorage West High for several months from January 2008 onwards, although the details are not finally confirmed. We had received several reports from people who saw Bristol in public in March 2008, non-pregnant. We also received credible reports that Bristol was upset and angry about the fact that Sarah announced her "pregnancy" at the beginning of March 2008.
I also don't know for a fact IF Bristol has given birth. She might have had an abortion or miscarried. The revelation of an abortion would of course be the "scandal of the century". Some readers have speculated that such an abortion might have been performed when Bristol went to New York together with Sarah in October 2007. All I can say is that so far we have no hints that such a scandalous scenario could be true.
What I can also say is that there have been deliberate, deceitful attempts to manipulate the babygate discussion in the past in order to drive us and others away from the Bristol theory and confuse everybody. These attacks continue right up until the present day. Just a few days ago, an old "friend" popped up again, who is well known from the old PD-days: The commenter "BlueTx". He claims to know "the gruesome truth" about babygate - apparently Bristol is not the mother, and we even should feel sorry about Sarah. He managed to confuse some people over here at palingates and at Immoral Minority both yesterday and today. However, we know a few things about BlueTx. He opened the blog "Palindeception2" at the beginning of 2009, where he started to ridicule PD. Fine, no problem. Shortly before that, "BlueTx" appeared on PD, slamming the fake pregnancy theories in his comments, which "BlueTx" subsequently deleted. When confronted with the fact that Kathleen claimed to know that "Thomas" was in fact "BlueTx", he categorically denied it. Unfortunately for him, it was pretty easy to prove that the two were the same, as both posters used the same blogger ID number, and finally he snarkily conceded it. "Thomas" later also admitted that he was "Whitedog" on PD. "Whitedog", in fact, shared the same blogger ID number with "AlaskaGrown" and "cupofnoodles", who were also commenters on PD. But they were all one person - "Thomas", the man who claims to know "the gruesome truth". Using those ID's he tried to manipulate the conversation, and God knows which other ID's he might have used. In reality, however, he knows only one thing: How to confuse people and how to lie when he is cornered.
Those kind of manipulative attempts to derail the discussion make me incredibly suspicious. We have good sources telling us that Bristol was pregnant. On the other hand, we have seen deceitful commenters on the blogs telling us that she was not. What should be the conclusion of that?
The conclusion in my opinion is that the evidence has to be double and triple checked. We also have to be aware that most of the Trig Truthing discussion - is it stands right now - is confined to only three blogs - Immoral Minority, Bree Palin and palingates. This is not a lot. If one of these blogs gets discredited, it would be a major blow to the overall "movement". Therefore, we have to be very careful, and I wish that there could be more exchange of information going on. I also think that it's not ideal when information is being put out in a seemingly cryptic way and not properly explained.
I also understand that for Gryphen it probably makes sense for him to present his findings in the way he does, because he believes that he has all the pieces of the puzzle he needs.
However, we have to be aware that we are on a hazardous road: Hopefully at some point we will get to the final truth, but there are also smokescreens, and it is very important to be able to recognize them. If Gryphen is annoyed about my remarks, all I can say is: Don't be! We are in the same boat here. If theories such as "Bristol is not the mother" are being presented, I would have really liked to have seen it presented within a more coherent storyline which would have made it more digestable.
Update: Here is the second part of Levi Johnston's appearance on "The Insider". He says at the end that if Sarah "shuts up", then he might shut up, too. I find this remark a bit surprising, because the odds are that Sarah Palin has dissed him in her book. So it's very unlikely that she will shut up. I also don't think that it's in her nature to shut up at this point.
