Nothing that I can find in the news.

I've been looking as well. I will be sufficiently humbled if there is an actual live birth.

Otherwise I will continue to believe that Trig is Bristol's baby. The circumstances surrounding his birth just don't make much sense. Either Palin is irresponsible as all get out, or she was covering for Bristol.

For example...Palin has stated that she knew early in the pregnancy that the baby had Down Syndrome, meaning that along with the fact that she was 40+, it was a high risk pregnancy. She was in Texas to give a speech when her water broke. She went ahead to give the speech anyway. She then proceeded to leave the place where she gave the speech and get on a plane while IN LABOR. I must stop at this point and add that airlines don't want/allow you to fly once you reach a certain stage of pregnancy and I KNOW they would not allow a woman in labor to fly. This of course involved deception on her part because she got on the plane and did not tell anyone she was in labor. Going back to the story, she had to fly eight hours to reach Alaska where she then had to drive another 45 minutes to reach the hospital where she gave birth. Now I know she prides herself on being heroic, but is that really even plausible or realistic or RESPONSIBLE behavior for someone with a high risk pregnancy? Or is it the behavior of someone who probably isn't pregnant, but is rushing home where her pregnant daughter is about to give birth?

I hadn't heard the story around that baby's birth. I also had written off all the rumors of it being the daughter's baby figuring they were just trying to make Palin look bad. Labor pains tend to be painful right? Even if it is the fifth kid. I mean I couldn't have been pleasant. I would assume there would be some sign of distress if she was in labor.

So . . . even if we assume all of this is true (NOTE: there's no real evidence it went down just like this), you really think the most likely explanation is thus that . . . Trig is her daughter's baby? That's the Occam's Razor solution?

Actually Palin herself has given this account. It ws a part of her effort to show everyone how tough she is and her level of dedication. Going through all of that and then going back to work a few days after the baby was born.

I think most of the time labor pains ARE painful, but I have heard of women who have had relatively easy labor. Especially when they are athletic like Palin and have had more than one child.

And your own statement gives a perfectly valid reason why I think it's somewhat exaggerated, and likely not fit as evidence of conspiracy - she's not credible, in a sense, because there is motivation to appear a certain way.

That's about the farthest thing from proof (of any sort) that her child is anything but her own. She's provided birth records. Seriously.

No my statement is not a valid reason for you to think it is exaggerated.

I notice people always make this argument when something utterly ridiculous is revealed about someone and they can't accept it. When I say there is motivation to appear a certain way...there is. She has made it clear that she wants to let people know how dedicated she is and she offered up the fact that she went back to work three days after giving birth as proof of that. And while I applaud all working mothers, especially if they are in such high profile positions, I know that I'm not alone in questioning her judgment in going back to work so soon after giving birth to a baby with DS and choosing to fly on a plane for 8 hours while in labor. I'm sorry if you can't wrap your mind around it, but your decision to remain in denial does not make this any less true.
On another note, from what I understand she never actually provided a birth record for Trig. In fact I think there was also an issue because she did not provide any medical records indicating that she had actually given birth around the time that Trig was actually born.

Clicking into this thread earlier just caused me to lose about an hour of my life googling and reading more than I ever needed to know about this subject (so thanks for that). There are a surprising number of people still devoting what appears to be their whole lives to this topic and entire websites and blogs that do nothing but track, dig and piece together old and new information, analyze photos, etc. -- one of the main complaints continues to be why things like birth certificates (which are not public record in Alaska), family photos of when the baby was born, direct statements from her doctor and the hospital where she says Trig was born, etc., haven't been produced to finally put a stop to all the madness and speculation. I was intrigued by the idea of a switcheroo when it first popped up, then went with the "final word" that Trig is Sarah's. But there is seriously a lot of stuff out there that makes a very good case that he is not Sarah's and it does beg the question why someone as politically-motivated as Palin has shown herself to be has not taken what would honestly have been very easy and very final steps to shut the whole story down. For the moment, I'm still on the "wait and see" side, assuming Trig is her 5th child, but I am once again intrigued and will be interested to see what happens when (if?) Bristol gives birth any day now, I'd assume...

Happy holidays everyone! I'm officially starting my holiday celebration...... NOW! :)

what are you drinking?

Can I have a cup please?

I told ya....hehe ;)

Pass the popcorn.

lol ;)

Yes, it is. Let me spell this out more clearly:

Palin is politically motivated. You noted that her 'motivation' (as it were) was to make herself appear to be more courageous or warrior-like in the eyes of voters. This means she has every reason to 'color' the story to fit that goal - just like HRC talking about "sniper fire" in Bosnia. That's how people work, and it's really the definition of 'spin' in politics.

This motivation seems much more clear than her motivation in going out of her way to appear pregnant to cover for her daughter, when any number of other, practical solutions would have been easier. The burden of proof, as it is, is on you, because you are the one violating Occam's Razor (among other logical tests).

I've noticed that posters who speak in platitudes are generally wrong.

I agree with this. It's even my very point. The most likely purpose, though, isn't what you're claiming it is.

The only thing I'm 'denying' is the logic of your assertions. I'm not a Palin fan, or even a Republican. Your application of false motives to my posts actually says more about you than me.

OK - so she just has a letter from the doctor. The absence of proof is not proof of absence. Hook me up with evidence. Once again - burden of proof. On you. Not me.

to review...also go here:

http://www.greekchat.com/gcforums/sh...=99145&page=10

Actually if there is nothing to hide, then why not produce the records? As much as Palin talks about honesty and integrity, seems like she would be open to that as well. And besides, as I stated previously there has been no release of RECORDS. You specifically referred to RECORDS and those carry FAR more weight than a mere letter from a doctor. By the time the doctor wrote this letter, they could have just produced the records. The end.

You can go on all day about how what I'm saying is not true and whatnot. That still doesn't mean anything. There is far more evidence on MY side than on yours at this point. You apparently want to keep your head in the sand. And the burden of proof is on YOU to use your Internet the same way that everyone else does. That way you can find your own sources because if I povide you with sources, the next thing that you will say is that my sources are biased.