A reader writes:
I felt skeptical reading the Salon articles about the eyewitness accounts, not exactly sure why. Then I read your post on them. Part of me felt relieved that you seemed to feel reassured by the New Yorker columnist and all of the new evidence that Salon brought forward. And then I saw that Israeli TV photo … and suddenly, I became skeptical again.
A number of years ago, I was a designer at one of the top maternity companies in the country.
I'd put the job out of my mind, as it was something I took only for the money. We used non-pregnant fit models and put fake bellies on them (like these). They are sort of convincing if you aren't looking closely, but, really, they don't look real. And at least from the bad Israeli TV photo, I had a flashback to those days.
None of Palin's "pregnant Trig photos" look real either, in the same, flat belly way. The story of the reporter looking at Palin's swollen belly through a thin jersey tee shirt … I doubt any reporter is going to stare at it, but you could definitely fake it with one of these bellies. I can tell the difference though; I know these fake bellies. It is not as easy to prove anything from a photo because of angles, lighting, retouching, etc. But I know what they look like in clothes versus what a real pregnant belly looks like. I had honestly put that work experience out of my mind until today.
If you want to let it go, so be it. Clearly, you'd probably sound like a kook to bring this up. But I am more skeptical now, pending other evidence.
The Dish 