Trig Truther research guy 'Patrick' researches . . . hot WebCam action?

What wonderful characters these crusaders for Truth -- note the capital "T" -- inevitably prove to be!

Back in the spring, when "Audrey" at Palin's Deceptions was doing a land-office business posting photographic "evidence" pulled from the Internet (perhaps significantly including MySpace pages), she was assisted by "Patrick (PD research)," who since has begun Twittering as "Palin Deceives." Here is one typical posting by Patrick:

the confirmation that Bristol worked as a Barista at Nordstrom in Anchorage in June/July 2007 can be found in SP's financial disclosure form for 2007 - download:
http://www.box.net/shared/7u1bxqm3ba
We have also a confirmation of this fact by another source which we cannot disclose.
We also know for sure that Bristol worked at PacSun in Anchorage in June 2007, and it is interesting to note that this job is not mentioned in the financial disclosure form. It is actually possible that the engagement at PacSun was cut short...
Patrick (PD research)

Oh, and here's another sweet one from Patrick:

I am not a journalist. If I were, I would pick up this story with no hesitation, because a simple research of the facts which are already known to the public shows without any doubt that Sarah’s birth story has to be wrong. . . .
In my opinion, it’s certain that Sarah Palin has not given birth to Trig. And Sarah is truly vicious, because she now uses Trig more and more aggressively for her political purposes . . .

Well, as Patrick says, he is not a journalist. I am, and "a simple research of the facts" shows that "Patrick (PD research)" used a Yahoo e-mail account: patrick12344[AT]yahoo.com. That link is to a Google search, and a bit more specific search shows that "Patrick (PD research)" likes him some "Free Web Cam" action. (NTTAWWT.)

Ah, but under his Yahoo account, Patrick was telling the Web Cam hotties: "hi baby my msn are curvers_23[at]hotmail.com," and if you search for that e-mail address . . . well, NTTAWWT.

UPDATE: As I was researching this, I came across this "Audrey" posting from Aug. 1 about "breaking news . . . too hot to ignore" :

About four hours ago, on Alaska blog Immoral Minority, the news comes: Sarah and Todd Palin plan to split. The Alaska Report follows suit.
I too have sources in Alaska. Over the last week, I have also heard rumors of things not being quite right at the Palin abode.

Right, "Audrey" -- you've got "sources in Alaska," and your sources are as full of crap as Jesse Griffin and Dennis Zaki. You idiots never know when to stop trying to milk those 15 minutes of anti-Palin fame, do you?

UPDATE II: Breaking new legal ground, in the comments below, "Patrick" accuses me of defaming his Internet pseudonym. Think about that.

The case of "Patrick12344" v. McCain could establish an important precedent for the landmark Supreme Court decision in Doe v. "HotBiChrlder19."

UPDATE III: More fun with moonbats: "Patrick12344" (who insists he most certainly would never look at a Free Web Cam) presumes to lecture us on "facts" and what constitutes an acceptable level of online proof. He then proceeds to claim that photos of Bristol Palin looking a little chubby in fall 2007 constitute definitive proof that Bristol is Trig's real mother -- because no teenage girl has ever gained weight unless she was pregnant -- and then, to top it all off, tells me that I owe him a retraction!

Patrick, you need to get a dictionary and look up the word "effrontery," which I believe you'll find a few pages past "douchebag."

PREVIOUSLY:

• 'Just Asking Questions' (Uncut Version)
• 'The Facts Are Well Known'
• Who is 'AnnieB393'?
• A Trig-Truther's Anonymity

Trig Trutherism, 'Audrey' and Sully:'Just Asking Questions' (Uncut Version)

NOTE: I had this ready to post last night, but hesitated because I wondered if she was worth it. Ah, he who hesitates is lost! And so Aaron Gardner beat me to it. But here is what I had written. -- RSM

When you're a Trig Truther just asking questions -- "Who's not your mama?" being the latest question from "Audrey" at the Palin's Deceptions blog -- sometimes people might get the idea you're dropping hints and perhaps making unsavory insinuations that you don't have the moxy to state outright.

A declarative statement might be proven false, but an insinuation made by just asking questions tends to foster suspicions difficult to disprove simply because they are so darned nebulous.

For example, the moonbats obsessed with Sarah Palin's fifth pregnancy -- when she gave birth to Trig, whom no self-respecting moonbat considers to be Sarah's actual son -- frequently discuss this alleged pseudo-pregnancy in relation to Palin's daughter Bristol. Here is our friend "Audrey":

In particular, Bristol’s attendance during the 2007-08 school year has been questioned on this site and on others. This school year, of course, is the focus of our interest. Why? . . . Someone had to be pregnant with Trig Palin during most of what would have been the 2007 - 2008 school year. If it were not Sarah Palin, it had to be someone else. Period.

And more recently, "Audrey" wrote:

[F]ormer [Anchorage Daily News] editor Michael Carey gave an interview with PBS on September 2nd . . . Carey had not heard that Bristol was pregnant as of September 1 at all. But he had heard that Sarah had faked a pregnancy to cover for Bristol the previous spring.

Many more such examples could be cited. One gets the idea, given the proximity with which these two phenomena (Trig and Bristol) are discussed by these Truthers, that the moonbats are insinuating that Bristol is actually Trig's mother, and Sarah his grandmother, and that this was the "deception" which inspired the name of "Audrey's" blog.

Such insinuations collapse at first contact with reality:

• Bristol Palin gave birth to her own son, "a healthy 7 lb., 7 oz., baby boy . . . Tripp Easton Mitchell Johnston," on Dec. 29, 2008.
• Trig Paxson Van Palin was born on April 18, 2008.

What the Trig Truthers are trying to insinuate is that Bristol gave birth in April, conceived again almost immediately after Trig's delivery and then, barely eight months after the birth of her first child, delivered her second child -- healthy and apparently full-term -- shortly after Christmas.

To the extent that this is not a medical impossibility, it certainly seems both unlikely and unnatural to say nothing of what we bloggers sometimes call "nucking futs."

This is especially true considering that Trig was born with Down Syndrome, a condition clearly associated with advanced maternal age (Sarah Palin, d.o.b. Feb. 11, 1964, was 44 when Trig was born) and quite rare among the offspring of teenage mothers (Bristol, d.o.b. Oct. 18, 1990, was 17 when Trig was born).

Given the basic biological/mathematical dubiousness of the Bristol-as-Trig's-real-mom theory, the Down Syndrome factor adds powerful dispositive evidence of the moonbat Trig Truther hypothesis. See this chart on the age-related risk factor for Down Syndrome, which I first cited Sept. 1, 2008:

For women ages 20-24, the frequency of Downs Syndrome is 1 in every 1,400 live births. By age 35, however, the frequency is 1 in every 350 births -- a quadrupling of risk. At age 39, the frequency is 1/140 -- 10 times the risk at age 20-24.

And yet here we are, nearly a year later, and "Audrey" is still peddling her moonbat crap, OK?

Her name is not "Audrey."

Given her persistence in promoting a theory against which so much evidence weighs, it is a fair supposition that The Person Whose Name Is Not Audrey is either (a) stupid, (b) crazy or (c) dishonest. Perhaps even (d) all of the above.

Dan Riehl finds evidence of dishonesty by The Person Whose Name Is Not Audrey. And we shall let her obsessive Trig Trutherism serve as abundant evidence that she's crazy. What about the evidence that she's stupid?

Well, before we get to that, let's mention that The Person Whose Name Is Not Audrey is not just any random, insignificant moonbat. Her crackpot insinuations have been repeatedly cited and linked by that most eminent of Trig Truthers, Dr. Andrew Sullivan, M.D., OB-GYN, chief resident of the renowned Alaska Republican Obstetric Research Clinic at The Atlantic Monthly Memorial Hospital.

• "Audrey" blogs, Sully links.
• "Audrey" blogs, Sully links.
• Sully blogs, "Audrey" links.

Lather, rinse, repeat. While certain right-wing hatemongers have dared question Dr. Sullivan's authority on matters gynecological, no one has ever questioned the Good Doctor's expertise on the penis.

Dr. Sullivan's decades of tireless phallic research have led him to a breakthrough discovery, yea, even the answer to a question that penis aficionados have debated endlessly:

Cut or Uncut?

The answer, according to Dr. Sullivan, is most definitely "uncut." (The alternative he decries as "male genital mutilation.") The man's unrivaled enthusiasm for the uncircumcised penis puts him foremost among foreskin fetishists.

Well, guess what, boys and girls? Foreskin fetishists of a feather flock together. I refer you to "AnnieB393":

Personal Info
Audrey (Not tellin')
Lives in charlottesville, USA 22901
Homepage
http://www.palindeception.com/
Interests
midwifery
Who am I
I am a childbirth educator and midwife's assistant

And this reminder from Palin's Deceptions:

The facts are well-known: I am Audrey, a mother of six, childbirth educator and author . . .

OK, then, if we Google "AnnieB393" and "Charlottesville," one of the results is entitled "Contact Circumcision Author," and if we click on the "similiar" link we find this leads us to the "order" page for a book entitled, Circumcision: What Every Parent Should Know.

Google "Charlottesville" "circumcision" "childbirth" "classes" and you then learn about the author of aforesaid book:

She has been active in childbirth circles for over twenty years. Her interest in neonatal circumcision stems from the numerous questions she received on the topic during her childbirth classes.

Remember, friends, that this is merely intended as evidence that The Person Whose Name Is Not Audrey is (a) stupid. Because if you start poking around a bit on Google using "AnnieB393" and other such data as may be derived from online research . . .

Well, all this was as easy as following Hansel and Gretel's bread-crumb trail. I'm kind of new at all this blogging stuff, having been a professional journalist since 1986. Certainly, no professional journalist would post the actual name of The Person Whose Name Is Not Audrey.

But these crazy blogger people . . .

PREVIOUSLY:

• 'The Facts Are Well Known'
• Who is 'AnnieB393'?
• A Trig-Truther's Anonymity

She's insignificant and she has a family

Such is the "don't do it" argument against outing the blogger "Audrey" at the Palin's Deception blog.

On the other hand, she's Patient Zero of the Trig Truther pandemic, she's been repeatedly linked by Andrew Sullivan, and her most recent post had 94 comments.

I'm weighing these considerations. I'm also weighing the utter stupidity of the aforesaid "Audrey," who has practically outed herself, leaving an online bread-crumb trail like Hansel and Gretel. And the relentless cruelty of the Truthers . . .

If I don't do it, somebody else is likely to add 2+2 and get the traffic. And I'm all about the traffic.

Understand, people, that I've got the entire post already written, and must now merely decide whether to hit the "publish" button. And this is the thing that gets me about "Audrey."

She has children of her own, and yet apparently never hesitated to hit "publish" on some of the most vile insinuations about Sarah Palin's family anyone could ever imagine. I think of my own wife and children, and hesitate to publish the simple facts. Audrey published lie after lie after lie -- and evidently never thought twice about it.

UPDATE 12:13 a.m., 8/25: Y'know, Sully's on vacation. Think about that. Sully relentlessly beat the Trig Truther drum, repeatedly linking "Audrey" at Palin's Deceptions, and now Sully's on vacation, with guestbloggers to run his prestigious blog at The Atlantic Monthly while he's gone.

The Atlantic Monthly bears tremendous responsibility here. So as I ponder this decision, I'm kind of wondering, "What Would James Fallows Do?"

And also, "What Would Ace of Spades Do?"

UPDATE 12:20 a.m. 8/25: Doggone it! Didn't I tell you? Some clever fellow named Aaron Gardner beat me to it!

UPDATE 1 a.m.: He who hesitates is lost! (If only I hadn't been cruelly deprived of those Special Genius Cells contained in the foreskin . . .)

Trig-Trutherism and Audrey's Deceptions: Who Is 'AnnieB393'?

On April 22, 2008, the Daily News-Miner of Fairbanks, Alaska, carried a story by Rebecca George about the birth of Trig Palin headlined, "Palin says she felt safe flying to Alaska to have baby."

On Sept. 13, 2008, "AnnieB393" added a comment on that story, reprinted here in its entirety:

I am a midwife, and am happy to comment on some of the information here. First, with all due respect to thehardway, there is no different to a medical professional between a women whose aminiotic sac is leaking and one where it is "broken." It might be more dramatic in movies but that's it. I have no idea what happened with your mother fifty years ago, but now any woman who had a similar circumstance would be hospitalized. In my midwifery career I have seen one mother on her fifth delivery give birth after two hours of "leaking" aminiotic fluid and ONE contraction. There is NO WAY an experienced mother who has had four previous deliveries leaking amniotic fluid would get on an airplane and no physician who would permit it. Period.
Second, IF Bristol Palin is the mother and did not breastfeed, it would have been theoretically possible for her to conceive again within six weeks of the birth. She easily could be pregnant again.. just not five months.
Third, it is clearly established on the Internet that the rumors that Bristol and NOT Sarah was pregnant began in Alaska BEFORE the birth, not after. No one can know if the Palins were aware of them, but they are well-connected and savvy, so it is certainly reasonable to assume they did. What did they do? Did they set up a photo-op of Governor Palin baby clothes shopping with her three daughters? Did they invited camera crews into the governor's mansion to show the family painting the nursery? One (ONE!) photo of a pregnant Governor with her non pregnant daughter would have shut all of the down, then and now. They didn't do it. It's valid to wonder why. (Emphasis added.)

On Sept. 15, 2008, in her first post at the Palin's Deception blog, "Audrey" posted this:

But the very first day - when I heard the brief news blurb about how Gov. Palin had traveled twelve plus hours supposedly with ruptured membranes with her fifth child, I could not believe it. My first thought was that it probably was not true . . . because, after all, no one really would do that. Then when the story persisted, my opinion changed to: was she effing nuts? Something is really wrong with this picture.
In my labor coaching and childbirth experience, I have personally seen one (fifth) baby born after two hours or so of "leaking" amniotic fluid followed by ONE contraction. And while this is admittedly an extreme example, I've seen MANY third, fourth, fifth or more (I worked for awhile among the Amish community) babies deliver after just an hour or two of "active labor." It's NOT uncommon. And the moment that amniotic sac ruptures (whether it's a "leak" or something more dramatic) believe me the clock starts clicking. The whole story just "bugged" me on some level... and this was long before I'd seen any references to the "baby swap." Then, when THAT hit the Internet, I had an "aha!" moment. (Emphasis added.)

Just to be sure you didn't miss that, here is "AnnieB393" at the News-Miner on Sept. 13:

In my midwifery career I have seen one mother on her fifth delivery give birth after two hours of "leaking" aminiotic fluid and ONE contraction.

And here is "Audrey" at Palin's Deceptions Sept. 15:

In my labor coaching and childbirth experience, I have personally seen one (fifth) baby born after two hours or so of "leaking" amniotic fluid followed by ONE contraction.

If there were no other evidence available online, a reasonable person might ask merely on the basis of these two posts whether "AnnieB393" and "Audrey" were one and the same.

Oh, but I did not say this was the only evidence available online, did I? Remember the post a couple of hours ago, in which I noted this claim from "Audrey":

As has been stated so many other places, it is incomprehensible that a doctor would not have told Gov. Palin to go to a hospital immediately and get checked out. . . . (Or, as my physician husband has quipped: "I must have missed that day in medical school.") (Emphasis added.)

So "Audrey" says she's married to a doctor. If "Audrey" is "AnnieB393" -- who is known to be a real flesh-and-blood person, but whom I won't name now -- then this is most curious, as research indicates no evidence that "AnnieB393" is married to a doctor.

Dan Riehl may have more soon. Remember, however, that in the grand tradition of Trig Trutherism, we're "just asking questions." Stay tuned for updates.

UPDATE 4:45 p.m.: "The Facts Are Well Known"

'Palin's Deceptions' and aTrig-Truther's Anonymity

The anti-Palin blog "Palin's Deceptions" proudly proclaims itself "The Web site that started it all" -- a link to the original site, "Sarah Palin's Lies," of which the blog is part -- and "all" in this case is that notorious fever swamp of obstetric speculation known as Trig Trutherism.

Palin's Deceptions blogger "Audrey," in her first post dated Sept. 15, 2008, began a discussion of the bizarre Trig-Truther theory this way:

"In my labor coaching and childbirth experience . . ."

So, from Day One, "Audrey" offered her professional expertise in support of this speculation that Trig was not actually Sarah Palin's child. And it was not merely her own expertise that she cited:

As has been stated so many other places, it is incomprehensible that a doctor would not have told Gov. Palin to go to a hospital immediately and get checked out. . . . (Or, as my physician husband has quipped: "I must have missed that day in medical school.") (Emphasis added.)

Now, I wish to raise a question in blog ethics: When an anonymous blogger claims a special expertise in a field, so as to support a particular line of personal attack on a public figure, has that blogger thereby made her own real-life identity a matter relevant to the discussion?

This is not strictly a hypothetical question. IYKWIMAITYD.

Given that there is an actual answer involved -- that "Audrey" is in fact a flesh-and-blood human being whose identity can be discovered -- what I'm wondering is how best to share that answer.

Would readers prefer that I adopt the favorite mode of Trig-Truthers? "Just asking questions," as they say.

Please feel free to comment. I've got 28 browser windows open, and must start compiling the next post before I crash my laptop. Guess who else may be interested?

UPDATE 4 p.m.: "Who is 'AnnieB393'?" Remember, "Just asking questions."