Thursday, September 30, 2010

Can Sarah Palin Dance?

Last Saturday, I opened a new front in the war on Sarah Palin by questioning her ability to dance.

This picture purports to show her dancing at her inaugural ball in 2007; however, we still aren't certain she can dance.

The picture is but one moment out of the many moments that comprise Sarah Palin's life. Unless we see additional photo evidence, we cannot be sure that she was actually in motion -- dancing -- when the picture was taken. And we would like a lot of other information about any pictures that may appear: camera make, focal length of the lens, distance from camera to subject, camera angle, lighting ... the list goes on.

Of course, Sarah must have been irked by our doubts. Now she may be scheming to prove she can dance by showing us video. How? By dancing on Dancing With the Stars!

Yes! In "Will Another Palin Go 'Dancing' Next Season?" I was amazed to read:

Sources tell me that Sarah Palin had such a fantastic not-booed-at time on 'Dancing With The Stars' Monday night that she's itchin' to return to the ballroom herself next season.

"Sarah was overwhelmed with what a great time she had at the show," an insider who was at the show tells me. "In fact she enjoyed herself so much that she mentioned to producers who greeted her that she would be open to competing herself next season."

But until we see it, we'll remain doubtful that she can dance.


Fight fire with fire: one conspiracy theory with another?

It happened serendipitously. I doubted Sarah could dance out of mean-girl orneriness. After I hit 'Publish Post,' I remembered that there was a picture of her dancing at the inauguration, so I posted it in the comments, along with a babygate-style argument.

"Babygate" is a dead issue. Its loss may disappoint, even anger, some, especially Sarah Palin. It was her oxygen: whether she talked about it or her enemies did, it rallied her fans.


Joie Vouet said...'s Muting the Mommy Melodrama has an enlargeable picture of Palin appearing to be pregnant.

Joie Vouet said...

Here is the metadata from the picture at This is what appeared after I downloaded the picture and opened it with Adobe's Bridge CS4:

Exposure mode: Auto
Brightness Value: 2.31
Focal Length: 9.33 mm
Max Aperture Value: f/2.8
Flash: Did not fire, compulsory mode
Metering mode: Pattern
Custom Rendered: Normal Proccess
White Balance: Auto
Scene Capture Type: Standard
Contrast: 0
Saturation: 0
Sharpness: Normal
Sensing Method: One-chip sensor
File Source: Digital Camera
Model: FinePix S9000

Filename: Gusty_Pic_medium.jpg
Document Type: JPEG file
Application: Adobe Photoshop CS3 Windows
Date Created: 3/19/05, 11:26 PM
Date File Modified: Today, 10:24:58 AM
File Size: 137 KB
Dimensions: 1000 x 750
Dimensions (in inches) 13.9" x 10.4"
Resolution: 72 ppi
Bit Depth: 8
Color Mode: RGB
Color Profile: Camera RGB Profile

The medatdata placard shows: f/3.3, 1/55, ISO 400


The "Date Created" is interesting.
I believe the "Date File Modified" is either the time it was downloaded or loaded into Bridge.


I wasn't able to cut and paste the metadata, so if there are any mistakes they occurred when I typed them.


Is there any data like this that would help with the analysis of pictures that are claimed to show that Palin was not pregnant?

Anonymous said...

ABC TV would be taking a terrible risk. We know that Mrs. Palin would never complete the season (even before being voted off). She's a quitter. And a prima donna and unless she could get a surrogate to dance for her, she'd never be content.

Anonymous said...

The picture above show Sarah dancing at her inaugural ball in 2007.

The dress is cut pretty low. What happened to Sarah's cleavage that appeared at the Belmont race track. There is nothing happening there, kinda boyish looking.

The only thing that grabs your attention is that Dudley Dooright chin she is sporting.

Nhrtuvdxi said...

I downloaded the picture at and opened in Picasa.
I won't copy all the other stuff but the dates that show up are

Camera Date 2005.03.19 23:26:00
Digitized Date 2005.03.19 23:26:00
Modified Date 2008.09.16 11:17-04:00
File Date 3/19/2005 11:26:00 PM
Metadata Date 2008-09-16T18:11:17-04:00

I copied the way it showed up in Properties I don't know if it means anything but thought it was interesting that the modified shows differently.
The date of the pic is outta sync, with the pregnancy or have I missed something?

Thanks for the hard work y'all put into your efforts to derail this train.

Joie Vouet said...

Nhrtuvdxi, Thanks for the info. I loaded the picture into Bridge again and made a screencap of the picture's metadata. That's what Adobe says. They invented this stuff -- there could be an error, though.

nswfm said...


Look at Bree Van De Kamp in Desperate Housewives from ABC a few seasons back when she was sporting a belly, trying to pass off Danielle's baby* as her own and ask yourself if it really matters that there is ONE photo of Grifter Grandma looking full term-ish. How about all the others where she looks flat or has a square shaped "baby bump." Add all the lying in the other areas, the ethics charges that have stuck and then think about whether this "pregnancy" photo is worth believing or not.

*There was a funny scene where Bree's mother-in-law finds the fake belly in Bree's closet, plus another funny scene where a utensil ends up sticking out of the fake belly.

Joie Vouet said...

That could be, nswfm. But it appears that most, if not all, of the non-pregnant pix can be doubted for technical reasons, i.e., they wouldn't survive analysis by a qualified photo analyst, i.e., they don't prove anything.

Joie Vouet said...

Gusty's photo has a clear chain of custody. Something to be considered when evaluating the 'non-pregnant' pix.

Nhrtuvdxi said...

I'm gonna learn how to "screen capture" and upload the data that Picasa shows. It'll take 2 pics because it stretches longer than my screen is. I think that the modified date might be when it was originally uploaded by Gusty or whoever. What I don't understand is the date of the pic. showing as in March of 2005. I guess that was just the photographer's camera not being set correctly?

Anonymous said...

Yes! I think that would be great!
The media and show is so busy promoting Bristol and Sarah that they've missed an interesting little sidebar:
Bristol's partner, Mark, has a dad on the show right now. It's a father/son show. Florence Henderson's partner, Corky, is Mark Ballas' father.

Joie Vouet said...

11:45 AM, You are probably right. I'm sorry I don't have any prizes to award for best comment.

Anonymous said...

Huh? Babygate is a dead issue?? No way. Not for this truther.

Joie, documentation of flat-bellied pix of Palin has been quite thorough. If anybody had the time and ability and determination to take the documentation even further, they would succeed. You have now helped us see that the Gusty photo is perhaps the most suspect of any preg-related photos. Actually, I think the date discrepancies can be cleared up on this pic. The photo is genuine. It's what's under Palin's shirt that's not genuine. Melly

Joie Vouet said...

Melly, I agree that the 'flat-bellied' pictures need further investigation. Qualifed photo analysts should look at them and consider things like lighting, distance from camera to subject, metadata, etc. to decide whether they prove anything. I don't know why people who claim she faked it haven't done that. I don't think the documentation of those pictures has been "quite thorough," as you claim.