Spark wrote:it's that one fifth of a baby's ear in a low-res photo isn't as distorted as it should be.
CapnNismo wrote:Actually, the photos were high-res. But again, I'm not saying it's true, but I'm also not saying it's false. I'm simply arguing the fact that it does hold some level of importance if this woman wants to run a state or a country or hold any kind of political office - that's all.
Actually if spark had taken a closer look, it's that about 50% of both of the babies ears zoomed in and in high-res comparisons with multiple photos coupled with the fact that Palin shows no big-belly, a rather flat one actually, a mere 2 weeks before she "gave birth".