(George Herbert Walker) wrote:

Java Man wrote in message able.net...
In article ,
says...

What do you think that was if not a wire?

Wrong question.

If someone wanted to wire GWB for the debates, it would not have been
necessary to put a wire in ANY location where it could be visible.

If you mean the putative wire under the tie, I agree.
If you mean the bulge and wire on the back, I disagree. The device is
small but a wire has to run from it to the induction wire around the
neck. There aren't too many places to put it, and that wire must go up
to and around the neck. Recall though that the Bushies insisted on a
regulation for the debate that no shots should be taken from behind.
They also insisted on a regulation that there should be a private room
just off stage for each candidate to have a staffer.

So you're suggesting that the President of the US can't find someone
to hook him up with a "wire" that's as sophisticated as something I
could cobble together with stuff in my garage (if I were to actually
buy something, I'd simply use connection wiring that would be
virtually invisible under TV conditions).

And one would have to wonder why they'd route the thing OUTSIDE his
shirt (I know - he had a trick electric tie, but it failed to squirt
water across the stage at Kerry...).

You conspiracy theorists are entertaining though...

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

Thanks for the label....


"Mark Hickey" wrote in message
...
(George Herbert Walker) wrote:

Java Man wrote in message
wcable.net...
In article ,
says...

What do you think that was if not a wire?

Wrong question.

If someone wanted to wire GWB for the debates, it would not have been
necessary to put a wire in ANY location where it could be visible.

If you mean the putative wire under the tie, I agree.
If you mean the bulge and wire on the back, I disagree. The device is
small but a wire has to run from it to the induction wire around the
neck. There aren't too many places to put it, and that wire must go up
to and around the neck. Recall though that the Bushies insisted on a
regulation for the debate that no shots should be taken from behind.
They also insisted on a regulation that there should be a private room
just off stage for each candidate to have a staffer.

So you're suggesting that the President of the US can't find someone
to hook him up with a "wire" that's as sophisticated as something I
could cobble together with stuff in my garage (if I were to actually
buy something, I'd simply use connection wiring that would be
virtually invisible under TV conditions).

And one would have to wonder why they'd route the thing OUTSIDE his
shirt (I know - he had a trick electric tie, but it failed to squirt
water across the stage at Kerry...).

You conspiracy theorists are entertaining though...

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

political commentator wrote:
Thanks for the label....

Who the hell are you talking to, you top-posting anonymous moron?!?

Bill "more labels for ya" S.

On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 20:26:40 GMT, Java Man
said in rec.radio.scanner:

In article ,
says...
There are actually a few tracks to this story:

Undoubtedly. Imaginations are fertile.

My point is simply that it is ridiculous to assume anyone wiring GWB
would do so using visible wires when visible wiring is totally
unnecessary and would be unbelievably careless or naive.

Or, it might just be that the worker is no more intelligent than his
boss.

Mark Hickey wrote in message . ..
(George Herbert Walker) wrote:

Java Man wrote in message able.net...
In article ,
says...

What do you think that was if not a wire?

If someone wanted to wire GWB for the debates, it would not have been
necessary to put a wire in ANY location where it could be visible.

If you mean the putative wire under the tie, I agree.
If you mean the bulge and wire on the back, I disagree. The device is
small but a wire has to run from it to the induction wire around the
neck. There aren't too many places to put it, and that wire must go up
to and around the neck. Recall though that the Bushies insisted on a
regulation for the debate that no shots should be taken from behind.
They also insisted on a regulation that there should be a private room
just off stage for each candidate to have a staffer.

So you're suggesting that the President of the US can't find someone
to hook him up with a "wire" that's as sophisticated as something I
could cobble together with stuff in my garage (if I were to actually
buy something, I'd simply use connection wiring that would be
virtually invisible under TV conditions).

"Virtually invisible"? So was Bush's, but then he got caught, as he
would have if he had been wearing your jerry-rigged device, if you
could build one that worked- which I don't think you could. If you
look at the basic device www.comtek.com/IFBCueing/ifbcueing.html,
you will see that the wire is rather heavier than you imply, and for
good reason.


And one would have to wonder why they'd route the thing OUTSIDE his
shirt

I said NOT that. In back, underneath his jacket, we can't tell whether
the device is underneath his shirt or on top, and it doesn't matter.
We see it plainly underneath the jacket, and likewise underneath his
T-shirt in the White House photos of him clearing brush at Crawford
(see thread "Remote Control?").


But all this is just another one of your attempts at diversion. So
again, what is YOUR explanation for the device clearly visible
underneath his jacket and T-shirt? Here is mine, and it is the same as
that of anyone not living in denial:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/cartoons/s...325238,00.html


--
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN

Please excuse the inconvenience allegedly caused by our son.
Send us the bill for all the damages, and we can settle this to your
satisfaction, without any need for a public record of the incident.

Most Sincerely, George and Bar

(George Herbert Walker) wrote:

Mark Hickey wrote in message . ..

So you're suggesting that the President of the US can't find someone
to hook him up with a "wire" that's as sophisticated as something I
could cobble together with stuff in my garage (if I were to actually
buy something, I'd simply use connection wiring that would be
virtually invisible under TV conditions).

"Virtually invisible"? So was Bush's, but then he got caught, as he
would have if he had been wearing your jerry-rigged device, if you
could build one that worked- which I don't think you could. If you
look at the basic device www.comtek.com/IFBCueing/ifbcueing.html,
you will see that the wire is rather heavier than you imply, and for
good reason.

You obviously know little about electronics. The size cable required
to carry the signal from a small microphone is absolutely tiny, a
small fraction of the size that headphone cables need to be (since
they carry many times more current, and are MUCH larger than they need
to be since the limitation is physical, not electrical). The "cable"
in question appears to be at least several mm wide - proving it's not
a "cable" but an odd shadow... but don't let that stop you from
dreaming up new conspiracy theories.

And one would have to wonder why they'd route the thing OUTSIDE his
shirt

I said NOT that. In back, underneath his jacket, we can't tell whether
the device is underneath his shirt or on top, and it doesn't matter.
We see it plainly underneath the jacket, and likewise underneath his
T-shirt in the White House photos of him clearing brush at Crawford
(see thread "Remote Control?").

But all this is just another one of your attempts at diversion. So
again, what is YOUR explanation for the device clearly visible
underneath his jacket and T-shirt? Here is mine, and it is the same as
that of anyone not living in denial:

Uh huh... pehaps you could tell us all WHY the POTUS would be wearing
a wire at all, and what advantage that might possibly give him. Never
mind the obvious technology issues that has disproven your theory -
tell us all what possible advantage he might gain by wearing a wire to
a debate.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

"Mark Hickey" wrote in message
...
(George Herbert Walker) wrote:

Mark Hickey wrote in message
...

So you're suggesting that the President of the US can't find someone
to hook him up with a "wire" that's as sophisticated as something I
could cobble together with stuff in my garage (if I were to actually
buy something, I'd simply use connection wiring that would be
virtually invisible under TV conditions).

"Virtually invisible"? So was Bush's, but then he got caught, as he
would have if he had been wearing your jerry-rigged device, if you
could build one that worked- which I don't think you could. If you
look at the basic device www.comtek.com/IFBCueing/ifbcueing.html,
you will see that the wire is rather heavier than you imply, and for
good reason.

You obviously know little about electronics. The size cable required
to carry the signal from a small microphone is absolutely tiny, a
small fraction of the size that headphone cables need to be (since
they carry many times more current, and are MUCH larger than they need
to be since the limitation is physical, not electrical). The "cable"
in question appears to be at least several mm wide - proving it's not
a "cable" but an odd shadow... but don't let that stop you from
dreaming up new conspiracy theories.

And one would have to wonder why they'd route the thing OUTSIDE his
shirt

I said NOT that. In back, underneath his jacket, we can't tell whether
the device is underneath his shirt or on top, and it doesn't matter.
We see it plainly underneath the jacket, and likewise underneath his
T-shirt in the White House photos of him clearing brush at Crawford
(see thread "Remote Control?").

But all this is just another one of your attempts at diversion. So
again, what is YOUR explanation for the device clearly visible
underneath his jacket and T-shirt? Here is mine, and it is the same as
that of anyone not living in denial:

Uh huh... pehaps you could tell us all WHY the POTUS would be wearing
a wire at all, and what advantage that might possibly give him. Never
mind the obvious technology issues that has disproven your theory -
tell us all what possible advantage he might gain by wearing a wire to
a debate.


The advantage would be to 'reminded of things'. They could have had
hundreds of things to say to him to cover many possibilities.

It was posted somewhere else that they got the idea to do it from the
speculation in the first debate.

We'll see.

.......................................
http://puppetstring.blogspot.com/
http://politicalcommentator.blogspot.com/

"political commentator" wrote:


"Mark Hickey" wrote in message
.. .
(George Herbert Walker) wrote:

Uh huh... pehaps you could tell us all WHY the POTUS would be wearing
a wire at all, and what advantage that might possibly give him. Never
mind the obvious technology issues that has disproven your theory -
tell us all what possible advantage he might gain by wearing a wire to
a debate.

The advantage would be to 'reminded of things'. They could have had
hundreds of things to say to him to cover many possibilities.

It was posted somewhere else that they got the idea to do it from the
speculation in the first debate.

Ummmm, if it was a RECEIVER, it would presumably go to his EAR, right?
If so, routing the wiring outside his shirt, under his tie to... ????
doesn't make a whole lot of sense, does it?

If it was to a speaker hidden in his tie, I fail to see how it could
be loud enough for him to hear it without being picked up by the
(sensitive) microphone(s) at the podium.

Sorry - the whole conspiracy theory thing makes (if it's possible)
LESS sense than the support for the Dan Rather memos.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 06:30:09 -0700, Mark Hickey
said in rec.radio.scanner:

You obviously know little about electronics. The size cable required
to carry the signal from a small microphone is absolutely tiny, a
small fraction of the size that headphone cables need to be (since
they carry many times more current, and are MUCH larger than they need
to be since the limitation is physical, not electrical).

Same thing with headphone cables, since the current they carry is
minuscule.

Uh huh... pehaps you could tell us all WHY the POTUS would be wearing
a wire at all

So that someone could tell him what to say, in case he forgot the
script, or the subject matter strayed from it. You don;t really
expect Shrub to sound sane extemporaneously, do you? He doesn't do
that good a job of it when he's reading a prepared statement.

In article ,
says...
On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 06:30:09 -0700, Mark Hickey
said in rec.radio.scanner:

You obviously know little about electronics. The size cable required
to carry the signal from a small microphone is absolutely tiny, a
small fraction of the size that headphone cables need to be (since
they carry many times more current, and are MUCH larger than they need
to be since the limitation is physical, not electrical).

Same thing with headphone cables, since the current they carry is
minuscule.

Uh huh... pehaps you could tell us all WHY the POTUS would be wearing
a wire at all

So that someone could tell him what to say, in case he forgot the
script, or the subject matter strayed from it. You don;t really
expect Shrub to sound sane extemporaneously, do you? He doesn't do
that good a job of it when he's reading a prepared statement.

And he didn't during the debates. Based on performance, I doubt he was
electronically assisted.

Rick