Al Klein wrote:

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.

So, if the "wire" was going to his EAR, why would there be an
invisible wire going to an invisible earpiece, and a cable the size of
a pencil running outside his shirt under his tie???

And if it did NOT go to his ear, how did he hear the output of
whatever was hooked to that monster cable, without it being picked up
by the sensitive microphones on the podium?

This whole thing is silly beyond words, IMHO.

Mark "not that that really limits the words" Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

Mark Hickey wrote:

This whole thing is silly beyond words, IMHO.

And just to PROVE that, I did a little searching for other photos of
the fateful night. Notice in this one...

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...1453622236.jpg

.... hardly from a "Republican-friendly news source", the "wire" has
magically disappeared. The shirt is clearly visible well below the
apparent path of the "wire".

Or perhaps the "wire" is really just a photoshop item - does anyone
have a link to a non-conspiracy theory site with the original of that
photo? I didn't see the "wire photo" on any of the news service
photos I looked through.

Or actually - I think I may have just figured it out (really). If the
inside of the small end of the blue tie had a white tag (many do), it
would look JUST like the photo if it was dragged partially into view
by the President rearranging his belt/tie/whatever he's rearranging.
Notice how the "wire" seems to be the same color as the tie, and the
"white" that's showing isn't quite the same hue as the shirt.

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

On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 04:15:48 GMT, Java Man
said in rec.radio.scanner:

In article ,
says...

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.

Or he was assisted poorly.

On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 21:22:56 -0700, Mark Hickey
said in rec.radio.scanner:

So, if the "wire" was going to his EAR, why would there be an
invisible wire going to an invisible earpiece, and a cable the size of
a pencil running outside his shirt under his tie???

Because whoever set him up is as intelligent as he is?

And if it did NOT go to his ear, how did he hear the output of
whatever was hooked to that monster cable, without it being picked up
by the sensitive microphones on the podium?

Who says he had nothing in either ear?

Your reply to me doesn't show up on Google, so I am putting that into
this reply.

Mark Hickey wrote in message . ..

In article , Mark Hickey
wrote:

(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.

With you, it's always difficult to know whether you simply don't have
a clue what you are talking about, or are deliberately attempting to
divert, obfuscate, mislead and confuse. The latter seems more
plausible here, because I specifically denied that the so-called wire
beneath his tie was that, and yet you still keep going back to it.

I am talking about the cable visible on his back, going from the
device to his neck. I presume you have asked, "why is it so thick when
I could make it thinner, since earphone wires are so thin and could be
even thinner?". Bzzzz: the systems available for this puporse, such as
in the link I provided above, do not use a wire to the ear. They use a
wire to the neck, and the system works by induction. As you can see
from the link, the wires are about the thickness of those observed
under Bush's jacket. That is the way these things are made and that is
what he wore.


And if it did NOT go to his ear, how did he hear the output of
whatever was hooked to that monster cable, without it being picked up
by the sensitive microphones on the podium?

See above: it's an induction system. Just read the literature of the
companies that make these systems. But of course you knew that. You
are just obfuscating, diverting, and trying to mislead and confuse.


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:

Nice of you to cut out the link. Wouldn't want any damaging
information out there, would we? Scrub it clean man.

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


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.

So. Still no explanation from you of what it is, just divert,
obfuscate, confuse, mislead. As to your question, even you can't think
that you are scoring any points that way: anybody can see the
advantage of cheating during the debates.

The pictures clearly show a device under his jacket and on other cases
under his T-shirt. It is easily explainable by devices readily
available on the market, and there is tape from Fox and CNN picking up
that signal, prompting him. You have no explanation for that device
and seek only to confuse the issue with irrelevant obfuscations.

You know damn well he is cheating. But then, you know damn well that
nearly everything you have been arguing all this time is baloney.

Speaking of that:

************************************************** *******
On the other hand you claim to believe in the cause, and the rightness
and necessity of the mission. So you have drawn a line and the
question is whether or not you are willing to put your ass on that
line to back it up. Now, in a fit of bravado, you said you we you
asserted that you were willing to go to Baghdad if someone else were
willing to pay your ticket. Well, I have news for you that you will
surely welcome: your rich uncle Sam is willing to pay not only your
ticket- but also all your meals and accomodations, and your weapons
too! [Note added as situation goes even further to Hell: $15,000
signing bonus now too] (Maybe not your body armor though, your pals
Bush and Rumsfeld did send 40,000 troops over without Interceptor
vests.) So are you willing to put your ass on the line or not? You'll
look pretty disingenuous and cowardly if you back out now.
************************************************** ********

--
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN

Please excuse the inconvenience allegedly caused by our son
and his cowardly sycophants. 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

Al Klein wrote in message . ..
On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 04:15:48 GMT, Java Man
said in rec.radio.scanner:

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

Based on performance, he is obviously electronically assisted. But-

Or he was assisted poorly.

-why not listen and watch GWB's own assessment of the quality of his
assistants, and of their role in his political life:

http://anon.salon.speedera.net/anon....Uncensored.mov

Our God-fearing, Christian, born-again, holy President and Messiah in
chief couldn't be a petulant, French-clothed,
Georges-de-Paris-tailored, preening, vulgar jackass who gives the "up
yours" to female assistants, could he?

--
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

On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 20:26:06 GMT, Lady Chatterly
said in rec.radio.scanner:

Half Usenet is composed of idiots, the other half of people clever
enough to take indecent advantage of them.

Who are you accusing of taking advantage of you?

(George Herbert Walker) wrote:

snip
With you, it's always difficult to know whether you simply don't have
a clue what you are talking about, or are deliberately attempting to
divert, obfuscate, mislead and confuse. The latter seems more
plausible here, because I specifically denied that the so-called wire
beneath his tie was that, and yet you still keep going back to it.

I am talking about the cable visible on his back, going from the
device to his neck. I presume you have asked, "why is it so thick when
I could make it thinner, since earphone wires are so thin and could be
even thinner?". Bzzzz: the systems available for this puporse, such as
in the link I provided above, do not use a wire to the ear. They use a
wire to the neck, and the system works by induction. As you can see
from the link, the wires are about the thickness of those observed
under Bush's jacket. That is the way these things are made and that is
what he wore.
snip

Please make an effort to at least TRY to keep up here, "George".

The discussion that I was participating in was the other conspiracy
theory (...'scuse me, ONE of the other conspiracy theories) that had
"photographic proof" of a large cable running outside the POTUS' shirt
and under his tie.

I guess you'd like to start a discussion as to why the most powerful
man on earth would have to use a wire large enough to be visible
through his jacket when any police department can wire up any
crackhead so even a reasonably good pat-down won't discover the wire.

If so, please carry on without me.

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

On 28 Oct 2004 09:02:37 -0700, (George Herbert
Walker) said in rec.radio.scanner:

-why not listen and watch GWB's own assessment of the quality of his
assistants, and of their role in his political life:

http://anon.salon.speedera.net/anon....Uncensored.mov

Kind of sums it all up, doesn't it? He's a one-fingered kind of guy.

Our God-fearing, Christian, born-again, holy President and Messiah in
chief

You left out college-failing-except-for-Papa, military deserting,
lying, etc.

couldn't be a petulant, French-clothed,
Georges-de-Paris-tailored, preening, vulgar jackass who gives the "up
yours" to female assistants, could he?

Any friend of his god's can't be trusted. After all, they believe
that no lie in the furtherance of their beliefs is wrong. One of
their religion's founding fathers said so.

Mark Hickey wrote in message . ..

The discussion that I was participating in was the other conspiracy
theory

Nice try. In fact, you replied to me. By the way, when will you be
shipping out to Baghdad? $15,000 signing bonus you know.

If so, please carry on without me.


Pleasure. Why don't you hook up with Lady Chatterly? Your analyses
have much in common.

After Nov 2nd, or more realistically, sometime in 2005, perhaps we
will all have the pleasure of carrying on without GWB and the
Halliburton pimp. Imagine, they just sent the Halliburton pimp out to
Hawaii in the hopes of swinging the vote Republican! Or was it to keep
him off the mainland, with things so close?

--
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