NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2012

FAIR.org, released a story that was supposed to be published by the mainstream media (but never was), on a NASA scientist who analyzed photos taken of Bush's back during the debates, and concluded that Bush was using a hidden communication device, in order to cheat during the Presidential debates of 2004.

what a slimeball.

Err, you do know that FAIR.org is a shamelessly biased left-wing website, right? Not that I don't agree somewhat with what's being said, but be prepared for the right-wingers to use that as they hammer you into the earth.

wow...I'm very liberal, and I hate Bush with a fiery passion, but I doubt that this is true.

Um right. Sorry but I wear an MP3 watch and I route the wire from the watch under my sleeve and up from my neck to my ears. You can't see it under a dress shirt. let alone a dress shirt *and* sports cost. If that picture is real, which is oh so very doubtful, that fold is just that, a fold. There is no way for a wire that small to create a bump anywhere near that big.

besides if he really did do all this.... wouldnt he have done better in the debates?

Um right. Sorry but I wear an MP3 watch and I route the wire from the watch under my sleeve and up from my neck to my ears. You can't see it under a dress shirt. let alone a dress shirt *and* sports cost. If that picture is real, which is oh so very doubtful, that fold is just that, a fold. There is no way for a wire that small to create a bump anywhere near that big.

I'm not sure I buy the theories, but the pictures showing the bulge are real and it is very odd.

Anyway,here are some links to various sources (including the Washington Post, the New York Times, CBS News, and the BBC) showing pictures of the bulge:

Images from the Three Debates (http://www.motherjones.com/news/update/2004/11/10_402.html)
Was Bush Wired? Sure Looks Like It. (http://www.motherjones.com/news/update/2004/11/10_407.html)
NASA photo analyst: Bush wore a device during debate (http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/10/29/bulge/index_np.html)
Bulge Under President's Coat in First Debate Stirs Speculation (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A18734-2004Oct8.html)
Bush Bulge Mystery Unravels (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/10/26/politics/main651476.shtml)
The Mystery of the Bulge in the Jacket (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/09/politics/campaign/09bulge.html?ex=1255060800&en=4b223ffc74853eb3&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland)
Bush's bulge stirs media rumours (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3730364.stm)

Alright so lets assume the bludge exists. Let us further assume it is leading to a reciever and some speech writer or team of experts is feeding him his speech. How is Bush hearing it? Surely someone took a picture where we can see his ear?

Hell, I almost feel like taking my camera, donning a suit and running the wire from my pocket under my back and up to my ear. You'll see the wires going from my neck to my ears but you won't see any bludge.

Bush just needs a better tailor.

Actually, who cares?

Americans have chosen their president for the next three years. It is the fun-loving, mentally stable guy you know so well. Accept it or embrace Canada :D

Alright so lets assume the bludge exists. Let us further assume it is leading to a reciever and some speech writer or team of experts is feeding him his speech. How is Bush hearing it? Surely someone took a picture where we can see his ear?

Hell, I almost feel like taking my camera, donning a suit and running the wire from my pocket under my back and up to my ear. You'll see the wires going from my neck to my ears but you won't see any bludge.

Bush just needs a better tailor.

Again, I'm not convinced about the wire story either.

But there is no need to "assume" the bulge exists. Bush has said it existed.

And, let me see if I get this straight: you are willing to assume the bulge is caused by a wrinkle or fold in his shirt -- in three different debates -- but not that it is possibly a wire. That makes sense. :rolleyes:

Now that I'm thinking about it a bit more. Since a bulge like that isn't going to be caused by a bad suit, and it won't be caused by a wire, and anyone worth their salt wouldn't be dumb enough to play the reciever on the upper back seeing as the lower back or the front of the jacket where it hangs loosely would be a much better spot to hide such a device.

No, I think the more likely answer is that Bush might have a back problem. He might have been wearing a back brace.

Something like this here (http://spinalbrace.com/upperspine/comforclaviclebrc.htm) or like this one (http://www.something4everybody.com/shops/support/upperback.asp).

Just throwing out another, imo, more likely answer.

Again, I'm not convinced about the wire story either.

But there is no need to "assume" the bulge exists. Bush has said it existed.

And, let me see if I get this straight: you are willing to assume the bulge is caused by a wrinkle or fold in his shirt -- in three different debates -- but not that it is possibly a wire. That makes sense. :rolleyes:

He is wearing an ironed dress shirt and a sports coat. Unless he needs a wire far larger than what is needed to carry music a wire is simply not large enough to create the observed bulge.

My complete lack of interest for this subject could be linked to apathy but I think it has to do with it being a completely idiotic topic that has no merit and only circumstansial evidence backing it up, but then again that's just me.

Now that I'm thinking about it a bit more. Since a bludge like that isn't going to be caused by a bad suit, and it won't be caused by a wire, and anyone worth their salt wouldn't be dumb enough to play the reciever on the upper back seeing as the lower back or the front of the jacket where it hangs loosely would be a much better spot to hide such a device.

No, I think the more likely answer is that Bush might have a back problem. He might have been wearing a back brace.

Something like this here (http://spinalbrace.com/upperspine/comforclaviclebrc.htm) or like this one (http://www.something4everybody.com/shops/support/upperback.asp).

Just throwing out another, imo, more likely answer.


Yeah, although I completely disagree with that theory, you'd think the White House would just come out and be perfecly honest about his back problem, thus rendering this whole issue obsolete. Why didn't they do that?

He was pretty crap in what I saw of the debates so it didn't matter much.

Yeah, although I completely disagree with that theory, you'd think the White House would just come out and be perfecly honest about his back problem, thus rendering this whole issue obsolete. Why didn't they do that?

:rolleyes: Tell the truth? You have to be kidding me! ;) :p :D

2 words come to mind

"WELL DUH!" everyone knows he cheated

Yeah, although I completely disagree with that theory, you'd think the White House would just come out and be perfecly honest about his back problem, thus rendering this whole issue obsolete. Why didn't they do that?

:shrug: Roosevelt needed a wheel chair to get around, yet there are only two photos of him in a wheel chair in existence and he walked with the aide of a Secret Service guard rather than make it obvious he was handicapped. Besides I'm just throwing it out as something that would cause it. I don't necessarily think that it is the case.

Hell frankly we can rule out it being a wire/transmitter/receiver because none of those friendly SS guards have a bulge on their back and they've all got very obvious ear pieces.

Hell frankly we can rule out it being a wire/transmitter/receiver because none of those friendly SS guards have a bulge on their back and they've all got very obvious ear pieces.

Of course... the clear need NOT to have a very obvious earpeice in such a situation would be a compelling reason to have extra concealed hardware elsewhere that just might cause a bulge... like a wireless tranceiver for example.

Just to toss that out there as well.

Yeah, although I completely disagree with that theory, you'd think the White House would just come out and be perfecly honest about his back problem, thus rendering this whole issue obsolete. Why didn't they do that?

Its all about PR! Creating an image of a physically strong, capable man.....they wouldn't let on about any weakness if they could possibly avoid it!....

Of course... the clear need NOT to have a very obvious earpeice in such a situation would be a compelling reason to have extra concealed hardware elsewhere that just might cause a bulge... like a wireless tranceiver for example.

Just to toss that out there as well.

Um, no. The Earpiece is a earphone. The transceiver is located somewhere else on their body. Bush on the other hand doesn't have a discernable earphone or any other listening device visible. Which is why I said even assuming what he's got there is a transceiver of some sort he's got no way of hearing what people are telling him.

No wire would ever create a bulge that big, i think its far more likely that Bush is wearing a kevlar vest, after all, the man didnt exactly make himself popular with quite large groups of people.

Anyone accusing the President want to address what Kerry himself seemed to be doing...

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/7623

Regards,
Gaar

Now that I'm thinking about it a bit more. Since a bludge like that isn't going to be caused by a bad suit, and it won't be caused by a wire, and anyone worth their salt wouldn't be dumb enough to play the reciever on the upper back seeing as the lower back or the front of the jacket where it hangs loosely would be a much better spot to hide such a device.

No, I think the more likely answer is that Bush might have a back problem. He might have been wearing a back brace.

Something like this here (http://spinalbrace.com/upperspine/comforclaviclebrc.htm) or like this one (http://www.something4everybody.com/shops/support/upperback.asp).

Just throwing out another, imo, more likely answer.
Are you saying Bush hasn't got a spine? ;)

But no, the back brace thing had been mentioned before. They also mentioned a bullet proof vest. The back brace thing is a possibility, but still strange.

And Bush's "poorly tailored suit" bit is nonsense. You mean to tell me the Republican's candidate for President, was going on national TV, for what was then the most important event of his political career, and he had a POORLY-TAILORED SUIT?! Nonsense. That was a damn nice suit, and it was perfectly tailored. Face it, Conservatives. Your idol either has a hunchback, is being controlled by aliens, or is a cheater.

Anyone accusing the President want to address what Kerry himself seemed to be doing...

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/7623

Regards,
Gaar
Both Republicans and Democrats admitted Kerry had a long history of excellent debating. In fact, on the GOP's website, before the debates, they were somewhat expecting Bush to lose and just try to save face. (I remember seeing an image on their site, "KERRY: EXCELLENT DEBATOR", thinking, "Why are they complimenting him?!) The point was to make him seem like a crafty and dubious, but effective, liar. Kerry didn't need to cheat.

Actually, who cares?

Americans have chosen their president for the next three years. It is the fun-loving, mentally stable guy you know so well. Accept it or embrace Canada :D
I've settled for France. It's quite nice here actually, even if the French president is a little weird and the system is a little too socialist.

I agree with the 'who cares' sentiment though. The debates were almost 5 months ago. The Uninformed States of America re-elected him. Let's talk about something new for once...

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2012

FAIR.org, released a story that was supposed to be published by the mainstream media (but never was), on a NASA scientist who analyzed photos taken of Bush's back during the debates, and concluded that Bush was using a hidden communication device, in order to cheat during the Presidential debates of 2004.

So what's new? :eek: :) :p :D

Are you saying Bush hasn't got a spine? ;)

You though he had one?

But no, the back brace thing had been mentioned before. They also mentioned a bullet proof vest. The back brace thing is a possibility, but still strange.

No where near as strange as a hidden transciever in a spot cleary visible and with no method to actually let Bush hear anything.

And Bush's "poorly tailored suit" bit is nonsense. You mean to tell me the Republican's candidate for President, was going on national TV, for what was then the most important event of his political career, and he had a POORLY-TAILORED SUIT?! Nonsense. That was a damn nice suit, and it was perfectly tailored. Face it, Conservatives. Your idol either has a hunchback, is being controlled by aliens, or is a cheater.

You sure you read the post you're quoting? Check the 2nd sentence again. "Since a bulge like that isn't going to be caused by a bad suit, ..."

Who cares if he cheated? He still lost that debate

No where near as strange as a hidden transciever in a spot cleary visible and with no method to actually let Bush hear anything.
Not that strange, when you consider the fact that Bush's campaign manager, Karl Rove, bugged his own office years ago, to win a political election. He was never convicted of it, but the evidence is so striking. Right before the election, a bug was found in his office. Later examined, it was found that the bug had an 8-hour battery life, so it would have to be replaced daily. They also found that the battery had only been put in, about 20 minutes before they got there. Plus, the frequency didn't have a very good range, either, which made the FBI skeptical, although a judge ordered them to not investigate. ;)

You sure you read the post you're quoting? Check the 2nd sentence again. "Since a bulge like that isn't going to be caused by a bad suit, ..."
Not every political discussion has to be a series of people contradicting eachother. I was adding something.

Who cares if he cheated? He still lost that debate
Technically, it was called a draw, but liberals say Kerry clearly won the debates.

Technically, it was called a draw, but liberals say Kerry clearly won the debates.
Who the hell has the right to say who won a debate anyway? The committee or whoever they were? The people who voted in the election? Some random posters on political forums?

I thought Bush sucked ass in all three, but I watched the second one with die-hard conservatives who thought Kerry sucked ass. I haven't really talked to many people who had their minds changed by the debates.

Not every political discussion has to be a series of people contradicting eachother. I was adding something.

Yes they do damn you, you are wrong

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2012

FAIR.org, released a story that was supposed to be published by the mainstream media (but never was), on a NASA scientist who analyzed photos taken of Bush's back during the debates, and concluded that Bush was using a hidden communication device, in order to cheat during the Presidential debates of 2004.

This is pretty old.

The best policy appeared to be to just let it rot and not touch the story. That is usually the best approach to something you can't refute that would damage your reputation.

It could be his suspenders. I think he secretly wants to be a fireman when he grows up.
I mean look at how much he hung round hugging all those fireguys after 9/11?

That's assuming he will grow up.

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2012

FAIR.org, released a story that was supposed to be published by the mainstream media (but never was), on a NASA scientist who analyzed photos taken of Bush's back during the debates, and concluded that Bush was using a hidden communication device, in order to cheat during the Presidential debates of 2004.
Again my point in argument … he has the entire us military/cia …. You name it behind him and he cant manage to get something smaller then THAT to use …
Seriously?
I don’t like bush but for the love of god that is bout the size of a talk-about common cell phone with ear peace would be smaller

Oh boy, another Bush-bashing-false claims making-waffle making-conservative-debasing topic. Will you Democrats get over the fact that YOU LOST the election? I think you're the ones who need to grow up instead of being sore losers. Though I think that Bush really sucked in the debates. Cheney won from what I saw of it. Remember this from...I think the 2nd Bush debate? "I own a timber company? That's news to me!" I really think that was the funniest point in all of the debates.

We all know that wasn't a communications device, it was a super size doll-stand to make Bush stand up straight for the whole debate

Wishing does not make it so.

Oh boy, another Bush-bashing-false claims making-waffle making-conservative-debasing topic. Will you Democrats get over the fact that YOU LOST the election? I think you're the ones who need to grow up instead of being sore losers. Though I think that Bush really sucked in the debates. Cheney won from what I saw of it. Remember this from...I think the 2nd Bush debate? "I own a timber company? That's news to me!" I really think that was the funniest point in all of the debates.

So it is okay that Bush cheated because he won the election. Wow, all I can say is wow. So winning makes you free from justice?

Who cares? Kerry had cheat sheets.

And besides, Bush won the election. Go home and cry.

Oh boy, another Bush-bashing-false claims making-waffle making-conservative-debasing topic. Will you Democrats get over the fact that YOU LOST the election? I think you're the ones who need to grow up instead of being sore losers. Though I think that Bush really sucked in the debates. Cheney won from what I saw of it. Remember this from...I think the 2nd Bush debate? "I own a timber company? That's news to me!" I really think that was the funniest point in all of the debates.
Dont blame everything on democrats ... (and unless you have an older nation what is this ... oh boy ANOTHER)
I am a liberal leaning (by like .5) and libertarian (by like 2) leaning person ... and I still dont believe this BS

Who cares? Kerry had cheat sheets.

And besides, Bush won the election. Go home and cry.
..Cheat sheets? What the fuck are you talking about?

..Cheat sheets? What the fuck are you talking about?
I guess you missed the photos...
http://www.indcjournal.com/archives/001054.php

As far as I'm concerned, they both could have brought teleprompters, an encyclopedia, and a couple of staffers each to help them remember to tie their shoes. It didn't make a difference.

..Cheat sheets? What the fuck are you talking about?
A rumor conservatives are spreading to explain why Bush sucked at the debates. Apparently they think Kerry wrote down his answers to any questions he migh tbe asked before hand on a note card.(like you do in school in speech class to remind self)
The daily show showed it best: Kerry was writing down, "I am so owning him".

I guess you missed the photos...
http://www.indcjournal.com/archives/001054.php

As far as I'm concerned, they both could have brought teleprompters, an encyclopedia, and a couple of staffers each to help them remember to tie their shoes. It didn't make a difference.
Excllent extremely blurry pictures. And how is he going to have "cheat sheets" for questions from the audience not chosen or asked by him?

http://www.dailyrecycler.com/blog/2004/10/winners-never-cheat.html

Unless he has a holographic pen that projects his answers onto prepared pieces of paper..

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2012

FAIR.org, released a story that was supposed to be published by the mainstream media (but never was), on a NASA scientist who analyzed photos taken of Bush's back during the debates, and concluded that Bush was using a hidden communication device, in order to cheat during the Presidential debates of 2004.
And he still lost the debates. I can't beleive he actually got elected. Oh well, in 4 years he's out. It's just a matter of minimizing the damage until then.

Excllent extremely blurry pictures. And how is he going to have "cheat sheets" for questions from the audience not chosen or asked by him?

http://www.dailyrecycler.com/blog/2004/10/winners-never-cheat.html

Unless he has a holographic pen that projects his answers onto prepared pieces of paper..


The whole issue of "cheating" is a non-issue for me. Neither one of them would be someone I considered to be a stellar performer on their feet.

If this is the typical product of the Skull and Bones Fraternity, there must be a standard of dullness. It was like watching Dumb and Dumber - without the funny jokes.

Alright so lets assume the bludge exists. Let us further assume it is leading to a reciever and some speech writer or team of experts is feeding him his speech. How is Bush hearing it? Surely someone took a picture where we can see his ear?

Hell, I almost feel like taking my camera, donning a suit and running the wire from my pocket under my back and up to my ear. You'll see the wires going from my neck to my ears but you won't see any bludge.

Bush just needs a better tailor.

Induction mike. Basically turns your whole head into a speaker. I saw a phone in Japan(well,saw it on the discovery channel) that was just a watch, no speaker no ear piece. The watch part had a mic on one side and you have to place your finger into your ear to hear and you talk into the mic on the phone.

Cool stuff.

1) I dont he was using such a thing, most notably because the wires are too small to produce that large a bulge. And thats for commercial stuff, imagine what the president has access to.

2) I wouldnt care if he did have such a device. I want my president backed up by whole floors of people and computers. If he can use such a thing in real world situations, I have no problems with him using it in a debate.

I had a real estate finance class where not only were we allowed to bring in every form of notebook and textbook and calculators/laptops ect, we were also allowed 1 advisor. Teacher's reasoning was that in the real world, no is going to lock you in a room and expect you to make choices without having access to all the resources that you can get your hands on.

The whole issue of "cheating" is a non-issue for me. Neither one of them would be someone I considered to be a stellar performer on their feet.

If this is the typical product of the Skull and Bones Fraternity, there must be a standard of dullness. It was like watching Dumb and Dumber - without the funny jokes.
A much more amusing debate would be George I-can't-control-my-facial-expressions Bush v Ralph "Vulture Eye" Nader

I agree with the 'who cares' sentiment though. The debates were almost 5 months ago. The Uninformed States of America re-elected him. Let's talk about something new for once...

I don't mean to offend or come off as too sensitive but broad generalizations like this one send me into a rather foul mood sometimes. I like to think of myself as a very informed voter. I did not vote simply because I did not like Bush, I voted because I did not support most of his issues. While I do understand that most of this country did vote for Bush, and that many were very uninformed or just plain ignorant of the real issures (not just conservatives but liberals too), I believe that it is unfair for you make such a statement. It would be equal to me saying that everyone in France is a pansy or some other slanderous word. Sorry if this is off topic.

Yeah, although I completely disagree with that theory, you'd think the White House would just come out and be perfecly honest about his back problem, thus rendering this whole issue obsolete. Why didn't they do that?

Interesting pictures of the upper-back brace, Salvondia. I think it answers a lot. Here's my take:
1) the thing under his jacket is sold as an upper-back bracing device, but probably does more for posture than it does for relieving pain.
2) the White House didn't say he has a back problem because he doesn't have one.
3) one of his advisors noticed that Bush kind of hunches over when he's trying too hard to persuade someone that he's telling the truth. He looks shifty and devious. (Hunching forward is one of the features the presidential impersonators make fun of on late-night tv.)
4) they made him wear the back-brace so he should stand up straighter and appear more trustworthy. Faced with a taller opposing candidate who stands ramrod-straight, they must have felt a deficiency in this area. It also helps him look taller.
5) the White House can't admit to the use of the posture device because that cuts right to the core of the president's image (among his supporters) as a straight-talker.

In some ways, I think it would have been even more damaging to Bush in the election if it had been revealed that he resorted to a cosmetic trick to stand up straighter, than the use of a receiving device to cheat on the answers. Such a trick makes him seem excessively vain and wimpy, and not as manly as he tries to appear.

he was still a bumbling idiot during the debates...even if it were true that he was using some type of wire, that wouldnt say much for whoever writes his speeches.

Who cares? The election is over.

How dare he do something like that. It sure helped him. With his brain, he neede it. he wouldn't have been able to say anything in the debated without it.

What a fuc*ing bastar*

How dare he do something like that. It sure helped him. With his brain, he neede it. he wouldn't have been able to say anything in the debated without it.

What a fuc*ing bastar*
You seriously were suckerd by this?

You seriously were suckerd by this?

Not really. Just trying to display my hate for Bush.

I like this one

"It's clear even from unenhanced photos that George W"

Duh ... you are the one that enhanced it to prove there was something there :p

Not really. Just trying to display my hate for Bush.
Ok I was going to say :) lol I dont like the man either but I find it hard to beleive with his resources he would have used something that fucking obvious ... lol I can buy better from radio shack

Ok I was going to say :) lol I dont like the man either but I find it hard to beleive with his resources he would have used something that fucking obvious ... lol I can buy better from radio shack
lol

Blah blah blah bush blah blah blah hate.

Who cares what happened, there's nothing anyone can do about it now!

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2012

FAIR.org, released a story that was supposed to be published by the mainstream media (but never was), on a NASA scientist who analyzed photos taken of Bush's back during the debates, and concluded that Bush was using a hidden communication device, in order to cheat during the Presidential debates of 2004.
I fear for what tenuous hold you now have on a semblance of sanity.

This thread topic went up before. I posted on it, something to the tune of ....
I think he was hunched over for a good portion of them not just because he was attempting to appear like he has some kind of "integrity conviction" so much as that he had an ill-fitting supplement given to him in suppository form a few hours beforehand due to some weird ailment he'd gotten while on one of his many vacations/jaunts around the states to "energize" his base. His bowel had already been irritated by Portnoy's Complaint and he still had some of the infection in him - obvious from a lack of visual focus (shifty eyes, et cetera), a lack of cognizance or topic focus (you choose) as well as a pronounced perspiration on the brow and an inability to hold his temper or stand with any composure while on the spot in such a forum.
...something like that.

i'm hardcore liberal, but even i don't think they could possibly hide it so poorly and expect to get away with it.

the 'bulge' you see running down his back looks like his spinal cord.

in the picture with kerry in it as well, the spinal cord and shoulder blade both project into the fabric, appearing to form two parallel sides of a rectangular object.

I had a real estate finance class where not only were we allowed to bring in every form of notebook and textbook and calculators/laptops ect, we were also allowed 1 advisor. Teacher's reasoning was that in the real world, no is going to lock you in a room and expect you to make choices without having access to all the resources that you can get your hands on.

Yep not at all in Real Life. Except for when you take the Real Estate Agent Licesnse Exam. :evil grin:

Who cares? He still lost.

I emailed FAIR.ORG, which featured this story, because of someone had mentioned a photo of Bush having the same hump while in his truck on his ranch.

FAIR.ORG replied:
According to Dave Lindorff, Bush was on his way to a media interview on his ranch when that picture was taken.

Regards,

Jim Naureckas
As for the allegations that Kerry had "note cards." There was nothing to substantiate that, as all that was seen was him reaching into his shirt, not what he actually pulled out was. Later, though, there was a photo released showing that it was a pen and not any notecards.

http://dailyrecycler.typepad.com/blog/files/kerfuffle.jpg
http://dailyrecycler.typepad.com/blog/files/kerfuffle.jpg

This makes sense, as he'd been using a pen to write throughout the debates, repeatedly. Paper was provided and allowed at the debates. In any case, it's a poor excuse to condone Bush's cheating by accusing Kerry of cheating. Two wrongs don't make a right.

I do agree it's possible, from what I've seen, that it's body armor or a back brace, but that's not what the NASA scientist concluded and his job was enhancing photos of the surface of Mars, and studying them, to learn about what might be on or beneath the surface. Certainly, a NASA scientist who puts his job on the line by making such an outrageous claim has more credibility than anyone here or any politicians calling it nonsense.

Now that I'm thinking about it a bit more. Since a bulge like that isn't going to be caused by a bad suit, and it won't be caused by a wire, and anyone worth their salt wouldn't be dumb enough to play the reciever on the upper back seeing as the lower back or the front of the jacket where it hangs loosely would be a much better spot to hide such a device.

No, I think the more likely answer is that Bush might have a back problem. He might have been wearing a back brace.

Something like this here (http://spinalbrace.com/upperspine/comforclaviclebrc.htm) or like this one (http://www.something4everybody.com/shops/support/upperback.asp).

Just throwing out another, imo, more likely answer.
Hate to throw some salt into your Kool-Aid and into your wounds...has any of you considered that he might have been wearing a...bullet-proof vest? He is the President, after all...and how I love to say that.

Hate to throw some salt into your Kool-Aid and into your wounds...has any of you considered that he might have been wearing a...bullet-proof vest? He is the President, after all...and how I love to say that.

Yes, many hours ago. See post #22 by Hobabwe.

I still go with the bullet proof vest line of thought. The way the bulge looks in all the pictures, well it makes me think of some of the light vests that they have out there. Very little coverage in the back, and just enough in the front to stop a smallish pistol. The police put on a demonstration in my dorm, and they showed us all sorts of stuff, vests, and the like. The shape of the bulge reminded me of one of the small vests they showed.

ps
If you want to see a picture of me wearing the heavy vest, helmet and holding and MP5, go to the stickied pictures thread. One of the ones of me is from that thing.

I do agree it's possible, from what I've seen, that it's body armor or a back brace, but that's not what the NASA scientist concluded and his job was enhancing photos of the surface of Mars, and studying them, to learn about what might be on or beneath the surface. Certainly, a NASA scientist who puts his job on the line by making such an outrageous claim has more credibility than anyone here or any politicians calling it nonsense.
Anyone with a little bit of money can buy an expert. Hell, look at the doctors who claim that Terri Schiavo is or isn't in a permanent vegetative state. I'm just making a point with this, don't go ballistic folks

I do agree it's possible, from what I've seen, that it's body armor or a back brace, but that's not what the NASA scientist concluded and his job was enhancing photos of the surface of Mars, and studying them, to learn about what might be on or beneath the surface. Certainly, a NASA scientist who puts his job on the line by making such an outrageous claim has more credibility than anyone here or any politicians calling it nonsense.

You've made two nice mistakes.

1) You've assumed that being a NASA scientist whose job is to enhance and interpret photos of Mars would give that person a special ability to figure out what is hiding underneath a jacket on the back of a person.

Rebuttal:
His job is to interpret Mars. Not Bush’s back. His experience in enhancing and discerning features of Mars has no bearing at looking at the back of someone's jacket and discerning what is making X bulge. This NASA scientist’s opinion is worth the same as ours. Possibly less due to political bias or leanings.

2) You've assumed that person's job is on the line.

Rebuttal:
The confidentiality of sources is something Journalists are known for it. The person's job is not on the line.

You've made two nice mistakes.

1) You've assumed that being a NASA scientist whose job is to enhance and interpret photos of Mars would give that person a special ability to figure out what is hiding underneath a jacket on the back of a person.

Rebuttal:
His job is to interpret Mars. Not Bush’s back. His experience in enhancing and discerning features of Mars has no bearing at looking at the back of someone's jacket and discerning what is making X bulge. This NASA scientist’s opinion is worth the same as ours. Possibly less due to political bias or leanings.
And you base your knowledge of this, on--what?

Certainly, neither of us are aware of his methods to enhance photos or the ways he's trained to interpret them. You assume he's just an astronomer with Paint Shop Pro.

2) You've assumed that person's job is on the line.

Rebuttal:
The confidentiality of sources is something Journalists are known for it. The person's job is not on the line.
When he made his claim, he did it publicly. "Confidentiality of sources" is irrelevant. The point is, because he was open about it, he took a risk of ruining his reputation (if proven false). Plus, working for an organization funded by the government while accusing the President of criminal behavior is not exactly a smart thing to do, unless you're certain there's ample proof.

Hate to throw some salt into your Kool-Aid and into your wounds...has any of you considered that he might have been wearing a...bullet-proof vest? He is the President, after all...and how I love to say that.
Despite the excellent Rush Limbaugh impression, I would guess its not a bullet-proof vest, the bulge curves are rather strange. Bullet-proof vests usually don't have lines looking like doll stands

Sorry I don't beleive it........it could be a number of things.

Bullet-proof vests usually don't have lines looking like doll stands
And you know this because?...............I'm pretty sure there are different types out there...........

I'm suprised all of you have not already heard of this, it was on the news because that is where I heard it (non mainstream). Just so you know it has already been discredited as sweat+shirt+posture=wrinkleded clothing and if you say well it was too much of a coincidence to be in every debate then here is something for you. Kerry also had it in every debate. It is just how the cloths are. Also Kerry's and Bush's did look pretty much identical. Also now they have devices that you wouldn't even see wires. He wouldn't need a huge device on his back (of all places) to recieve communications.

I'm suprised all of you have not already heard of this, it was on the news because that is where I heard it (non mainstream). Just so you know it has already been discredited as sweat+shirt+posture=wrinkleded clothing and if you say well it was too much of a coincidence to be in every debate then here is something for you. Kerry also had it in every debate. It is just how the cloths are. Also Kerry's and Bush's did look pretty much identical. Also now they have devices that you wouldn't even see wires. He wouldn't need a huge device on his back (of all places) to recieve communications.
I have made the same last argument as well … why would someone with the money and power as bush use something I could get from radio shack for 20 bucks when his future was riding on it

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2012

FAIR.org, released a story that was supposed to be published by the mainstream media (but never was), on a NASA scientist who analyzed photos taken of Bush's back during the debates, and concluded that Bush was using a hidden communication device, in order to cheat during the Presidential debates of 2004.
Well, that's politics for you. Nothing anyone can do about it now.

I see this as more whining from people who can't accept the idea that a plurality of American voters voted for Bush.

As if the debates, in all their stellar display of "a debate about nothing" had anything to do with who won.

As I recall, every news network seemed to laugh, and say how stupid and stiff Bush appeared, and how intellectual and erudite Kerry appeared, and how Kerry won the debates.

I honestly couldn't tell the difference between two frat boys from the Skull and Bones fraternity, two Yale graduates, two politicians who wouldn't last 10 seconds in the UK's Question Time.

They both appeared so poor as debaters (that's too generous a term to apply to them, or to the process - it looked like spoon-fed softballs to me), and were so uncomfortable answering previously screened questions that I thought they were both in a persistent vegetative state.

Bush was also wearing a kevlar vest under his suit. Even if he was wearing a communication device, I can think of a few reasons other than 'cheating' why a politician whose security force thought it would be important to have wear a kevlar vest would be wearing a communication device...can't you?

Bush also apparently carries a Glock, concealed.

Although I'd still like to ask about the NASA scientists' qualifications, to know whether he is truly just an astronomer with Paint Shop Pro.

However, if it's true, this does not surprise in the least. As I said before, Bush's campaign manager, Karl Rove, once defeated a politican opponent by bugging his own office. Right before the election, Karl Rove reported to the police that a bug was found in his office and said, "The only person who could seek to benefit from this is my opponent", implying that his opponent was spying on him. That made him look bad.

I've already stated this before, but I want to highlight this for all of you, because it's very important, as to the credibility of my case against Bush.

When the FBI began to investigate the incident with Karl Rove, they found that the battery had an 8 hour life, so it would have to be replaced daily. The radio frequency had an extremely short range, and even worse, the battery had been replaced just 20 MINUTES before the police arrived.

And this was Bush's campaign manager, close friend, and confidant, Karl Rove. This event, as well as many other Rove tactics of dirty politics, are described in the book and documentary, "Bush's Brain." While I agree that it's extremely biased and many of the accusations aren't as solidly proven as they claim, this one incident with the bug, is 100%.

This communication device on Bush is exactly the kind of thing Rove would pull. Read the entire article linked to in the first post of this thread, rather than just basing your opinions on what you've heard from CNN or Fox News. That article is mainly about criticizing the media's coverage. In many cases, they took the words of Bush's tailor over a NASA scientist. Even Bush made contradictory claims. First, saying it was a poorly tailored suit, then later saying it was a poorly tailored shirt. Later, an anonymous secret service agent claimed it was a bulletproof vest. This is a possibility, as the debates had the largest security there'd ever been in Washington, at the time, if I remember correctly.