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