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