For the past week, while at home, using his own computers, and off the clock at Caltech and NASA, Nelson has been analyzing images of the president's back during the debates. A professional physicist and photo analyst for more than 30 years, he speaks earnestly and thoughtfully about his subject. "I am willing to stake my scientific reputation to the statement that Bush was wearing something under his jacket during the debate," he says. "This is not about a bad suit. And there's no way the bulge can be described as a wrinkled shirt."
Bruce Hapke, professor emeritus of planetary science in the department of geology and planetary science at the University of Pittsburgh, reviewed the Bush images employed by Nelson, whom he calls "a very highly respected scientist in his field." Hapke says Nelson's process of analyzing the images are the "exact same methods we use to analyze images taken by spacecraft of planetary surfaces. It does not introduce any artifacts into the picture in any way."
If the original image is in fact correct, there´s little doubt there was something under his jacket.
Does it matter?
Well, only if you want a president who can still speak coherently when his batteries have given up...
B757300 From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 4114 posts, RR: 23
Reply 4, posted (9 years 9 months 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 2064 times:
Salon.com is still pushing this story even though it has been refuted and rejected even by the New York Slimes and SEE-BS? I guess since the only thing keeping them online is the hundreds of millions poured into it by rich liberals, they put out liberal whack job stories. Also, the "expert" is a well know Democrat donor.
Clinton also had the same bulge under his suit. Probably from the same thing, a bullet proof vest.
Finally, two other things that sink this story. If Bush was wearing a device that let him get his talking points from someone, given today's technology it would not have to be large or mounted on the person. It could be in the ear and not noticed. Also, if Bush had been wired, he would have done better in the first debate.
Captoveur From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (9 years 9 months 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 1920 times:
Congrats Klaus, you earned one of these:
Professional help is availible for disorders like this. The man was probably wearing a bullet proof vest, he is the President of the United States, he probably wears one just about any time he goes out in public, I know I probably would. There is a decent chance Kerry was wearing one too.
If you are cheating there is no excuse to not win. Plus, you all think he is stupid and borderline retarded so I will ask you this: Ever try to speak with someone else talking in your ear? It is damn near impossible and it takes TV personalities a pretty long time to learn to do it seamlessly.
Also, the wire required for an earpiece would not need to be NEARLY that large, If they showed me a battery pack or something under his clothes I might start to believe this line of bull.
Thecoz From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (9 years 9 months 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 1892 times:
The kevlar vest explanation is probably the most plausible, indeed.
This may be a stupid question, but why doesn't the media speculate that it was a vest? That's the first time I saw this explanation for it. It sounds completely valid, yet not even mentioned except for on here.
Why would anyone in a dangerous situation not wear a vest? Sounds like preparedness to me; not cowardice.
Boeing7E7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (9 years 9 months 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 1886 times:
This may be a stupid question, but why doesn't the media speculate that it was a vest?
Because the media is stupid. Period.
Could be suspenders as well, however, his jacket "stood up" in front. Same as it does when is out in a crowd where he'd clearly be wearing a kevlar vest. Most likely, it's a chest vest. Someone sneaking into the audience would be more of a concern that from backstage where the secret service was at.
N6376m From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (9 years 9 months 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 1826 times:
Poor Klaus. Paranoia will destroya.
What are you going to do after Tuesday when W wins re-election, by what all indications point will be a fairly large number? The obsession that you and Alpha1 have is really very entertaining but it borders on a mental problem.
N6376m From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (9 years 9 months 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 1751 times:
Klaus - pray tell where I've ever written that Saddam was a mortal threat to the US? Come on put up or shut up. You can't just make up quotes or statements to support any ridiculous claim you dream up in your head.
Show us - where have I said this?
You're delusions are really getting out of control.
Klaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21413 posts, RR: 54
Reply 21, posted (9 years 9 months 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 1733 times:
N6376m: Klaus - pray tell where I've ever written that Saddam was a mortal threat to the US?
What else is your reason du jour for the invasion? They´re changing so often it´s hard to keep track. And none of them is even halfway consistent with verifiable reality.
Almost half of all americans apparently still believe that Saddam was behind 9-11 - which is false, but it was a useful falsehood to coax them into the war.
N6376m: You're delusions are really getting out of control.
I´m sorry for your well-deserved embarrassment, but I haven´t had to change my argumentation from before the war. Your side is still flip-flopping all over the place, depending on which of the inventive excuses have just been shot down again.