BS: What WAS That Lump on Bush Back?

Subject: RE: BS: What WAS That Lump on Bush Back?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 11 Oct 04 - 02:17 PM

Borg implant... "Resistance is futile!"

Subject: RE: BS: What WAS That Lump on Bush Back?
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 11 Oct 04 - 02:27 PM

t'be sure it reminds of the old music hall classic. they've put a colostomy bag on me tonsils ma, but still I keep talking shite.....

yous lot are just jealous cos you ain't got one.

Subject: RE: BS: What WAS That Lump on Bush Back?
From: Peace
Date: 11 Oct 04 - 02:33 PM

McGrath may have hit on it. It's Bush's battery pack. The guy ain't human. Confirms what I have thought all along.

Subject: RE: BS: What WAS That Lump on Bush Back?
From: Sorcha
Date: 11 Oct 04 - 02:36 PM

Maybe I'm being denser than usual, but in the pic, I can't see his shoulder blades...where is this black box?

Subject: RE: BS: What WAS That Lump on Bush Back?
From: Jeanie
Date: 11 Oct 04 - 03:25 PM

It seems pretty clear to me. This is a rather uncunningly disguised tail. Yes..........you know what this means. Bush IS the Giant Squirrel ! (see other threads for further proof)

- jeanie

Subject: RE: BS: What WAS That Lump on Bush Back?
From: Peace
Date: 11 Oct 04 - 03:32 PM

The device appears to be located from approximately T6 to T11. It does not look like a problem with his suit. However, the Secret Service should employ better tailors for Idiot. A little padding on the shoulders and thus have the material on the back of the jacket drape accordingly, and no one would be asking these embarrassing questions.

Subject: RE: BS: What WAS That Lump on Bush Back?
From: Peace
Date: 11 Oct 04 - 03:34 PM

As for Idiot wearing a bullet-proof vest: Why. His stoopid head is unprotected.

On second thought . . . .

Subject: RE: BS: What WAS That Lump on Bush Back?
From: Peace
Date: 11 Oct 04 - 03:49 PM

Do you suppose that his brains are up his arse and the box on his back contains the circuit that connects them to his mouth?

Subject: RE: BS: What WAS That Lump on Bush Back?
From: Peace
Date: 11 Oct 04 - 03:50 PM

If so, do you suppose anyone has checked the connection lately?

Subject: RE: BS: What WAS That Lump on Bush Back?
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 11 Oct 04 - 03:57 PM

The photos that have appeared on the WWW are so dark as to be useless. I took one into Adobe Photoshop and increased the brightness (NO OTHER CHANGES OR ENHANCEMENTS). Don't look like anything except a box to me. If you want a copy, please E-mail me at [e-mail] and I'll send you one. BTW, the right ear looks a bit odd, too.

Subject: RE: BS: What WAS That Lump on Bush Back?
From: Peace
Date: 11 Oct 04 - 05:20 PM

Maybe it's the mechanism that makes it possible for him to turn his back on his country.

Subject: RE: BS: What WAS That Lump on Bush Back?
From: Don Firth
Date: 11 Oct 04 - 05:41 PM

Suddenly occurred to me!!

So I warped through cyberspace and came up with all kinds of stuff. But this (Snopes) contains probably the most rational explanation for (sound of spooky music played on a Theremin) "The Curse of Tecumseh." Every president elected in a year divisible by 20 has died in office, some by assassination.

There is plenty of evidence to support the believers in "The Curse," and Bush and/or his cohorts may be among those believers. I'm not particularly superstitious, but were I Bush, I wouldn't take a chance. The "Curse of Tecumseh" could be a "self-fulfilling" curse, because it could always inspire some nut-case to do the fulfilling. I think there is a distinct possibility—probability—that Bush wears a Kevlar vest most of the time. Reagan is the only president to have survived "The Curse," but only because the bullet missed his heart by less than an inch.

I do not necessarily postulate the wearing of a bullet-proof vest as an alternative theory to the cause of the bulge in Bush's jacket. It could be in addition to, which might make the wire even more difficult to hide.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: What WAS That Lump on Bush Back?
From: Peace
Date: 11 Oct 04 - 05:50 PM

Eureka!

Subject: RE: BS: What WAS That Lump on Bush Back?
From: redhorse
Date: 11 Oct 04 - 05:53 PM

It's a posture brace to pull back his shoulders and make him look masculine and dominant. It comes from the same idiot who told him walking with his knuckles forward would make him look like a gorilla

nick

Subject: RE: BS: What WAS That Lump on Bush Back?
From: Mark Cohen
Date: 11 Oct 04 - 06:09 PM

Sorry, Jeri, that ain't no wrinkle. Look at the (real) wrinkles on his sleeve, or look at any article of clothing that wrinkles under stress. Let me know if you ever see a single, solitary wrinkle, let alone one that forms a right angle.

The problem is, people who support Bush wouldn't change their minds even if his coat fell off and you could see a box with an antenna and a plug in his ear. Fox News would just say that he has to have that system in order to be notified when there's another terrorist attack, and half the country (well, at least half the people who respond to polls, or half the people who both register and bother to vote) would say, "Yeah, of course he has to wear that box. It's to keep us safer against terrorism! What a strong leader he is!"

And the people who don't support Bush would say, "Aha! Told you so!"

So it goes.

Aloha,
Mark

Subject: RE: BS: What WAS That Lump on Bush Back?
From: GUEST,peedeecee
Date: 12 Oct 04 - 12:52 AM

Here's a site that has 28 pictures of Bush during the debate. All the pictures, taken when Bush was in various poses, show the same rectangular bar across the back of his suit jacket, at about shoulder blade height. The bar doesn't change even when Bush shifts position.
The site also shows the frame in which Bush says "Now let me finish..." even though no one is interrupting him, the green light is on, and he has a clear 30 seconds to finish what he is saying.

When the site comes up, you will see 28 thumbnail sized images. Move your mouse over them and you'll get an arrow that you can click to enlarge. You will then have very large images side by side, that you can scroll down through.

Have fun -- I did!

BushBulge

Subject: RE: BS: What WAS That Lump on Bush Back?
From: Ebbie
Date: 12 Oct 04 - 02:15 AM

No wonder James Baker insisted on having no rear camera shots! It's just too funny that it was Fox News that took them.

I'll start the list of possible benign explanations for the box:

1) It was the 'little black box' that keeps the president in touch with developments in the world.
2) It was his medication- it feeds directly into his blood stream via his spine.
3) He has a new toy.
4) His wife had gone out for the evening and he wanted to stay in touch with her.
5) He had mislaid his $8000 suit and borrowed one from his janitor.
6) He has a bad back and moving around is painful for him so he put on the ungodly thing to immobilize himself.
7) It was body armor after all, but the only part of his body that was protected was the spine and the part that was protected by a cord running up from there to his right shoulder. (The cord or wire also ran down under his tie and around his middle to the left, so probably about 1/25th of his body had some protection.)
8) He has a bad back so he stuck a heat pack into his suit to soothe the pain.
9) His doector said that Bush's posture has been too straight so he advised him to wear the thing to bend him over a bit.
10) I've run out of 'splanations.
10b) Oh, I just realized another one: He fell flat on his back in his bathroom and cut himself in the middle of his back. It bled profusely so they had to put a thick pad of gauze on it to keep it from soiling his janitor's suit.

Subject: RE: BS: What WAS That Lump on Bush Back?
From: Roger the Skiffler
Date: 12 Oct 04 - 03:39 AM

I reckon he forgot to take the coathanger out when he put the jacket on!
From the clip I saw on UK news it looked like he was getting in-ear voices (or maybe in his head!) as he said: "Let me finish" when no-one in the room was interrupting him!

RtS
(what am I doing reading/adding to a thread on US politics? Bad Roger!)

Subject: RE: BS: What WAS That Lump on Bush Back?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Oct 04 - 06:01 AM

Here's a pretty plausible explanation from cartoonist Steve Bell

Subject: RE: BS: What WAS That Lump on Bush Back?
From: s6k
Date: 12 Oct 04 - 07:51 AM

how small was the lump? i ask because if small enough, it could be his missing brain

Subject: RE: BS: What WAS That Lump on Bush Back?
From: Bo Vandenberg
Date: 12 Oct 04 - 10:43 AM

It sounds to me like the place where his handlers turn the big key to make him go.

I seriously think its a big issue and a huge abuse of his position as president going into the leadership race. Its not enough that he has the whole apparatus of government and the presidency at his command. He wants to have all his advisors in his ear when he talks to his electoral oponnent. How many advisors does it take for the man to have something smart to say?

I wish he would stop being a concealing wet blanket over the data and just introduce us to the people who make the decisions. Maybe if we talked to the decision makers we'd have a hope of getting the truth. He may not understand the issues to even answer.

To be fair, has anyone seen a similar crutch for Kerry?

Subject: RE: BS: What WAS That Lump on Bush Back?
From: GUEST,noddy
Date: 12 Oct 04 - 10:54 AM

was there one lump or two? I am sure I saw one on the Grassy Knoll as well!

Subject: RE: BS: What WAS That Lump on Bush Back?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Oct 04 - 01:24 PM

It's that lump on the front of the lump on the back that is the real problem.

Subject: RE: BS: What WAS That Lump on Bush Back?
From: UncleToad
Date: 12 Oct 04 - 01:55 PM

The lump is Cheney's head...someone said "Everytime I go to kiss Dubya's ass...I have to move Cheney's head out of the way."

Subject: RE: BS: What WAS That Lump on Bush Back?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 12 Oct 04 - 03:32 PM

We are used to be cheated one way or the other. Think of the singers opening their mouths to prerecorded music. Think of the actors doing movements like guitar playing when we all know that the close up of the fingers are those of someone else. What do you say, there is a difference between cinema where we know and expect to see acting instead of the real thing and politics? The difference gets smaller and smaller.

It starts with the background guy/girl who has all the information and whispers in the presidents ear when he turns to a new face: "That's Joe Brown, the lord mayor of Lietown, he's in our party and recently has lost his wife in a car accident". With that information, the president pretends to have a better memory than he actually has.

Then there are the campaign photos: Our chancellor is a bit short and so he stands on a box when being photographed with his closest advisors and ministers.

Then there are the speeches they read. When secretaries and ministers come to a local event all that local information in their speeches making them look like if they would care and know about local problems has been written by a guy who remains unknown.

Their big speeches they read from a teleprompter. Their spontaneous responses on campaign events with a life audience are well rehearsed responses to questions that were known before.

So why should they stop using those things for a live debate? The frontman of the team is a play actor trying to look presidential. The Bush of the TV debates seems so different from the stuttering live Bush from earlier TV appearances that that alone is suspicious. You are voting for a team when you vote for Bush. Don't let you be deceived by the public frontman.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: What WAS That Lump on Bush Back?
From: Mark Cohen
Date: 13 Oct 04 - 02:51 AM

Firesign Theatre foresaw all this 30 years ago. Go back and listen to I Think We're All Bozos on This Bus (1971). "Hey, Mister, you broke the President!"

Aloha,
Mark

Subject: RE: BS: What WAS That Lump on Bush Back?
From: Metchosin
Date: 13 Oct 04 - 03:06 AM

....where there are more truly real things than when you drive by. LOL

Subject: RE: BS: What WAS That Lump on Bush Back?
From: Nerd
Date: 13 Oct 04 - 03:58 AM

An excerpt from Salon.com:

Speculation continues to run wild about President Bush's mystery bulge. Since Friday, when Salon first raised questions about the rectangular bulge that was visible under Bush's suit coat during the presidential debates, many observers in the press and on the Internet have wondered aloud whether the verbally and factually challenged president might be receiving coaching via a hidden electronic device.

Now a technical expert who designs and makes such devices for the U.S. military and private industry tells Salon that he believes the bulge is indeed a transceiver designed to receive electronic signals and transmit them to a hidden earpiece lodged in Bush's ear canal.

"There's no question about it. It's a pretty obvious one -- larger than most because it probably has descrambling capability," said Alex Darbut, technical and business development vice president for Resistance Technology in Arden Hills, Minn. Darbut examined photographs of the president's back taken from the Fox News video feed at the first presidential debate in Coral Gables, Fla., as well as 2002 photos of the president driving and working in a T-shirt on his Crawford ranch, which were posted on the White House Web site.

Subject: RE: BS: What WAS That Lump on Bush Back?
From: GUEST,CBS RULES
Date: 13 Oct 04 - 10:02 AM

Yea, the same experts that CBS used to autheticate the memos.

Theres something there, theres something there. I know there is, I
know there is.

A bunch of nutbars post over the internet and it becomes a news story of how 'speculations are running rampant'.

Yea, theres something there, your own obsessions, seek help.

Subject: RE: BS: What WAS That Lump on Bush Back?
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 13 Oct 04 - 10:30 AM

AS I posted previously, if you want to see a clearer picture of the bulge, E-mail me at [e-mail] and I'll send you less over-exposed copy.I have no idea what the box was, but it certainly wan't a wrinkle. Body armor? Wireless receiver? Battery pack?
I dunno--just seems odd that the bush camp is deying its existence so vehemently. Maybe lying is simply a reflex action.

Subject: RE: BS: What WAS That Lump on Bush Back?
From: GUEST,grimmer2
Date: 13 Oct 04 - 10:31 AM

What's all the fuss about? The real battle of the bulge was fought years ago..get over it. I thought we all knew that we voted for one we get the wizard behind the curtain anyway.

Subject: RE: BS: What WAS That Lump on Bush Back?
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Oct 04 - 11:15 AM

Just a lump growing with each lies.

Subject: RE: BS: What WAS That Lump on Bush Back?
From: DMcG
Date: 13 Oct 04 - 11:22 AM

I'm quite looking forward to the next debate. I hope to see:

- GW stripped to the waist to show he hasn't got any wires

- John Kerry saying "You turned an $X billion surplus into a $Y deficit and lost Z million jobs: You can run from your record, Mr President, but you can't hide."

What other treats might we get, I wonder?

Subject: RE: BS: What WAS That Lump on Bush Back?
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 13 Oct 04 - 02:45 PM

This all started with that damn Lincoln. That off-the cuff speech he gave in Gettysburg was actually written on the back of an envelope! All Republicans since then have had to cheat!!!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: What WAS That Lump on Bush Back?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Oct 04 - 02:50 PM

Stripped to be waist? Not good enough. Otherwise there'd just be unseemly rumours about bulges in his pants.

"But even the President of the United States
Sometimes must have
To stand naked."

Maybe this is one of those times.

Subject: RE: BS: What WAS That Lump on Bush Back?
From: PoppaGator
Date: 13 Oct 04 - 06:13 PM

If the debate telecast is going to feature a strip search, maybe I'll watch tonight!

Last night, Letterman had his neighbor Rupert Jee, proprietor of the Hello Deli, pose in a suit jacket hiding a large bulging package taped to the middle of his back. An audience "contestant" was then recruited to "guess what's hidden under Rupert's jacket." (It was a raw steak.)

Subject: RE: BS: What WAS That Lump on Bush Back?
From: GUEST,LAS
Date: 13 Oct 04 - 09:24 PM

OK. Could someone tell me how such a device works? Does the sound reverberate through Bush's bones?

Subject: RE: BS: What WAS That Lump on Bush Back?
From: dianavan
Date: 13 Oct 04 - 09:51 PM

I think Bush did have a receiver on his back. Looks like the wires ran up towards his neck. I also think that to hide the receiver embedded in his ear, a molded plastic ear was placed over his own ear. What you might call a real hollywood, make-up job.

It was the fake ear that was so obvious to me. I didn't see the box or the wires until I saw the photos.

d

Subject: RE: BS: What WAS That Lump on Bush Back?
From: wysiwyg
Date: 13 Oct 04 - 10:20 PM

Sorry not to read the whole thread-- was it Eric Hearbel?

~S~

Subject: RE: BS: What WAS That Lump on Bush Back?
From: Rapparee
Date: 13 Oct 04 - 10:33 PM

Anyone ever read Heinlein's novel "The Puppet Masters"? For W to be "ridden" would explain a lot.

Subject: RE: BS: What WAS That Lump on Bush Back?
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 13 Oct 04 - 11:05 PM

His ears did not look fake to me. You can't hide wires without someone in the room noticing it. Sorry, I'm still not buying it.   Bullet proof vest is my best guess.

Subject: RE: BS: What WAS That Lump on Bush Back?
From: GUEST,TerryC
Date: 13 Oct 04 - 11:21 PM

Yeah, that would be a radio receiver... if the debate had taken place in 1965!! The rectangular shape shown in President Bush's back is approximately four to five inches across. Do ya THINK the President of the United States of America could afford something a bit more high tech than a 5-inch transistor radio duct-taped to his back if that's what he was trying to do??

Check out a couple of links to technology any average citizen can purchase:

http://www.woodynorris.com/Articles/TigerSoftware.htm
http://www.exxun.com/ebop/bo_el_radio.html
http://pen-shaped_radio.manufacturers.alibaba.com/

...yet you want us to believe that President Bush would "sneak" into a televised debate with a radio receiver the size of a small BRICK!? Quit smoking that stuff and get real.

-Terry

Subject: RE: BS: What WAS That Lump on Bush Back?
From: GUEST,peedeecee
Date: 14 Oct 04 - 12:14 AM

Not wires -- wireless. And the part that goes in the ear is virtually invisible, as it is tiny and goes in deep. The bulge in the suit is large because it has interference preventions built in.

So I've read, anyway.

Did anyone notice that in the third debate there were no camera shots from behind?

Subject: RE: BS: What WAS That Lump on Bush Back?
From: Roger the Skiffler
Date: 14 Oct 04 - 03:55 AM

see current Private Eye cover:http://www.private-eye.co.uk/
HERE:


RtS

Subject: RE: BS: What WAS That Lump on Bush Back?
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 14 Oct 04 - 09:54 AM

There were camera shots from behind in the third debate. It depends on which network you were watching - all networks created their broadcasts from the available camera angles.    I did not detect any bulges this time, but the area around the labels seemed a bit wrinkeled.   I think he needs a better tailor.

Subject: RE: BS: What WAS That Lump on Bush Back?
From: GUEST,JB
Date: 14 Oct 04 - 01:09 PM

Naturally there were no bulges detectable this time. Bush is stupid but even he can learn. He was really scared to try this again because he has basically beeen found out.

He was also quite poor in the debate this time and although I didn`t exactly see him scowl, he did manage that foolish half smile half chuckle.

It was most embarrassing when he tried his hand at humour saying how his wife could speak much better English and make herself better understood than he could.

In my opinion George, you really lost this one, but let`s hope it will take effect with the voters.

JB

Subject: RE: BS: What WAS That Lump on Bush Back?
From: Paco Rabanne
Date: 15 Oct 04 - 04:04 AM

I give you fair warning. 97.

Subject: RE: BS: What WAS That Lump on Bush Back?
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 15 Oct 04 - 08:51 AM

As I've said, I have no idea what it was. But it definitely was!

Re denials (and wrinke explanations), I can only quote:

As I was sitting on a chair
I knew the bottom wasn't there
Nor legs nor back--but there I sat
Ignoring little things like that.
            (The Perfect Conswervative; anonymous)

Subject: RE: BS: What WAS That Lump on Bush Back?
From: GUEST,Jaime.
Date: 18 Oct 04 - 09:18 PM

Most likelly a brain stimulator to give him a jump start in case his brain gets totally deplited .

Subject: RE: BS: What WAS That Lump on Bush Back?
From: CarolC
Date: 18 Oct 04 - 10:29 PM

Stripped to be waist? Not good enough. Otherwise there'd just be unseemly rumours about bulges in his pants.

So that explains the codpiece then.