BS: Jacket Bulge (USA Politics)

Subject: RE: BS: Jacket Bulge (USA Politics)
From: Bill D
Date: 10 May 12 - 11:41 PM

"The status quo site in this case is just a bit too slick."

LOL...could be it's just accurate.
(and I did wonder if you knew the 'owner' and was testing me)

I have no problem with raising legitimate questions about significant events, and, if really serious concerns are found, following up on them. I think that has been done.
(The reason I type so much is that so many flatly refuse to really compare the evidence from both sides, 'seemingly' being emotionally committed to the idea of 'conspiracy' because they just distrust the authorities...)

I dunno ... I can't read minds, so I can't prove that...*shrug*

Subject: RE: BS: Jacket Bulge (USA Politics)
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 10 May 12 - 11:11 PM

Yeah!..It's not like he couldn't afford his own teleprompter......Oh, that's that other guy....

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Jacket Bulge (USA Politics)
From: GUEST,999
Date: 10 May 12 - 01:20 PM

As a btw, I too discount many conspiracy sites. The status quo site in this case is just a bit too slick. And that bothers me. Keep well.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacket Bulge (USA Politics)
From: GUEST,999
Date: 10 May 12 - 01:19 PM

Well, ya coulda said ya don't know and saved lots of typing. Thanks.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacket Bulge (USA Politics)
From: Bill D
Date: 10 May 12 - 11:11 AM

999... I suppose I 'could' follow links to determine the owner of that site, but that is not how I decide about facts.

Is the question a subtle remark indicating that YOU know?

Rather than worry about who owns the site, I prefer to look at the volume of evidence presented...by this and the many other sites in the links they provide (One of the best reports I remember was the Popular Mechanics article. I doubt that they have any hidden agenda).

All in all, I find after reading many, many analyses of the incident...and especially Bdlg 7.... that all the 'suspicious' sounds, pics, interviews, videos and guesses have been answered, explained, debunked and cleared up by reviewing building plans, timelines, other pics, videos, interviews...etc... by qualified experts with no stake in the outcome.

Finally, I rely on my own powers of reason to evaluate the claims and their answers AS claims & answers.
What I find is that most conspiracy claims are only credible **internally** - that is, using their own premises and assertions to support and defend their own conclusions (commonly called 'circular reasoning' or begging the question. When one area is contradicted, they step sideways and 'refer' to another, as if daring one to stick pins in all points at once. They simply do not directly answer the debunkers on major points.
(It would take more than I am able to type right now to document all the connections and breaks in logic I find.)


further, deponent sayeth not

Subject: RE: BS: Jacket Bulge (USA Politics)
From: Greg F.
Date: 10 May 12 - 09:54 AM

Because at 8:48 you said: Anyway, the bulge was in all likliehood a hip flask in his jacket pocket.

So much for humor, I suppose.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacket Bulge (USA Politics)
From: Ebbie
Date: 10 May 12 - 12:47 AM

gnu, if you read that link - and others like it - you'll note the comment that the transceiver was larger than most, probably because it had 'descrambling' capabilities.

When we watched the action live that night the boxy bulge was obvious. The women in the group noticed it before the men and one of the women said - in surprise - "There is a wire going up his neck behind his ear!"

I didn't see that, but there could be no doubt about the box. One of the sadly cynical things about the case is that after "they" said it was a poorly designed suit coat, the tailor agreed. Can you for one moment believe that a tailor for the President of the United States would submit a shoddy suit?

Subject: RE: BS: Jacket Bulge (USA Politics)
From: GUEST,999
Date: 09 May 12 - 03:35 PM

Bill, when you have a moment, would you be kind enough to tell me who owns the site you reference (the debunking conspiracy theory site)?

Subject: RE: BS: Jacket Bulge (USA Politics)
From: gnu
Date: 09 May 12 - 03:31 PM

Looks like a flak-jacket to me. A "radio" device would be worn on the small of the back or on the hip hip and it would be much smaller. Are there any pics of something in his ear?

Subject: RE: BS: Jacket Bulge (USA Politics)
From: Ebbie
Date: 09 May 12 - 03:21 PM

"Very nice"? Talk about cranks.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacket Bulge (USA Politics)
From: GUEST,999
Date: 09 May 12 - 01:51 PM

People who hold to status quo theories get on my crank as much as those who hold to conspiracy theories get on yours, Bill.

The blog Ebbie quoted is very nice. I've seen it before, thanks.

######################################

Ebbie said, "In reality, the bulge/box was high on the shoulder."

Really? You and the group you were with watched it. High on the shoulder? Looks like the mid-upper back to this ol' boy. imo

Subject: RE: BS: Jacket Bulge (USA Politics)
From: Bill D
Date: 09 May 12 - 12:25 PM

I have no doubt that bulge WAS some sort of electronic device.... but no one pushed the issue. Even if they had, it would have been hard after the fact to prove anything. Someone knows... and perhaps someday the guys who helped him attach it will tell all.........


which is ENTIRELY different from the &%#@*& conspiracy theories about Building 7! That page Ebbie linked to (and several that I have posted in the past) explains clearly why it fell.... but getting a reasonable technical answer is not nearly as interesting as believing in conspiracies and constructing elaborate theories as to how it could have been done....hmmm?

Subject: RE: BS: Jacket Bulge (USA Politics)
From: GUEST,999
Date: 09 May 12 - 12:05 PM

The bulge was on his back. Here's the picture.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacket Bulge (USA Politics)
From: Ebbie
Date: 09 May 12 - 11:11 AM

Because at 8:48 you said: Anyway, the bulge was in all likliehood a hip flask in his jacket pocket.

In reality, the bulge/box was high on the shoulder.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacket Bulge (USA Politics)
From: Greg F.
Date: 09 May 12 - 10:05 AM

Greg F, you disappoint me. It appears that you are one of the viewers who did NOT see the bulge

How do you come up with that? Not so.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacket Bulge (USA Politics)
From: Ebbie
Date: 08 May 12 - 03:38 PM

Here we go again- I was trying to limit the thread to the bulge/cheating but it appears that it is not to be. The reason I didn't respond to the Building 7 charge is because it has long since been addressed and, in my opinion, laid to rest.

But here is one more try:

Complete with Photos


"Why do they pull that part of the documentary out of the conspiracy story? This is yet another example of outright deception by the so called "truth" movement and its leaders like Alex Jones. They draw their stories around the truth like a child drawing around their hand."

Subject: RE: BS: Jacket Bulge (USA Politics)
From: SINSULL
Date: 08 May 12 - 02:32 PM

Sorry...you lost me when you suggested naked debating. Visions of Gingrich in the buff with Limbaugh emceeing.


Burned into my brain forever...


Think before you post!

Subject: RE: BS: Jacket Bulge (USA Politics)
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 May 12 - 01:29 PM

There are several good sources of info about it on the Net, Wesley. Do a Google search and find out for yourself. There are also some good books out about it. It fell in a manner suggesting nothing else than a planned demolition. Such demolitions take months to set up. You can't set them up in a single day.

Keep in mind that my convincing you of this means virtually nothing in the scheme of human affairs. However, in a free society people should not be afraid to ask difficult questions nor should they be intimidated into silence by aggressive ridicule when they do dare to ask difficult questions. The attitude of the USA mass media has mostly been to ridicule people who question the 911 Commission Report...or just not give them any coverage.

That tells you how important a subject it really is. The degree of fear and the degree of suppression will generally equal the degree of importance of the subject under consideration.

The feeling outside the USA is more and more that this was in some respect a false flag operation, and that controlled demolitions were used to bring down all 3 buildings, but it is most plainly obvious in the case of building 7.

And that's all the time I'm going to give this today, because I realize the general futility of talking to people who don't wish to listen...and I realize also that if I even convinced a few of you of anything...it wouldn't actually matter anyway! Because you can't DO anything about it.

So why would I even bother?

Subject: RE: BS: Jacket Bulge (USA Politics)
From: Wesley S
Date: 08 May 12 - 01:16 PM

What? Building 7 fell down by itself? Tell me more.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacket Bulge (USA Politics)
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 May 12 - 01:13 PM

It's politically correct on this forum to attack George Bush, 999. God knows, he's an easy enough target, isn't he? ;-D He's gloriously attackable.

But it's NOT politically correct in the USA to question the 911 Commission Report or suggest, God help us, a false flag operation of any kind might have occurred. NOT! NOT! NOT! Keep that well in mind. Keepa you mouth shut or be roundly ridiculed. That tells you how damned important a subject it really is. The degree of fear and the degree of suppression will generally equal the degree of importance of the subject under consideration.

That Bush was being covertly coached and prompted is about as surprising as that Lady Gaga makes a lot of money. It's an entirely safe subject of discussion in the land of the not-so-free.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacket Bulge (USA Politics)
From: GUEST,999
Date: 08 May 12 - 12:37 PM

Slice it any way you wish, Ebbie, but there will be no answers forthcoming on either. Not Bush and his 'hunched back' which if I recall went from about C8 to T9--or Building 7 which presumably fell down all by itself, untouched by debris from either Tower 1 or Tower 2. But the jacket bulge is more important? Bush has been exposed and most people don't give a damn. Seems most people don't give a damn about Building 7 either.

Here's one for you: chuckle, heehee, snort. Just returning the favour, no offense.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacket Bulge (USA Politics)
From: Ebbie
Date: 08 May 12 - 11:35 AM

Ah, Greg F, you disappoint me. It appears that you are one of the viewers who did NOT see the bulge. I and the whole group of people I was with, did.

As for other 'mysteries', each stands alone. This one need not have been a mystery. The fact that Bush needed and got assistance in what to say should have been exposed.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacket Bulge (USA Politics)
From: Greg F.
Date: 08 May 12 - 08:48 AM

Now, Now, Bruce, that's not fair at all. Charlie McCarthy made sense.

Anyway, the bulge was in all likliehood a hip flask in his jacket pocket.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacket Bulge (USA Politics)
From: GUEST,999
Date: 08 May 12 - 05:21 AM

Seems like small potatoes compared to Building 7 of the World Trade Center. It fell down due to--well, we don't know, do we, because it was not covered by the 9/11 Commission Report. And given some blind stupidity in the US, exemplified on this forum also, it's even anathema to ask about it. What a vibrant democracy.

Bush was being told what to say. Does that come as a surprise to anyone? He was and is dumb as a rock. Not much better than Charlie McCarthy.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacket Bulge (USA Politics)
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 08 May 12 - 04:36 AM

Sorry chongo - (small "c" on purpose) - facts about tiny chimps here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penis

Subject: RE: BS: Jacket Bulge (USA Politics)
From: Ebbie
Date: 07 May 12 - 11:25 PM

"They dropped it because no one could 'prove' anything. If it was a sneaky 'thinking aid', it made little difference...or he would have used it for many more years." Bill D

Cheating or attempting to cheat UNsuccessfully is not the issue. The cheating and lying IS. This was the 'leader of our country. It is my contention that a very big deal indeed should have been made of it.

He - and his handlers - should have been put under oath. If he had to admit that he had cheated - and then lied - it should have colored his entire administration.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacket Bulge (USA Politics)
From: Bill D
Date: 07 May 12 - 07:12 PM

They dropped it because no one could 'prove' anything. If it was a sneaky 'thinking aid', it made little difference...or he would have used it for many more years.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacket Bulge (USA Politics)
From: GUEST,Chongo Chimp
Date: 07 May 12 - 07:00 PM

Doin' the debates naked would be a great idea, and I am all for it. Chimps ain't afraid to be seen in the nude. This would give me a psychological advantage over my human opponents (on top of my already existing advantages such as good looks, superior intelligence, and better reflexes, to mention a few.

Anyways, I been accused of the same thing as Bush when meetin' the press...havein' a bulge in the jacket. In my case, though, the reason is simple. I'm packin' heat in a shoulder holster. There's a bulge in my pants too, but no one has asked about it so far, and I ain't sayin'.

- Chongo

Subject: RE: BS: Jacket Bulge (USA Politics)
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 07 May 12 - 07:22 AM

They order these things better in France, where Sarkozy and Hollande faced off to each other for a two and a half hour open debate. I don't think radio prompters would have really made much difference, because brain-dead sound bites don't suffice in that kind of debate.

Maybe they should do those debates in America naked, to stop them carrying concealed radio prompters ... or guns.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacket Bulge (USA Politics)
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 07 May 12 - 06:47 AM

I always wondered why this story died so suddenly.

Subject: BS: Jacket Bulge (USA Politics)
From: Ebbie
Date: 07 May 12 - 01:19 AM

The clearly-visible bulge under W's jacket during the first debate with John Kerry, followed by the president's lies and the subsequent shelving of the matter, was the beginning of real cynicism regarding our elections for me. To this day I cannot fathom why the cheating issue was dropped; the White House responses were farcical from Day One.

I realize that it was a long time ago. I realize that some people say it should be dropped. I realize that some people's response will be that we try to blame everything on the Bush. But why was it dropped?

"Now Nelson's photos—the result of his applying the same enhancement techniques to the debate pictures that he uses to clarify photo images from space probes—rendered all these official if mutually contradictory explanations obviously false. (A November 4, 2004 report in the Washington paper the Hill, citing an unidentified source in the Secret Service, claimed that the bulge was caused by a bulletproof vest worn by Bush during the debates, though this had been specifically denied by the White House and by Bush himself—New York Times, 10/9/04. In any event, no known vests have rear protuberances resembling the image discovered by Nelson.)"http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2012

"Democratic National Committee Chairman Terence R. McAuliffe pointed to Bush's shaky, repetitive performance in the first debate. "If he had an earpiece and those were his answers, they ought to fire every person in the back room," he said.
Bush campaign spokesman Scott Stanzel, during a Web chat on washingtonpost.com, was asked if Bush wore "any kind of electronic device on his back during the first debate that allowed him to receive information."
"Senator Kerry? Is that you?," Stanzel typed back. "I think you've been spending a little too much time on conspiracy Web sites. Did you hear the one about Elvis moderating tonight's debate?" http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A18734-2004Oct8.html

"The president finally responded to the speculation this week by insisting that the bulge was in no way an electronic device. "I'm embarrassed to say it's a poorly tailored shirt," he told a TV interviewer.
Jason Woodside, owner of San Francisco's International Spy Shop, the Bay Area's sole purveyor of espionage and counterespionage gear, could only shake his head when told of Bush's explanation.
"A poorly tailored shirt," he said. "It's possible. But it looks like a wireless induction system. It looks like this."
Woodside held up a picture of a small, rectangular receiver, about the same size as the device Bush is alleged to have worn. It comes with an antenna that's looped around the neck and a wireless earpiece.
"We sold one like this just two weeks ago," Woodside said. "It's easy to set up, fast. Costs about $1,500."
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/10/29/BUGOT9I4QS1.DTL