He also experimented with wrinkling shirts in various configurations, wore them under his jacket under his bathroom light, and couldn't produce anything close to the Bush bulge.
Well, umm, about that. They make this magazine called Maxim. You can usually get it free... posted by skallas at 12:18 AM on October 29, 2004
Come on people, with all the real shit going on right now, this isn't even worth looking at.
Looks at flier link
//thinks//
Have I EVER been found GUIULTY of anything? posted by RubberHen at 12:21 AM on October 29, 2004
"He also experimented with wrinkling shirts in various configurations, wore them under his jacket under his bathroom light, and couldn't produce anything close to the Bush bulge."
Science! posted by raaka at 12:26 AM on October 29, 2004
"He knew the president was not telling the truth. And Nelson is neither conspiracy theorist nor midnight blogger."
'Ckin thanks! posted by nthdegx at 1:26 AM on October 29, 2004
". . . while at home, using his own computers, and off the clock at Caltech and NASA, Nelson has been analyzing images. . . Nelson used the computer software program Photoshop to enhance the texture in Bush's jacket. . . Nelson's process of analyzing the images are the exact same methods we use to analyze images taken by spacecraft of planetary surfaces."
Conclusion: NASA research scientist uses Photoshop at home is not equal to NASA using Photoshop to analyze photographs taken by spacecraft. posted by page404 at 3:48 AM on October 29, 2004
I wonder if this guy worked on the same analysis team that said that trucks shown in satellite photos of Iraq were actually mobile bio-weapon labs. posted by Pollomacho at 8:19 AM on October 29, 2004
The conclusion of this 30-year professional photo analyst that there's something under Bush's jacket does not, obviously, prove that Bush was being prompted. But man, those of you who are still sticking your fingers in your ears (and eyes? ouch) and saying NoNoNoNoNoThere'sNothingThere are more credulous than the No-Plane-Hit-the-Pentagon people. It's always been painfully obvious that there's something there, not a wrinkle on the suit (or, even less plausibly, on his shirt). So we know that Bush is flat-out lying to us. The only remaining question is what the thing is and why it's there. I'm still leaning toward a medical explanation. posted by soyjoy at 8:36 AM on October 29, 2004
Oh, but that said, I loved mildred-pitt's version. posted by soyjoy at 8:37 AM on October 29, 2004
So we know that Bush is flat-out lying to us.
I have no doubt about that either. I don't know if it were ever not thus, but people really do seem to believe whatever they want to believe about this President, more than any other public figure I can remember. The President has this almost cult-like following the can see no wrong in anything he does (as well as one on the other side the find fault with everything he does). It's incredible. I mean if instead of debating, Bush has stood on the podium, dropped his pants and waggled his genitalia for 45 minutes, the pundits on MSNBC and FOX would still be talking about how relaxed, fast on his feet and manly the president was. posted by psmealey at 8:43 AM on October 29, 2004
applying advanced sharpening techniques clearly shows that the milwaukee pamphlet was created by vincent van gogh's cat: posted by quonsar at 9:26 AM on October 29, 2004
The only remaining question is what the thing is and why it's there.
Why an electronic device on his back while on his ranch? Ranchbulge
i'm with soyjoy. of course there are obviously bigger issues, but it sure looks like something was in there. to categorically refuse to look at the evidence is silly.
from what i understand, body armor would clasp on the side. any experts here? posted by mrgrimm at 12:21 PM on October 29, 2004
"9 (a) (vi): The camera located at the rear of the stage shall be used only to take shots of the moderator."
i wonder which candidate's team requested that camera restriction. curious.
honestly, if i *had* to wager, and we could know for certain, i'd bet on a transmitter.
to ignore the issue b/c it won't sway any voters (which it won't) is a mistake. there are more important things than elections. posted by mrgrimm at 1:15 PM on October 29, 2004
>hose of you who are still sticking your fingers in your ears (and eyes? ouch) and saying NoNoNoNoNoThere'sNothingThere
You're right, there is something going on there. I just think its not terribly important right now with an election coming up.
A couple of the more credible theories I've heard:
1. Its medical. They wont say what it is as an ill president is a president who shouldnt be in office. Or at the very least it would kill his re-election chances.
2. Its some sort of specialized, lightweight body armor. Custom made probably with a GPS device and other goodies. The WH wouldnt mention this as it would scare people. "Why is the president wearing armor? Are we in danger?"
>body armor would clasp on the side
That's true. In fact, that bulge doesnt appear in normal body armor. But it might be the box that contains the GPS device and some other electronic gizmos in case Bush got kidnapped, hurt, etc.
3. Its a wire and Bush cheated during his debate. Or its a wire/computer/gps device all in one. That would explain its size. posted by skallas at 1:40 PM on October 29, 2004
Really. . . Is there anyone with two brain cells to rub together who thinks the President of the United States couldn't come up with a more easily concealed receiver unit if he wanted to cheat in the debate? My freaking cell phone is smaller than that "bulge." An undergrad E.E. student could have designed a receiver that fit completely within the ear canal, for goodness' sake.
I vote body armor or a medical monitoring device. Or crab people. posted by BrandonAbell at 4:21 PM on October 29, 2004
Or its a corset. Gotta look good for the ladies. posted by skallas at 11:42 PM on October 29, 2004
« Older
Prankishly pranky!...
| The Rumors On the Internets Ar...
Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Subscribe
posted by tsarfan at 10:56 PM on October 28, 2004