TV on the Radio
A posting from a reader who says he spoke recently with an audio engineer for a major media outlet:"He said he was on site setting up for one of the debates. At these on sites they are required to scan the area for RF interference. He said his specrum analyzer picked up several RF bands that were not in the Secret Service saftey frequencies. He said, upon him asking questions of his supervisors about these frequencies, he was approached by 'officials' telling him to 'go blind immedeately' and to forget what he saw and to keep his eyes and ears out of those bands.
All of those RFs are encoded, including the ones used by the networks. He indicated that there may be people, engineers, thatr may hve 'accidentally' left their SAs on and maybe recorded some of the stuff. Now this is *highly* illegal (thank you FCC) but there may be proof out there.."
The above is beyond us, technically and legally, but we're putting it up for what it's worth. Another reader suggested that an infrared/thermographic camera might reveal the device the president is wearing. Doubtful that would be permitted, however, as wouldn't it show his Underoos, too? IsBushWired urges all electronic sleuths to avoid using any technology for tonight's debate that's not entirely legal, harmless and peaceful. Ignorance of the law is no excuse, so if you're not sure, consult a very good lawyer first, or ask your local ACLU. Another resource is the Electronic Freedom Frontier (www.eff.org).
Over and out! Later, debaters!
**********************************************
Calling on the AFP
A simple way for major news media, you with all your millions in resources, to check out the "prompter vs. repeater" theory:
Chirac is said by people who saw it on TV to react visibly to the second voice speaking Bush's lines -- whether it was a repeater for generating closed-captions or a prompter -- in the June press briefing at the Elysee Palace. This is froma posting on Portland Indymedia:
"His buddy, Chirac somehow had a mic on Bush AND whoever it is that speaks to him. You could hear "rove"? say a sentence then Bush repeat it exactly the same way...word for word. He just continued on thru it, but when it was over, he acted very paranoid looking all around. Like he was wondering what was to come next. Cherac
had a VERY HUGE smile, winked and nodded as they left. It was a beautiful sight!"
Many reporters and officials in the audience that day should be able to tell us: Did the voice that was heard precede Bush's in real time? If so, he was using a prompter. If it followed Bush's voice (again in real time, at the event) then it was likely that of a live-human-being hired to repeat speech into a text-generating engine for closed captioning.
It is odd, as readers have pointed out, that this unsynced audio phenomenon doesn't seem to happen with other officials and live news events, only with some of Bush's speeches. In addition to the Chirac-Bush event, television viewers in some places heard a voice speaking Bush's lines before he did during his 9/11 address. The new Salon story says there are also reports of a prompter-like voice heard at Bush's remarks at the Sea Island G-8 summit meeting in June as well. But it doesn't say if that voice was heard in real-time by the audience, or on a broadcast.
All of those RFs are encoded, including the ones used by the networks. He indicated that there may be people, engineers, thatr may hve 'accidentally' left their SAs on and maybe recorded some of the stuff. Now this is *highly* illegal (thank you FCC) but there may be proof out there.."
The above is beyond us, technically and legally, but we're putting it up for what it's worth. Another reader suggested that an infrared/thermographic camera might reveal the device the president is wearing. Doubtful that would be permitted, however, as wouldn't it show his Underoos, too? IsBushWired urges all electronic sleuths to avoid using any technology for tonight's debate that's not entirely legal, harmless and peaceful. Ignorance of the law is no excuse, so if you're not sure, consult a very good lawyer first, or ask your local ACLU. Another resource is the Electronic Freedom Frontier (www.eff.org).
Over and out! Later, debaters!
**********************************************
Calling on the AFP
A simple way for major news media, you with all your millions in resources, to check out the "prompter vs. repeater" theory:
Chirac is said by people who saw it on TV to react visibly to the second voice speaking Bush's lines -- whether it was a repeater for generating closed-captions or a prompter -- in the June press briefing at the Elysee Palace. This is from
"His buddy, Chirac somehow had a mic on Bush AND whoever it is that speaks to him. You could hear "rove"? say a sentence then Bush repeat it exactly the same way...word for word. He just continued on thru it, but when it was over, he acted very paranoid looking all around. Like he was wondering what was to come next. Cherac
had a VERY HUGE smile, winked and nodded as they left. It was a beautiful sight!"
Many reporters and officials in the audience that day should be able to tell us: Did the voice that was heard precede Bush's in real time? If so, he was using a prompter. If it followed Bush's voice (again in real time, at the event) then it was likely that of a live-human-being hired to repeat speech into a text-generating engine for closed captioning.
It is odd, as readers have pointed out, that this unsynced audio phenomenon doesn't seem to happen with other officials and live news events, only with some of Bush's speeches. In addition to the Chirac-Bush event, television viewers in some places heard a voice speaking Bush's lines before he did during his 9/11 address. The new Salon story says there are also reports of a prompter-like voice heard at Bush's remarks at the Sea Island G-8 summit meeting in June as well. But it doesn't say if that voice was heard in real-time by the audience, or on a broadcast.
15 Comments:
If this allegation (as I believe) has an ounce of truth to it.. how can we be so sure that it won't happen on the third and last debate. Also, will Karl Rover be accounted for while Bush is at the podium, or will he be conveniently absent?
Section 11 of the debate memorandum of understanding requires direct television feeds to each candidate's private dressing and staff rooms - that's where Karl is. Take a look at the rules:
http://www.johnkerry.com/pdf/pr_2004_0920b.pdf
To clarify your post:
A spectrum analyzer (call it some kind of radio-scanner if you like) has been used to 'find' frequencies in this case. Secret Services has certain specific frequencies available in case of emergencies.
All the frequencies they found were encrypted - including the ones used by television networks apparently (which by the way is odd, at least in Europe - usually no-one does that: it's unnecessary, more expensive and things can go wrong). Some technicians may have recorded some of the encrypted signals (making it possible to decrypt them later - depending on the type of encryption: wideband encrypted signals can't be recorded with standard audio equipment).
The only ways to stop this are:
- trace the signal to its source - pretty easy with low power transmitters
- jam the signal (may or may not be illegal - depends on the frequency etc.)
- strip-search both debaters before they may enter the debates ;)
Hey! According to the Democratic campaign, Kerry is already 3 and 0. So listening to you Anonymous types who are too lazy or scared to sign into a blog which is already leaning your way is like watching you try to masterbate after you had prematurely ejaculated.
That was constructive.
Signed: Anonymous McNonexistant.
What someone should try is PMMW - it's better than IR as it can peer through clothing. Metal objects (e.g. guns or circuit boards) are distinct from organic material).
http://www.angelfire.com/nj3/soundweapon/millivision.htm
This amazing article about the timeline of Bush's activities on 9/11 shows extreme discrepancies between what the White House has related versus the many media reports and eyewitness accounts. The author has researched this incredibly well, making the discrepancies clearly understood. We are under the impression that Andrew Card told Bush of the first plane in the classroom; the timeline and media reports reveal it was the second plane. There were reported to be two attempts on Bush's life on 9/11 before the planes hit the buildings. The American people must know how incompetently this situation was handled by "The War President," who claims to be the one who can lead us in the war against terror.
If you read this article, you will see that protecting Bush was not a top priority on 9/11, but protecting Cheney was. I think that the Republicans that encouraged Bush to run for President really wanted Cheney to be President. Cheney was part of an extreme right-wing group that wanted to invade Iraq years before the 2000 election. Bush was not a member. Many of the members of that group are now part of the Administration. Cheney was not electable due to his medical condition. They feigned a search for V.P., making Cheney the person to lead it, knowing full well all along that Cheney would be the choice. They knew that Bush had a chance to be elected for several reasons. His father was President, he was ambitious, he was a born-again Christian, and he would get support from Republicans and evangelicals across the country. Cheney did not have the personality to be the top of the ticket. Bush, who has ridden his father's coattails his whole life, was not intelligent enough to be President. But that didn't matter. After Bush was elected by the Supreme Court, this group has limited his news conferences to keep him from showing his lack of ability. There are strong reports that Bush has been wired since he started campaigning in 1999. The photographs from the debates are unequivocal. Bush only needed to be fed the lines to appear as if he was making the decisions. On 9/11, it took hours for fighter jets to reach Air Force One, but Cheney was hustled to the bunker immediately. Bush appeared to be out of the loop for several hours, while Cheney was giving orders. Bush showed himself in the first debate. That is the limit of his ability. In debate 2, it is clear that he was wired and being fed the lines. The receiver was strapped to his waist under the first button, with the wire under his tie. HIs suit creased around the receiver when he changed positions while standing. When he shifted his tie, the wire became visible. He shifted something at his waist several times during the 2nd debate, obviously he was uncomfortable. The wire is clearly visible going up the left side of his back. His speech patterns and eye movements indicated he was listening while he spoke. Is Bush the one making decisions, or is it Cheney? Cheney clearly had a better handle on what is going on than Mr. "hard work." Someone needs to investigate who is really running this county. Please read the article at the link below.
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline/main/essayaninterestingday.html
EFF stands for Electronic Frontier Foundation, not "Electronic Freedom Frontier"
I was looking for a the man in Bushs ear all over.
Good that I eventually found this site.
I am living in germany and am watching Bush very closely,since he got elected.
Some months ago I got the proof.
On CNN I watched a meeting of Bush with Chirac and
something went really wrong.
Some (very loud) speaker told everything BEFORE
Bush repeated it.
It was a male voice.
I believe there has been some mixup in the wireing,
as noone seemed to take any notice of the little
voice in Bushs ear.
Also you could NOT see any device in Bushs ear.
(what about an implanted chip ?)
Anyway, I couldnt believe my ears.It was obvious,that
the presidents words where nothing more then copied from the other voice,that could by some mistake been
heard (even louder then the rest of the broadcast).
I always had the feeling,because you can always see,that there is a long pause between sentences ,when the president speaks.
But what makes me wonder is,how could the CNN staff
tap into the frequency and make it available for the public ?Also funny,that you couldnt find anything in the news after the happening.
And in the debate,where he accedently got mixed up with Saddam and Bin Laden,who was the culprit ?
Bush or the man in his ear?
Has anyone more info on the Bush/Chirac case on CNN?
Is there a copy to be found on the net?
marco
So everyone dismisses the wired Bush because he did so poorly,
the logic being that he would have done better if he was repeating
what was said in his ear.
Wrong, here's how went down. Bush is always in his bubble,
he doesn't even know what's going on in the race. So his first
debate prepping consisted of learning to tune out
whatever Kerry is saying. He need only to repeat what
is said into his ear mic. What went wrong? Bush
listened to Kerry and got mad and decided to debate
him on his own. He was out of his puppetmaster's
control. That is why he said, "let me finish!" when
no one was stopping him, he was arguing with his
puppeteer that no one else knew about. Monkeys
sometimes have a mind of their own even if that mind is
very small and the amphibian part is controlling.
THE PRESIDENT WAS WIRED FOR SOUND AT THE RNC
George W. Bush was wearing a radio receiver during his "grand appearance" on the RNC stage at Madison Square Garden, because his head jerked back -- about three-quarters of the way through his speech -- upon being informed of protestors in the aisles. (Hey, the man is America's Commander-in-Chief and SHOULD be reachable by any means available, including wire, but why the denials?)
I thought he had suffered some sort of neurological attack and wrote of it on Yahoo's Message Board. One of my respondents claimed that the President was wearing a tiny audio-device (in his left ear, I believe), and I'm now firmly convinced that he was.
Once again, here's the disturbing part about all of this: Why would Mr. Bush disavow something so plausible ...something that would be so readily accepted, as an explanation, by the public?
speaking as someone who has taken part in manufacturing, wearing, testing, and approving bullet proof vests. i can assure you all (and im a kerry supporter!) that dubbya was wearing a bullet proof vest during the debate (can you blame him?). not saying he wasn't "wired" (not ref to cocaine..even though we all know dubbya's done his share), but the bulge in his clothes is a bullet proof vest. he prob wont admit it, because "we are safer than we were 4 years ago". if that's the case...he obviously doesn't believe it himself. i can't believe no one else caught on to what it actually was in his coat. either way, he's proven, once again, that he is simply a liar....and a bad one at that! thanx
speaking as someone who has taken part in manufacturing, wearing, testing, and approving bullet proof vests. i can assure you all (and im a kerry supporter!) that dubbya was wearing a bullet proof vest during the debate (can you blame him?). not saying he wasn't "wired" (not ref to cocaine..even though we all know dubbya's done his share), but the bulge in his clothes is a bullet proof vest. he prob wont admit it, because "we are safer than we were 4 years ago". if that's the case...he obviously doesn't believe it himself. i can't believe no one else caught on to what it actually was in his coat. either way, he's proven, once again, that he is simply a liar....and a bad one at that! thanx
Hey there I dislike Bush more than almost anyone I know, and I love "conspiracy" stories at least that much, but I like objective analysis more than either.
I watched the Bush-Chirac vid and noticed that the so called 'phantom words' are actually said by Bush himself.
Watch the video yourself, and watch Bush's mouth. It matches, exactly, the words that are being said. Looks like they didn't switch to Bush's mic quickly enough, and the first few words of his sentence weren't amplified properly.
Don't believe me? Like I said, go watch the video yourself.
I watched the video before it got taken off of youtube. It isn't bush saying his words and then repeating them...he says them after the other voice says them...the two voices are distinctly different...when I read your account I thought that you must be a plant of some kind to suggest that Bush hadn't really been prompted...the proof is in the pudding...I don't think it is Karl Rove, though...it is a shocking video, does anyone have a copy to forward to me?
Post a Comment
<< Home