Nov. 1, 2004

bush bulge reappears]

That's probably the most reasonable assertion I've heard yet. However, it seems to me that either scenario; a receiver for voice or a transmitter for a "LoJack"-type signal, still falls short on the basis that neither requires a device that bulky. I'll admit that I'm not an expert on these sorts of electronic devices, but I have seen various transmitter tags used to track animals over large areas and they can be made extremely small. These however are merely directional and not of the precision that one might suppose the Secret Service would want to use. Another possibility for a voice receiver having to be so big however might be that it uses a special technology that isn't able to be picked up by any normal scanning and receiving device that might be monitoring for just such a cheat taking place, as was the case with James Randy when he nailed televangelist Peter Popoff years ago doing precisely that. Gary Williams Mark Kernes wrote: > on 10/30/04 7:27 AM, Preston Peet wrote: > > >> I was sorry to see during John Stewart's visit to CNN's Crossfire >> that he apparently hadn't yet heard about the bulge under Bush's >> coat during the debates, as I'd have loved to hear his opinion on >> what it possibly is/was. I was also disappointed in Paul Begala's >> immediate and enthusiastic assertion that the bulge was merely a >> myth, that it wasn't really there, pushing the White House line >> that it was merely wrinkled clothing, when it so obviously was >> something under that coat, at least from how it looked(s) watching >> the actual moving footage (and now the still images in this new >> Salon article below). I don't suppose it really "matters" in the >> long run, but still, I'm curious as to whether Bush was really >> receiving coaching during the debates or not- and if not, what was >> that thing? > > > I have it on reasonably good authority that it's essentially a > presidential LoJack, so the Secret Service will know where he is at > all times. > > Mark Kernes, Sr. Ed., AVN >

No comments: