Salon.com presents some of the most compelling visual evidence that President Bush was wearing some kind of rectangular device on his back under the jacket of his suit during the last presidential debate with Senator Kerry. A cord or tube appears to run down his back from the device, and another cord may run from the device up to his shoulders.
So far, I have seen no hint about what this device could be for. Somehow related to his physical security? Health? A “cheating” device for the debate?
(If there has already been discussion at the SDMB about this, I didn’t find it searching under the keywords “Bush jacket debate”.)
I found what I was looking for: It could be the pad and wiring part of a TENS unit (Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulator) for back pain. Maybe he doesn’t like to talk about his medical problems.
Somehow I couldn’t help thinking of Robert Heinlein’s The Puppet Masters. Maybe we should require all participants in the debate to strip to the waist :D.
Our elections are already skewed enough for superficial reasons… why add to it?
I think we should do just the opposite… lock all candidates in isolated oubliettes until after the campaigns. Let 'em communicate via tin cans and string.
Hmmm, my first thought is to really doubt it’s a cheating device. I mean receivers can be particularly small nowadays and wearing one on your back like that is just, odd. Would you not wear it on your waist, or side, it just doesn’t seem like a good place to hide something.
I think the pain idea might have some merit, I could see why you might not want to use painkillers before going into the debate.
BUT I’m still dubious about the picture. If you look at it the right hand side of the ‘box’ is right where GWBs shoulder blade would be and he’s in the right position for his shoulder blade to be sticking out if his hands are together. Which leaves the line froming the base of the ‘box’ and the ‘wire’.
The base of the box could easily be a fold or a crease, or perhaps an alteration inside the jacket designed to make it sit better. The thing that looks like a wire does seem odd but, again, that’s a pretty meaty wire when there would be better and smaller wires they could use. Plus if he’s looking to the side in that picture that could create a crease in that way.
My guess is the jacket was ‘altered’ to make it sit better, maybe last minute with tape or something on the inside. This, coupled with his movements and position, could very well lead to a picture like that.
I may be wrong and there may be something there but I think it’s unlikely to be something to help him ‘cheat’ at the debates.
I discount the cheating theory as I believe one couldn’t possibly be so inept as to cheat AND do so poorly. What it is, we shall likely never know. My guess is some sort of medical device.
I realize it’s no fun to have a simple, plausible answer that doesn’t support hatred and ridicule of Bush, but his tailor – who should know – said it was the fabric bunching up.
From here: http://www.jsonline.com/news/nat/oct04/265245.asp :
“Georges de Paris, who made the suit Bush wore, said the bulge was nothing more than a pucker along the jacket’s back seam, accentuated when the president crossed his arms and leaned forward.”
Google on bush jacket back debate tailor for more.
Apply Occam’s Razor. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
How so? Do you know what your clothes look like in back? Do you understand enough about fit and drape to explain why they look that way? I don’t, and I daresay the majority of folks who aren’t tailors don’t.
Perhaps Bush, the non-tailor, really thought it was due to a shirt bunching up under the jacket. Or perhaps he was thinking jacket but said shirt. It wouldn’t be the first time he fumbled a word. After all the fun poked at him for various speaking gaffes, it seems ludicrous to hold him to verbal exactitude in this instance.
If it was a medical device you would expect to see it at other events, although it’s still possible that that was the only time he has had to wear it in public.
Well, to be fair, they are not using CSI as a cite, just a reference point so that people will know what they are talking about.
Also, at what point does sharpening a picture become altering it? If you adjust the brightness on an overly dark picture or change the contrast, is that “altering” it?
Okay, not a cite, but not a valid reference either. Magnification is not the same as sharpening.
I would say it’s altered. It looks different, doesn’t it? Also, sharpening is different than modifying brightness. Once sharpened, an image cannot be returned to its original state. Not all pixels are treated equally in a sharpening filter.
Note that I’m not saying the man’s process was flawed, or the results produced aren’t interesting. I’m saying the author of the article is ignorant of the process. Blatently so.
