OpEdNews Op Eds        10/11/2004

Is Bush's other Brain in his Ear? The In-Ear Receiver that goes with Bush's Bulge in his Suit uses Wireless, In-ear-prompt Audio Technology that is Readily Available, Widely Used  

Author Unknown     Permalink
Related Topic(s): ; ; ; ; ; ; ;
- Advertisement -


Is Bush's other Brain in his Ear? The In-Ear Receiver that goes with Bush's Bulge in his Suit uses Wireless, In-ear-prompt Audio Technology that is Readily Available, Widely Used  

by Rob Kall, OpEdNews.com

The internet is abuzz with words and images speculating  that Bush used a bug to cheat in the first and possibly the second debate. There are pictures of a bulge in his back, reports of encyclopedic knowledge without notes by usually clueless Bush, pictures of what looks like something in his ear in earlier photos.... This article pulls together a number of these reports and also discusses the actual technology involved, which is widely used by the networks. In spite of this, the mainstream media are failing to report that they use this technology every day. 

It doesn't take much googling to dig up a trove of info on the technology it looks like George Bush has been using routinely in his presidential duties.

Just Google In-ear wireless invisible and you get over 600 Google "hits."

My contact in Europe, attorney  Robert Thompson, reports from France that the media there are covering it quite differently than the sold-out to right-wingers major media here.

"Great fun was had at the expense of the explanation put out by his propaganda machine that this was just an unfortunate and unnoticed crease in the material of the jacket.
- Advertisement -
"Since I have seen in Fahrenheit 9/11 the fastidious care taken to prepare Mr Bush for any kind of televised appearance, it is hard for me (or for the highly sceptical press and public in our country) to believe this version of events.   We were shown very carefully on the television how tiny the modern ear-pieces can be, since the presenter of the main breakfast-time show on public television wears one to remain informed of any problems.
"Until now, I had never noticed that he had this device right inside his right ear, and one had to look hard (and in extreme close-up) to detect its presence through the minute tag attached to enable it to be removed, even though he was pointing out to us exactly where it was."

Unfortunately, here in the USA, the media are supporting the Bush campaign team's story line-- accepting  a note from his tailor that it's just a crease. Then they go a step further and suggest that this is another conspiracy theory, like alien kidnapping.

- Advertisement -

But then there's the story on Bob Fertik's Democrats.com Bush's Interpreter Says Bush Uses Earpiece which says that interpreters have repeatedly observed  Bush to demonstrate  a level of encyclopedic knowledge, without any notes,  about obscure topics that is totally contrary to his nature.

And we know that the use of in-ear wireless audio prompters is widespread in the broadcasting industry. One retail source in New York said that the big networks buy directly from the manufacturer, to get better discounts, when they buy 100 at a time.

Another retailer selling this technology said,

"They are quite prevalent in the broadcasting industry. If you need to do it, there 's no reason not to do it, it 's not a credibility issue, unless you are, there again, doing something you shouldn 't be doing.  If you need it, you have a long script and a short amount of time to memorize it ... It 's not an ethical issue for broadcasters, it 's just a tool, unless you are doing something like we 're talking about to undermine a debate or get prompting from the back room. That 's something that is obviously wrong."

While marketers do use words like "invisible" to describe these devices, it's not totally true. My retailer source told me, "Broadcasters are usually shot from head on and usually, from head-on you can 't see it. You 'd have to get around to the side and actually look in the person 's ear to see it."

Asked about the potential of the president using it in a debate, he suggested it could be problematic, since anyone with a scanner radio receiver could pick up the transmission.

I asked if there are specific bandwidths the device works with and there are --specific radio frequencies the FCC allows for this kind of application.

But we 're talking about the president of the United States here, who runs the FCC. Could  the device be modified to use bandwidths that are not monitored?. He confirmed that this could be done, and added that when he was in the Navy, 20 years ago, they used to do it all the time. After all, the usage was for the US government. That takes care of that objection.

Then he added an interesting comment, "Somebody with a spectrum analyzer could detect and then tune to it."

I replied, "So, for the next debate, if someone wants to hang around  there with a spectrum analyzer, they might be able to pick it up."

And he answered, "In fact, I 'm betting that somebody will do something like that, because it would be a heck of a scandal wouldn 't it. Everybody suspects it now, but I 'm sure nobody had the proper equipment on hand that night."

Next, we discussed the details of the actual physical aspects of the technology. The receiver is a little bigger than a cigarette pack, which fits the bulge in the pictures perfectly. It was about halfway down his back, which would be an ideal place for it, in relation to the loop and the consideration that the wire between the loop and the receiver acts as an antenna. It couldn't be much closer than that.

Finally, my source confirmed that this technology is widely used by the broadcast media, saying "

Most networks use these as interrupt feedback --IFB --any newscaster that you ever looked at will have that. It 's the channel for the director to talk to the talent. Twenty years ago you could see the wire. They 've just done away with the wire now." 

You have to wonder, with this technology being so common, why the mainstream networks are pretending this is such a far-fetched idea. 

Bush's handlers are offering denials. For example, Rory O'Connor,  reports that he contacted Mark McKinnon, media director for the Bush re-election campaign and that McKinnon replied to O'connor's inquiry about Bush's use of such a device: "The president has never been assisted by any audio signal. "

It's a funny way of replying. He could have just said Bush is not using any kind of technology. But no, he was very specific, so specific that it could be that he said what looks like a general answer but that is actually a highly technical answer that begs the question, while looking like denying it in its entirety. The signal that is actually transmitted is either radio frequency or cell phone signal. The actual sound is produced by a speaker that is not a signal, but rather, an electronically generated sound. So he may be telling the truth that he has never been assisted by an audio signal. But that still leaves open the question of whether Bush has been cheating with an assistive device.

Why would Bush wear a wireless ear-implant prompter during a debate?  E.A. Peterson, III says, in his article That Mystery Bulge: Did Mr. Bush Cheat During The First Debate?

"The motive is elementary: he's a relatively inarticulate man who lapses into mythologized stock phrases and embarrassing malapropisms whenever he tries to think on his feet. A bad performance in the first debate would reinforce the line of ridicule that says he's the puppet and Dick Cheney's the ventriloquist."

Peterson, an attorney, further observes,

"Additionally, there is circumstantial evidence to consider. It shows that Mr. Bush paused at length several times during the debate before answering questions, with his eyes strangely gazing downward at his lectern, as though he was listening to someone's voice. At one point, Mr. Bush evidently forgot that electronic cheating is a covert operation, and spoke in words that clearly did not fit the debate's context at that time, but which made sense only if they were directed to his remotely-located debating coach. [2]

"To summarize, the hard visual evidence clearly indicates the presence a convex rectangular object on Mr. Bush's back, and the circumstantial evidence corroborates that its dastardly purpose was to enable him to cheat.

"Therefore, a prima facie case had been made, and the burden of proof shifted to the White House to answer this question: "If it was not an electronic device, exactly what phenomenon caused that convex rectangular shape to appear on Mr. Bush's back, or precisely what function did that hump perform?"

It's not against the law to use a prompter in a debate. But it's an unprincipled, dishonest deception.  It is no surprise, nothing that we really should not have expected. We've seen him as a dumb puppet anyway. This just adds to the evidence. But there is one area where the blame should be heaped-- the media.

This should one of the top stories covered on the presidential trail. The media should be running coverage in high rotation, demonstrating and showing how the technology is legitimately and routinely used by anchors and broadcasters. By attesting to the technology's widespread use, the broadcast media would change the perception of the technology, so it did not seem so exotic and unlikely to be abused.

If it was Kerry under the gun on this issue, the right wing media would be what-iffing  like crazy, suggesting what a total dishonest, no-integrity slime Kerry would be if it were true.

With Bush's reputation for being a puppet, this cheating in the debate reverberates through the whole puppet-on-a-string image. There's a book titled Bush's Brain, about Karl Rove. Perhaps Bush's Brain is in his ear. It is not a surprise for close to half the US population and most of the rest of the humans on this planet.

a source to check for continuing updates on this is: http://www.isbushwired.com/

Rob Kall rob@opednews.com  is publisher of progressive news and opinion website www.opednews.com and organizer of cutting edge meetings that bring together world leaders, such as the Winter Brain Meeting and the StoryCon Summit Meeting on the Art, Science and Application of Story This article is copyright Rob Kall and originally published by opednews.com but permission is granted for reprint in print, email, blog or web media so long as this credit paragraph is attached.  Over 100 other articles by Rob Kall  


The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Writers Guidelines

Contact EditorContact Editor
Related Topic(s): ; ; ; ; ; ; ;
- Advertisement -