It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Is Hillary Cheating Again?

page: 10
25
<< 7  8  9   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 12:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Vroomfondel

may i was why you are convinced its not connected to the very obvious microphone at her lapel - that thing needs power // amp and transmitter .




posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 01:48 PM
link   
the debate commission just announced that there were strange things going on with Donald Trump's microphone and they're trying to get to the bottom of it.



posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 02:03 PM
link   
Hillary Clinton colluded with the contractors to rig Donald Trump microphone



posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 02:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: carewemust
Hillary Clinton colluded with the contractors to rig Donald Trump microphone


What do YOU think they did to the mic?
And for what reason?



posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 02:13 PM
link   
a reply to: CigaretteByrnes

the debate commission is investigating what happened and will report back eventually.



posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 02:26 PM
link   
Seeing that she is a career politician...if her mouth is moving,she is lying.
If she is seen kissing babies she is probably stealing their lollipops at the
same time.



posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 02:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: CigaretteByrnes

the debate commission is investigating what happened and will report back eventually.



But seriously....what could possibly be the scenario? I can't think of anything. If the debate commission is really looking into it, # must be real.

Again though, I really don't see an angle here. Someone help!!



posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 02:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: mamabeth
Seeing that she is a career politician...if her mouth is moving,she is lying.
If she is seen kissing babies she is probably stealing their lollipops at the
same time.


That's it?



posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 02:51 PM
link   
a reply to: CigaretteByrnes

Yep,what more do you want? This is it in a nutshell!



posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 02:54 PM
link   
a reply to: ignorant_ape

I will recap what I have said throughout this thread. There are several reasons.

1) Professionals and sound technician instructors indicate that the proper way to wear a Lavalier mic is put the pack in the small of the back, then run the wire around the waist, under the breast, and to the mic at the lapel area. This is the way a Lavalier mic is worn for multiple reasons. It is desirable to prevent the wires from causing distraction by keeping them hidden. It is also necessary to keep the wires from being restricting or accidentally dislodged. It is also desirable to route the wires in a way that causes the least discomfort for the wearer and requires the least amount of attachment such as surgical tape which is most commonly used. The idea is to run the mic wire around the waist where garments are typically a little looser and under the breast area especially on women where the fabric of the garment, for obvious reasons, is not directly in contact with the skin. This allows easy concealment of the wire. The brassiere can also be used to secure the wire in place making additional surgical tape unnecessary. I also wear this type of mic and have put many on other people. You never run a wire under clothing up over a shoulder from the small of the back. It simply isn't done that way. You take a shorter route around the waist. Wires run over the shoulder can be caught in tension and become uncomfortable or even be dislodged by movement from the wearer. There is almost no type of movement that will dislodge a mic wire run around the waist.

2) The picture showing hillary from the front that I posted earlier shows the size of the mic wire. It is 1.5mm, the same as on iphone ear buds. That is a very small wire. If you look at the size of the bulge running straight up the middle of her back all the way to her hair line and presumably beyond you can tell there is no way a 1.5mm wire could have created that large bulge. The fabric of her garment was fairly heavy. It was not silk, for example. Imagine a small wire like a speaker wire running under a throw rug. The wire diameter is far too small for the rug to draw in around it and conform to its contour. The rug would simply pass over it with little to no deflection and the wire would barely be visible if at all. Now imagine the same scenario with a heavy duty extension cord. The bulge under the rug would be very noticeable. The rug would be more likely to follow the contour of the cord. Now scale that down to the size of the mic wire and the thickness of her garment. That wire should be nearly undetectable yet it appears clearly and very large running straight up the middle of her back all the way to the nape of her neck and disappears under her hair. Looking at the mic wire from the front it is obvious that small wire could not have made that large bulge on her back.

3) If the 1.5mm mic wire did somehow make that large bulge on her back, why then was it so plainly visible all the way up to when it disappeared under her hair, but not when it allegedly turned sharply to the left, ran across her shoulder, and down the front of her chest? How did they keep that wire that supposedly came from the middle of the base of her neck from being seen in the neck opening of that garment? Remember, it disappeared under her hair in the middle of the back of her neck, but was not visible at all around her neck from the side or the front. That, and the knowledge that Lavalier mics are not wired that way, suggest that the wire in question went somewhere else, presumably beyond her collar under her hair. That would be the only reason to route the wire that way in the first place.

Others have suggested that the wire is visible from the front but the alleged wire is much smaller than the wire on her back. I suggest that what the other people are seeing is in fact part of the brassiere. Her garment is tight on her shoulder, as is the case with most garments - gravity. The straps of a brassiere are not usually visible because they pull down in to the skin and appear flush under the garment at the shoulder. A mic wire would NEVER be pulled that tight. Any wire that could make a bulge that large on her back would certainly be visible on her shoulder as well, if someone routed hillary incorrectly on the night of the most important debate in her life.

Again, I can not be certain what that large wire running up the middle of her back was. Whether it was some kind of medical device, or some other audio device, I don't know. There are too many possibilities for me to just randomly pick one and assert it as correct. But I am certain it was not a mic wire.



new topics

top topics



 
25
<< 7  8  9   >>

log in

join