Is Hillary Cheating Again?

a reply to: Vroomfondel

She was leaning forward pulling the fabric tighter across her back.

a reply to: Vroomfondel

Please explain how a 1.5mm wire can make a mound that large.

How do you know what size the wire is? Was it attached with gaffer's tape?

Second, explaining why it is visible in that pic does not explain why it is not visible coming over her shoulder or around her neck.

Look at the link I provided, some Lav mics have cables that go to a smaller gauge as it gets close to the mic.

If the garment was stretched tight as she leaned over and reached to shake hands it would have more clearly shown a 1.5mm wire, not the large mass seen in the photo.

Large mass? Where you able to accurately measure that "mass"?

If the wire was that visible on her back it would have to be visible on her neck and shoulder also, but it isnt.

Not necessarily. It was someone's job to make sure the cords were not visible. You just happened to have gotten a little view when she bent over and reached out.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
Hilary most likely cheated by knowing the questions beforehand, not by having someone dictate directions to a little earpiece. Her canned responses were well-rehearsed.

Preparation and intelligent answers will appear to some as cheating when the candidate they support is utterly incapable of the same.

Hillary's performance was only slightly above average for a given politician. What made that performance stand-out is that she was sharing the stage with an angry idiot incapable of intelligible arguments.

Did she cheat by making Donald Trump emotionally eject disparate collages of unrelated phrases and talking points?

At one point Donald Trump angrily rambled on about Sean Hannity, Madison Avenue and the Iraq war and capped it off by claiming he had a better temperament than her...and the audience spontaneously burst into laughter..

That's summarizes Trump's performance at the debate in a nutshell.

People who win debates do not search for conspiracies to explain their performance.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Vroomfondel

She was leaning forward pulling the fabric tighter across her back.

I know that. I acknowledged that. Please explain how it became so much larger than the diameter of the wire itself and why that large wire was not visible on her neck or shoulder and why the mic was worn incorrectly...

originally posted by: Vroomfondel

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Vroomfondel

You are making something out of nothing.

1st, take a look at this google search result. There are many lav mics that use two separated gauges of wires. A thicker line that eventually leads to a smaller gauge as it connects to the mic, or have a thicker gauge altogether.

2nd, Hillary is bending down and reaching out, which would put pressure on her jacket and force it against her back. That is why you can see it so well.

Hey! Don't you know? Logic and sound reasoning is liberal bias? Hillary is a cheater because Vroomfondel says she wants to get away with anything, Hillary supporters will defend anything, and he doesn't approve of the way she wears her microphone. That is all the evidence that should be needed to factually confirm her being a cheater. Duh!

It could also appear to be a bigger wire if the person that placed the mic on Hillary used gaffer's tape to hold it in place. That is quite common.

I'm sorry but that is incorrect. If a mic wire is taped in place it is done with a 1" long 1/4" wide piece of tape similar to a small bandaid, not gaffers tape all the way up a persons back. Again, it simply isn't done like that.

There is no standard size of tape that is used universally. It all depends on the person, the mic and the clothes they are wearing.

There is no conspiracy here, V.

originally posted by: Vroomfondel

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Vroomfondel

She was leaning forward pulling the fabric tighter across her back.

I know that. I acknowledged that. Please explain how it became so much larger than the diameter of the wire itself and why that large wire was not visible on her neck or shoulder and why the mic was worn incorrectly...

What was the diameter of the wire? Not all mics are the same. Did you have access to measure that wire?

originally posted by: Iscool
Really??? Since when does a wireless microphone require a wire running up yer back???

Ever since it required a power source, which is... always. Haven't you ever seen one of these things before? Where have you been living for the past 30 years? Mars?

I've used a wireless lapel mic on many occasions. They consist of a battery powered transmitter pack (typically worn on the belt, or placed under clothing on the wearer's back) that connects to the mic via a 3.5mm audio jack. The transmitter sends a signal to a receiver that's connected to the venue's audio system.



Very simple.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Vroomfondel

Please explain how a 1.5mm wire can make a mound that large.

How do you know what size the wire is? Was it attached with gaffer's tape?

Second, explaining why it is visible in that pic does not explain why it is not visible coming over her shoulder or around her neck.

Look at the link I provided, some Lav mics have cables that go to a smaller gauge as it gets close to the mic.

If the garment was stretched tight as she leaned over and reached to shake hands it would have more clearly shown a 1.5mm wire, not the large mass seen in the photo.

Large mass? Where you able to accurately measure that "mass"?

If the wire was that visible on her back it would have to be visible on her neck and shoulder also, but it isnt.

Not necessarily. It was someone's job to make sure the cords were not visible. You just happened to have gotten a little view when she bent over and reached out.

Because the mic wire diameter is 1.5mm. Mic wires are not attached with gaffers tape all the way up a persons back.

I did look at the link. The wires from the battery to the wireless are larger. From the wireless to the mic they are 1.5mm.

I did not have to measure it to know it is larger than it should be. The lump running up the middle of her back was not made by a 1.5mm wire. And no self respecting professional would have put a mic on her routing the wire that way. And I seriously doubt that Hillary would let anyone run a strip of gaffers tape all the way up her back and around her neck.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Vroomfondel

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Vroomfondel

She was leaning forward pulling the fabric tighter across her back.

I know that. I acknowledged that. Please explain how it became so much larger than the diameter of the wire itself and why that large wire was not visible on her neck or shoulder and why the mic was worn incorrectly...

What was the diameter of the wire? Not all mics are the same. Did you have access to measure that wire?

No, not all mics are the same. However, Snopes posted pics of the type of Lavalier mics the candidates used. The wire diameter of that mic set is 1.5mm with a 3.5mm jack.

a reply to: Vroomfondel

Because the mic wire diameter is 1.5mm. Mic wires are not attached with gaffers tape all the way up a persons back.

How do you know the diameter of the wire? Again, ,not all mics are the same.

And no self respecting professional would have put a mic on her routing the wire that way. And I seriously doubt that Hillary would let anyone run a strip of gaffers tape all the way up her back and around her neck.

How a mic is ran depends on many factors. Are they going to be standing, sitting, behind a podium?

Did you know that in some cases the packs are strapped to the speaker's ankle and the wire is ran up their pants?

It's best to try to keep the wire as straight as possible and sometimes you have to tie a knot it the wire.

It all depends on many factors.

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
Mic wires are not attached with gaffers tape all the way up a persons back.

Where's this gaffer tape you keep talking about?

I did look at the link. The wires from the battery to the wireless are larger. From the wireless to the mic they are 1.5mm.

I did not have to measure it to know it is larger than it should be. The lump running up the middle of her back was not made by a 1.5mm wire.

The bulge looks larger because of the way the fabric folds around it.

And no self respecting professional would have put a mic on her routing the wire that way.

Absolute nonsense. I've seen plenty of professionally installed mics routed that way.

originally posted by: Vroomfondel

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Vroomfondel

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Vroomfondel

She was leaning forward pulling the fabric tighter across her back.

I know that. I acknowledged that. Please explain how it became so much larger than the diameter of the wire itself and why that large wire was not visible on her neck or shoulder and why the mic was worn incorrectly...

What was the diameter of the wire? Not all mics are the same. Did you have access to measure that wire?

No, not all mics are the same. However, Snopes posted pics of the type of Lavalier mics the candidates used. The wire diameter of that mic set is 1.5mm with a 3.5mm jack.

Ok. Now you have to prove that "lump" on her back was caused by something different than a lav mic.

Provide some measurements please. No eyeballing.

originally posted by: MongolianPaellaFish

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
Mic wires are not attached with gaffers tape all the way up a persons back.

Where's this gaffer tape you keep talking about?

I did look at the link. The wires from the battery to the wireless are larger. From the wireless to the mic they are 1.5mm.

I did not have to measure it to know it is larger than it should be. The lump running up the middle of her back was not made by a 1.5mm wire.

The bulge looks larger because of the way the fabric folds around it.

And no self respecting professional would have put a mic on her routing the wire that way.

Absolute nonsense. I've seen plenty of professionally installed mics routed that way.

I want talking about gaffers tape. Introvert said it was used to tape the mic wire in place and that was why it looked so large under her garment. No one uses gaffers tape. They use small pieces of surgical tape more often than not.

Fabric doesn't fold around something 1.5mm in diameter. And if it does, why didn't it happen on her shoulder too?

You and I have obviously seen different professionals. And I was referring to the use of gaffers tape as well as the routing of the wire. Most women prefer the wire to run around their waist then under the breast to the lapel. Its just the way its done. Sorry, but that is how it is.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Vroomfondel

Because the mic wire diameter is 1.5mm. Mic wires are not attached with gaffers tape all the way up a persons back.

How do you know the diameter of the wire? Again, ,not all mics are the same.

And no self respecting professional would have put a mic on her routing the wire that way. And I seriously doubt that Hillary would let anyone run a strip of gaffers tape all the way up her back and around her neck.

How a mic is ran depends on many factors. Are they going to be standing, sitting, behind a podium?

Did you know that in some cases the packs are strapped to the speaker's ankle and the wire is ran up their pants?

It's best to try to keep the wire as straight as possible and sometimes you have to tie a knot it the wire.

It all depends on many factors.

I know the diameter of the wire because of the Snopes article in which they posted pics of the Lavalier mics used. Those mics have a 1.5mm wire. Unless you are suggesting that the Snopes article is incorrect. Are you?

Your information is lacking. First, yes I know sometimes the batteries are worn strapped to an ankle, or on women wearing dresses more likely a thigh. And the wire proceeds from there, around the waist, under the breast and to the lapel or neck line of the garment.

No, keeping the wire straight is not advisable. Straight means little to no slack. That is great if the person doesn't move. In real life you want some slack so they can bend and stretch, as hillary did in the photo, without the wires becoming unplugged or at least painfully pulling the skin as they would using your gaffer tape scenario.

a reply to: Vroomfondel

Introvert said it was used to tape the mic wire in place and that was why it looked so large under her garment.

I offered it as a common sense possibility. I did not say it was absolute.

No one uses gaffers tape. They use small pieces of surgical tape more often than not.

That is not entirely correct. Gaffer's tape, like Permacel, is often used because it will not leave behind adhesive or ruin the person's clothing.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Vroomfondel

Introvert said it was used to tape the mic wire in place and that was why it looked so large under her garment.

I offered it as a common sense possibility. I did not say it was absolute.

No one uses gaffers tape. They use small pieces of surgical tape more often than not.

That is not entirely correct. Gaffer's tape, like Permacel, is often used because it will not leave behind adhesive or ruin the person's clothing.

Oh, you suggested it as a possibility, not an absolute. And I did the same thing about surgical tape, which you took exception to.

a reply to: Vroomfondel

Straight means little to no slack.

Correct. Do you know why there would be only the minimal amount of slack allowed? That's because wire movement can cause static build-up and noise through the mic system.

In real life you want some slack so they can bend and stretch, as hillary did in the photo, without the wires becoming unplugged or at least painfully pulling the skin as they would using your gaffer tape scenario.

Tape should rarely, if ever, be applied directly to the skin.

a reply to: Vroomfondel

Surgical tape can leave a residue and can pull on the fabric. Not a good thing if the speaker is wearing expensive clothing.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Vroomfondel

Straight means little to no slack.

Correct. Do you know why there would be only the minimal amount of slack allowed? That's because wire movement can cause static build-up and noise through the mic system.

In real life you want some slack so they can bend and stretch, as hillary did in the photo, without the wires becoming unplugged or at least painfully pulling the skin as they would using your gaffer tape scenario.

Tape should rarely, if ever, be applied directly to the skin.

Wrong on the static. All manner of performers use wireless mics who run and jump all over the place with no static. I wear wireless units for both my mic and my guitar. No static.

Wrong again. Gaffers tape should not be applied directly to the skin. Surgical tape is made for that exact purpose.

a reply to: Vroomfondel

Wrong on the static. All manner of performers use wireless mics who run and jump all over the place with no static. I wear wireless units for both my mic and my guitar. No static.

It depends on the clothing, the mic and the location. Static build-up is always a factor that must be considered.

Wrong again. Gaffers tape should not be applied directly to the skin. Surgical tape is made for that exact purpose.

I did not say it should be applied to the skin. I said tape, in general, should not be placed on the skin, unless absolutely necessary.

Again, provide some evidence to your theory. I'm not going to run in circles arguing about this.