Is Hillary Cheating Again?

a reply to: Vroomfondel

Like I said, your speculation isn't evidence. It's just your opinion. You need actual solid evidence not what you think about the situation.

I'm defaulting to the Null Hypothesis here. That the cord is a benign mic cord. It's on you to prove otherwise. Sorry that's how things work mate. I know you like running head first into this by assuming guilt before anything else, but that is ridiculously biased and it certainly won't flush with anyone with ANY shred of intellectual responsibility.

a reply to: micpsi

That's a picture of her ear.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Vroomfondel

Like I said, your speculation isn't evidence. It's just your opinion. You need actual solid evidence not what you think about the situation.

I'm defaulting to the Null Hypothesis here. That the cord is a benign mic cord. It's on you to prove otherwise. Sorry that's how things work mate. I know you like running head first into this by assuming guilt before anything else, but that is ridiculously biased and it certainly won't flush with anyone with ANY shred of intellectual responsibility.

So if I understand you, in your world there is no room for speculation based on observation. Only fact, which you yourself have failed to provide. You believe it is a mic wire. I believe it isn't. I have shown several reasons why, including the photo which clearly shows a wire that is larger than a mic wire, running a path that would never be used to wire a person with that kind of mic. The wire then disappears for a brief time, then reappears in the proper place. You would rather believe that than accept even the possibility that it might be something other than a mic wire. It could have been any of various things other than a mic. I have no way of knowing exactly what it was, and therefore can not prove exactly what it was. I have, however, shown more than enough evidence to suggest that it is not a mic wire. It is the wrong size, in the wrong place, and in order to be a mic wire, would have to disappear when running across her shoulder then reappear at her chest. And somehow you find that more believable than even the suggestion that maybe it wasn't a mic wire. And you think MY opinion is based on bias...

Wow.

Some of the greatest ideas in all of history were at some time nothing more than speculation based on observation. Had they met up with you our world would be nothing but a bunch of people living in trees saying, "I am not coming down until you prove it..."

a reply to: Vroomfondel
Oh speculation can certainly REINFORCE evidence, but it isn't good enough to stand alone and prove a point. Especially one as flimsy as yours. Like you actually sound DESPERATE for people to believe your idea. It's been calmly pointed out by even Trump supporters that this is conspiracy is nothing, but you still continue to run with it.

Some of the greatest ideas in all of history were at some time nothing more than speculation based on observation. Had they met up with you our world would be nothing but a bunch of people living in trees saying, "I am not coming down until you prove it..."

Yeah and you are purposely leaving out the part where these speculations were proven with actual objective evidence that corroborated the speculation, and that is without counting all the speculations that were discarded because the evidence WASN'T presented.

m.youtube.com...

Cheater

a reply to: babyfacebill

what am i looking for in this video?

a reply to: Vroomfondel

Musicians and other performers move around a lot which could generate static.

Yes, but the static issue and what not would be drowned-out by the levels of the music.

Two people standing still answering questions do not have a static issue to deal with.

Yes, they could. It depends on how much arm movements they make.

Quick note: Usually musicians and performers use what is called a Countryman mic system. Lav mics are for interviews, TV, etc.

Yes, you said tape should rarely if ever be applied to the skin. But as shown above you clearly suggested that is exactly what happened with hillary. Why would hillary allow anyone to do that to her if it should not happen?

I did not suggest any such thing. Read it again.

OK, you believe Snopes. So the wire is 1.5mm. So you can stop asking me to measure it and explain how a 1.5mm wire can look so large on her back under heavy fabric, especially when NOT covered in gaffers tape... and then fail to even be visible when coming over her shoulder...

I did not say it looked so large. What I said is that you need to prove that "bulge" on her back is larger than the 1.5mm you claim.

There is NO way the inside of her ear is that shiny. Something is in there.

Every move she makes gets scrutinized. If she tries anything, we will catch her

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Vroomfondel
Oh speculation can certainly REINFORCE evidence, but it isn't good enough to stand alone and prove a point. Especially one as flimsy as yours. Like you actually sound DESPERATE for people to believe your idea. It's been calmly pointed out by even Trump supporters that this is conspiracy is nothing, but you still continue to run with it.

Some of the greatest ideas in all of history were at some time nothing more than speculation based on observation. Had they met up with you our world would be nothing but a bunch of people living in trees saying, "I am not coming down until you prove it..."

Yeah and you are purposely leaving out the part where these speculations were proven with actual objective evidence that corroborated the speculation, and that is without counting all the speculations that were discarded because the evidence WASN'T presented.

Well, actually evidence reinforces speculation, not the other way around. My point is not flimsy. It is to you because you really seem to want it to be. Calling me desperate is akin to using words like homophobe or islamaphobe. You are trying to strengthen your position by portraying mine as weak. It doesn't work.

And it has been calmly pointed out by others that there may be something to it. The reason I continue to run with it is because you nor the other few select hillary followers who say I am wrong have offered nothing to change my opinion but your desire to believe I am wrong.

Consider this: a speaker wire running under a throw rug. The rug would not deflect sharply or noticeably around the speaker wire. The bend in the rug would be too sharp to conform to such a small diameter. It would barely deflect at all. It would simply be a little higher in that area with a gradual rise and fall that would barely be noticeable. Now consider the same scenario with a heavy duty extension cord instead of speaker wire. The bulge would be much more noticeable and easier to follow due to the increased diameter of the cord.

Now, scale that experiment down to a 1.5mm mic wire and the larger whatever that was under her garment. The bulge running up the middle of her back is too large to be something the size of an iphone earbud wire (1.5mm). Not the charger cord, that is much larger. A wire that small would barely be noticeable under medium to heavy fabric. Under silk or a light t-shirt perhaps, but not under the garment hillary was wearing. That bulge running up the middle of her back was much too large to be a mic wire. The other problem is that if it was a mic wire as you contend, it would have to turn left from the nape of her neck and run across her shoulder, then down her chest, to reach the visible mic. The large visible bulge running up the middle of her back is clearly not visible running across her shoulder. Anything that large should be visible if it was there. That wire, whatever it was, went somewhere else. Not to mention that a mic wire would not be placed on a person in that manner. Even the instructional video posted by someone else showed that it would have been placed on the lapel, run down across the belly, and around the waist to the pack in back.

I don't know what that bulge up the middle of her back was. Honestly, I doubt it was for an ear piece. But I have equal doubt that it was for her mic. Though I will admit this, I talked to the guy I go to for my wireless needs. According to him, speaking as a professional elec tech. and electrician, the only thing he could think of other than a medical device of some kind he is not familiar with would be a very short range wireless intended to keep any broadcast to the earpiece private. That is only a suggestion as to what it might be. Again, I am not certain what that wire was. But I am certain it was not for her mic. There are too many things it could have been for me to pick one and try to prove it. But I believe there is enough evidence to suggest it was not a mic wire.

Sometimes pictures work better for some people...

This is the pic showing the bulge running up the middle of her back and under her hair at the nape of her neck and presumably beyond.

This is a closer view of the bulge under her garment. Notice it goes up to and under her hair.

This is hillary from the front. Notice the bulge is not visible on her shoulder or chest leading to the mic, nor is the wire visible on her neck.

This pic shows the size of the wire. Compare that to the bulge running up the middle of her back. This wire did not make that bulge. If it did, we would be able to see the bulge here, but we can't.

originally posted by: kruphix
a reply to: Maluhia

It's her mic.

You would think Trump supporters would give it a break on these stupid conspiracy theories...it's not helping them look any better/smarter/rational.

Why do they have two mics?

originally posted by: Teikiatsu
Why do they have two mics?

The cameras pick up video, which is mixed with an audio signal. The smaller mics pick up that signal for the cameras. The larger ones on the podiums are for the audience. Or perhaps I have that mixed up on which is for which, they go through different audio systems though.

a reply to: Maluhia

I was looking for something unrelated to the debate and came across this video. I didn't want to start a new thread but if someone wants to, be my guest:

This YouTuber thinks Hillary was using finger signals to signal Lester Holt:

originally posted by: SkuzzleButt
a reply to: babyfacebill

what am i looking for in this video?

Watch the top of her podium and don't take your eyes off it. You'll see what I believe is a screen powering up. It doesn't appear to lighting from any other source. Looks like a screen, with a privacy filter in attempt to hide it, built into her custom made podium.

a reply to: babyfacebill

m.youtube.com...

And in this one, right before Hillary's podium goes out of shot, the screen powers off.

a reply to: Vroomfondel

Good work Vroomfondel!

a reply to: babyfacebill

Check out Hillary's creepy helper casually hiding evidence right after the debate.

m.imgur.com...

mobile.twitter.com...

Not taking credit for finding any of this stuff. Its all over reddit. I find it very compelling.

a reply to: tweetie


SHE WAS! Hillary has not made those gestures during any other debate. That clip you shared is going viral tonight. It's a MUST WATCH. Thanks for taking the time to post it here. I believe Hillary was TOTALLY RIGGED on Monday. And it still didn't help her, LOL! Gosh I'm looking forward to the hammering she's going to get on October 9th!!

originally posted by: alomaha
a reply to: Vroomfondel

Good work Vroomfondel!

Slow down ...

a reply to: Vroomfondel

Sometimes pictures work better for some people...

Indeed ...

This is the pic showing the bulge running up the middle of her back and under her hair at the nape of her neck and presumably beyond.

I see it going up and near the nape of her neck, but under her hair is presumptuous because of her angle, position of body, and nature of photography that is well known to play many tricks on the human eye.

This is a closer view of the bulge under her garment. Notice it goes up to and under her hair.

I see it going up, but up to, and under her hair is presumptuous because ... .

This is hillary from the front. Notice the bulge is not visible on her shoulder or chest leading to the mic, nor is the wire visible on her neck.

However, it is visible on this frontal pic where you can see it coming up and over the shoulder in the approximate location it appears to have led from her back in your pic. It then leads from the shoulder down and to the right straight toward the position of the mic.

Also, take note of absolutely nothing being visible in her left ear where this infamous piece is said to be.

originally posted by: Maluhia

There is NO way the inside of her ear is that shiny. Something is in there.

It is when you have stage lighting shining down upon you and a photograph is taken at the correct angle.

a reply to: Vroomfondel

This pic shows the size of the wire. Compare that to the bulge running up the middle of her back. This wire did not make that bulge. If it did, we would be able to see the bulge here, but we can't.

It is only visible because she is in a position that is making her suit tighter in the back. You do not see the mic setup, or its wire, on this pic where her suit is more relaxed in the back. The same goes with the front, notice again, her suit is slightly tighter in the first pic I hyperlinked/attached.

Now I would like to ask; Why would Clinton personally, or any of her aides, staff members, consultants, et cetera let her wear an ear piece that one is supposedly able to view on a picture when she could use a wireless ear piece no bigger than a grain of rice and avoid any potential of scrutiny?

You should have this a go