Is Hillary Cheating Again?

a reply to: babyfacebill

ffs - at least attempt to have internally consistent delusions

the " notebook " - looks more like a document folder to me - and would - if opened to view contents cover the alledged " screen " you also claim is there

so - how is she being briefed :

earpeice ????????

screen ??

printed notes ???

all 3 - thats excessive isnt it ????????????????????

PS - trumps staff aides and interns all have back stage access and can see the rear view of mrs clintons podium

isnt it AMAZING that they dont think anything was ammiss - but wingnuts watching vids can sopt all this crap

a reply to: ignorant_ape

Certainly looks like the man is up to no good, removing things from under the podium too. Just so happens this guy is the first person to greet Hillary when she arrives.

youtu.be...

It wouldn't shock me at all if Hillary had a script on a secret screen. A privacy filter mostly hide it from everyone, except her looking directly at it. Clearly something flickers on at the beging and then flickers off at the end, but not on Trumps podium. For redundancy, she also had a nicely prepared notebook. Nobody pillaging Trumps podium seconds after the debate either.

a reply to: SkuzzleButt

what am i looking for in this video?

Your avatar was perfect for that post, just perfect.

a reply to: babyfacebill

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.

Wouldn't you know it, I believe what we are looking at is a light. The concept would be the same as having a lamp upon a desk, to view and read notes she is taking.

a reply to: babyfacebill

m.youtube.com...

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

Yes, they turned off the light.

a reply to: babyfacebill

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

m.imgur.com...

mobile.twitter.com...

This pic from your source ought to to give credence to what you are seeing is a light.

a reply to: babyfacebill

Certainly looks like the man is up to no good, removing things from under the podium too. Just so happens this guy is the first person to greet Hillary when she arrives.

I'll add some fuel to your fire because I think it is entertaining to see this carried on without any critical thinking; however, this video is interesting ... the first half anyway.
www.youtube.com...

It wouldn't shock me at all if Hillary had a script on a secret screen. A privacy filter mostly hide it from everyone, except her looking directly at it. Clearly something flickers on at the beging and then flickers off at the end, but not on Trumps podium.

A light, that is on Trumps podium as well, but likely remaining off due to his personal preference.

For redundancy, she also had a nicely prepared notebook. Nobody pillaging Trumps podium seconds after the debate either.

Or, as you can see her extensively writing, she takes more notes than Trump, who self-admits to winging things.

originally posted by: babyfacebill
a reply to: ignorant_ape

Certainly looks like the man is up to no good, removing things from under the podium too. Just so happens this guy is the first person to greet Hillary when she arrives.

youtu.be...

It wouldn't shock me at all if Hillary had a script on a secret screen. A privacy filter mostly hide it from everyone, except her looking directly at it. Clearly something flickers on at the beging and then flickers off at the end, but not on Trumps podium. For redundancy, she also had a nicely prepared notebook. Nobody pillaging Trumps podium seconds after the debate either.

Jesus Christ, man. Yous need to grow up and think and analyze things as adults.
"A script on a secret screen"? Egad! Do you hear yourself, man?

Maybe that man was an employee of the venue. Or of the TV people. Or the Govts version of a Wal Mart greeter. Are you privvy to all the rules of this debate? Are you the overseer of debates? Are they, or are they not allowed crib notes to, you know, present themselves properly, be efficient?

I'm not trying to talk down to anyone, but I don't understanding the bizarre reasoning. As if it's wrong. Its wrong to be prepared. I wouldn't give a # even if either one of them had earpieces, VR goggles, cue cards or a moped. I wouldn't even look for that.

Anyway.

a reply to: coffeetalk

I appreciate your comments, but I disagree.

The wire can be seen running up the middle of her back all the way to her collar area which is obscured by her hair. I did say it presumably continued from that point. The reason being first, no one wires a mic that way. The proper way is to run the wire from the pack in the small of the back, around the waist and under the breast to the lapel. Around the waist and under the breast area the garment is usually looser and no wires will be visible. It is also the shortest route, and, there is little chance that any movement by the wearer will dislodge or disconnect the wire. Second, From the location of the wire on her back all the way up to where her hair touches her garment means the wire would have to turn sharply to the left, route around the neck opening in her garment, go across her shoulder, then down her chest to the mic. The bulge in the back is clearly visible all the way up to her collar area but is not visible at all after making the alleged left turn nor is it visible coming over her shoulder. There is only one bulge on her shoulder similar to the one on her back and that is the joint in the garment between the shoulder and the sleeve. The mic wire did not run all the way across her shoulder to where the sleeve joins in. If it did, it would be visible, and, no one would wire a mic that way. It simply isn't done. And again, the mic wire is too small to have made that bulge seen on her back regardless of how tight her garment was at that moment. Garments are also tight coming over the shoulder, gravity. Zooming in on the pics showing her shoulder and the mic from the front there is no evidence of a wire coming over her shoulder. The bulge on her back is clearly visible right up to where it alleged makes a left turn then disappears. That makes no sense. It also makes no sense to run the mic wire all the way to her hair live with no intention to continue beyond that point.

Your pics did not show me anything different at all. Sorry, but I stand by my observations.

a reply to: Vroomfondel

She wore the Mic the way that the experts in that kind of equipment installed it. I'm sure next time they will consult you but at this time we're left with this installation.

anti-shape shifting device obviosuly

yeah most likley is ear piece, you would of thought by now they make the devices alot more subtle and smaller.

a reply to: Maluhia

a reply to: Vroomfondel

The wire can be seen running up the middle of her back all the way to her collar area which is obscured by her hair. I did say it presumably continued from that point. The reason being first, no one wires a mic that way.

Yes, people do

The proper way is to run the wire from the pack in the small of the back, around the waist and under the breast to the lapel.

There is no single or proper way. Different positions and routes work best for different circumstances and individuals.

Around the waist and under the breast area the garment is usually looser and no wires will be visible. It is also the shortest route, and, there is little chance that any movement by the wearer will dislodge or disconnect the wire.

Again, highly dependent on a multitude of factors and personal preferences.

Second, From the location of the wire on her back all the way up to where her hair touches her garment means the wire would have to turn sharply to the left, route around the neck opening in her garment, go across her shoulder, then down her chest to the mic. The bulge in the back is clearly visible all the way up to her collar area but is not visible at all after making the alleged left turn nor is it visible coming over her shoulder. There is only one bulge on her shoulder similar to the one on her back and that is the joint in the garment between the shoulder and the sleeve. The mic wire did not run all the way across her shoulder to where the sleeve joins in. If it did, it would be visible, and, no one would wire a mic that way. It simply isn't done.

Again, the angle of the picture is distorting perceptions of where the wire lies in correlation to her collar area. There is another line visible, barely, that is not the seam of the shoulder and that line leads strait to the mic.

It is visible over the shoulder, see my pic again to the left of the black line.


Not only is there a pic above that shows someone wearing a mic wired over the shoulder, but here is a user guide (PDF) for the Shure MX150 lavalier mic that states ...

And again, the mic wire is too small to have made that bulge seen on her back regardless of how tight her garment was at that moment.

You do not know this for sure unless you can reproduce the results, bu that aside, why would an audio ear piece be any bigger to produce the bulge? It is indeed because her suit is tighter at that point.

Garments are also tight coming over the shoulder, gravity.

They hang over the shoulder, they are not pulled down upon the shoulder like her body was pulling on her suit in the back.

Zooming in on the pics showing her shoulder and the mic from the front there is no evidence of a wire coming over her shoulder. The bulge on her back is clearly visible right up to where it alleged makes a left turn then disappears. That makes no sense.

See all the above.

It also makes no sense to run the mic wire all the way to her hair live with no intention to continue beyond that point.

No, it doesn't, that is why it is going over the shoulder and the pic is giving the illusion it is going to her hair due to the angle.

Your pics did not show me anything different at all. Sorry, but I stand by my observations.

I hope you can see that they actually do.

a reply to: carewemust

I've been checking the hits on the video. It took many hours before the hit total was finally being properly updated late last night.

I didn't watch the debate but if I had I would have noticed the hand/finger signals right away and her eyes going to Holt. Holt pretty much forever blew his trustworthiness with me.

It is blatant, open season in the U.S. election process and it's become abundantly clear in that sense to me there are no rules as far as what methods the DNC, Hillary and her backers will use to fake a win.

Pffft!

a reply to: tweetie
Tuesday night, ABC News Nightline ran a montage video showing Hillary shimmying her shoulders frequently during the debate. I would say that she was doing this because something was attached to her back that made her either very happy or very uncomfortable.

a reply to: CigaretteByrnes

Why would a media member or somebody from the venue be grabbing things from her podium seconds after the debate? If he is a media member, even worse. The guy does give lester holt a nod after he grabs the notebook, so maybe you're right, letting holt know he got it.

I don't believe that is lighting on her podium. When Hillary walks around her podium, she casts a shadow with the other lighting, but not the light (screen) in question.

Do you believe the media wouldn't try and help the Clinton's?

a reply to: carewemust

You don't think it could have been tremors from Parkinson's?

a reply to: tweetie
You don't think it could have been her shifting as to ensure she does not lock her knees and pass out on live television?

I came across this video on twitter, not sure what to make off it. Basically some "Mystery man" with a folder before and after the debate.. Take a look someone if you have time,

mobile.twitter.com...

Sorry I'm more off a lurker on ats, not sure how to post links.

She's obviously using performance enhancing steroids.

She's obviously using performance enhancing steroids.

a reply to: coffeetalk

The picture you showed of the guitar player was obviously not placed by a professional. That is how someone would place a mic on themselves for an informal presentation, as shown.

I looked at magnified images and did not see the wire you are referring to. And you have offered no explanation whatsoever as to why the wire is so clearly visible on her back and not visible over her shoulder where the fabric is tight or on her chest.

Also, you show a clip of a pdf for a Shure mic. The mics used were not made by Shure according to Snopes.

There is a video linked earlier in this thread from a school that teaches professional sound technician courses. They indicate that the normal or most common method of placing a Lavalier mic on a person is to put the mic where it is seen on the front of hillary's garment, run the wire down across the belly, around the waist where there is room especially on women, and to the pack in the small of the back. This is the typical industry accepted method of wearing a Lavalier mic when being photographed or videotaped predominantly from the waist up and not involved in large movements or strenuous activity. Some people, such as a weather newscaster, might wear the pack strapped to their thigh or even their ankle since they will be exposed more when standing in front of the weather map. Both of these methods allow the wearer to move naturally without showing the wires or dislodging them accidentally as might happen with a wire run over a shoulder. I wear wireless mic and guitar units. And I put them on other people too. I can't think of one situation when it would be preferable to run a mic wire under clothing up over a shoulder from the back and down to the mic in front unless you knew the waist area would be clearly exposed beneath the clothing.

No one has yet explained how that wire that was so very visible all the way up her back suddenly disappeared when it allegedly turned left to route around the neck opening in her garment. Or why the wire ran straight up the middle of her back all the way to her neck line under her hair before turning to go over her shoulder. Sorry, but it isn't done that way.

a reply to: Vroomfondel

The picture you showed of the guitar player was obviously not placed by a professional. That is how someone would place a mic on themselves for an informal presentation, as shown.

Obviously, and just as obvious, the picture was shown as an example to refute

no one wires a mic that way

I looked at magnified images and did not see the wire you are referring to.

Try using filters. To the left of the black line I drew there is a line parallel to that just a shade lighter. Maybe others can see it?

And you have offered no explanation whatsoever as to why the wire is so clearly visible on her back and not visible over her shoulder where the fabric is tight or on her chest.

Shoulder pads and brassiere.

Also, you show a clip of a pdf for a Shure mic. The mics used were not made by Shure according to Snopes.

Yes, again, as an example to refute

no one wires a mic that way

when clearly, designs and manuals call for such situations. Snopes does not indicate what brand(s) or model(s) were used, they only offer examples and they surely did not rule out any particular brand or model. It is unknown at this time what brand(s) and model(s) were used.

There is a video linked earlier in this thread from a school that teaches professional sound technician courses. They indicate that the normal or most common method of placing a Lavalier mic on a person is to put the mic where it is seen on the front of hillary's garment, run the wire down across the belly, around the waist where there is room especially on women, and to the pack in the small of the back. This is the typical industry accepted method of wearing a Lavalier mic when being photographed or videotaped predominantly from the waist up and not involved in large movements or strenuous activity. Some people, such as a weather newscaster, might wear the pack strapped to their thigh or even their ankle since they will be exposed more when standing in front of the weather map. Both of these methods allow the wearer to move naturally without showing the wires or dislodging them accidentally as might happen with a wire run over a shoulder. I wear wireless mic and guitar units. And I put them on other people too. I can't think of one situation when it would be preferable to run a mic wire under clothing up over a shoulder from the back and down to the mic in front unless you knew the waist area would be clearly exposed beneath the clothing.

Yes, most common and industry standard; however, personal preference, situation, and circumstance still has a play ... and we all know how particular Hillary can be. Just because you have never done this to anyone, does not mean everyone would not want it done this way.

No one has yet explained how that wire that was so very visible all the way up her back suddenly disappeared when it allegedly turned left to route around the neck opening in her garment. Or why the wire ran straight up the middle of her back all the way to her neck line under her hair before turning to go over her shoulder. Sorry, but it isn't done that way.

Actually, I did

it is going over the shoulder and the pic is giving the illusion it is going to her hair due to the angle.

To be more precise, if you look carefully, the entire setup is off center to the left of her spine and as she is bending over forward and to the right the wires move with her and her suit is pulled tight allowing the system to show through. What you are seeing is the freedom of movement allotted for that wire you are so vehemently telling me is a must in the industry. Her position combined with a still photograph give the illusion it is center and leading into the hair.

Where is the wire? It is not up the neck and into the hair. There are only so many places it can go.


I am not so sure we will reach common ground on the shoulder issue.

I must ask though, it it was an earpiece, why is it not visible in her ear in the most clear photographs nearly straight on her ear and why would they not use a wireless earpiece that is minuscule and would not be noticed by the cameras? No one has explained that yet.

a reply to: coffeetalk

As I have said several times, I am not sure the wire for was an earpiece. It could have been for any of a number of things. The only thing I am certain of is that it was not her mic wire. I can not speculate on what it might have been other than the obvious options which are a medical device of some kind or an audio device though not necessarily an ear piece. I am still looking in to other possibilities and will post again if I find something viable.

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
a reply to: coffeetalk
I can not speculate on what it might have been other than the obvious options which are a medical device of some kind or an audio device though not necessarily an ear piece. I am still looking in to other possibilities and will post again if I find something viable.

That is exactly what you are doing, speculating, the only obvious option is a mic. Anything else is nothing but speculation which is the exact point of the matter at hand. I do not put it past her to have an ear piece, or medical device. Short of the obvious and into the realm of speculation does not serve any good to the concerned public of Hillary's character or health, but rather serves her claims of partisan attacks and conspiracy theory.