1
   

NASA photo analyst: Bush wore a device during debate!

 
 
Reply Thu 28 Oct, 2004 10:14 pm
NASA photo analyst: Bush wore a device during debate
Physicist says imaging techniques prove the president's bulge was not caused by wrinkled clothing.


By Kevin Berger



Oct. 29, 2004 | George W. Bush tried to laugh off the bulge. "I don't know what that is," he said on "Good Morning America" on Wednesday, referring to the infamous protrusion beneath his jacket during the presidential debates. "I'm embarrassed to say it's a poorly tailored shirt."

Dr. Robert M. Nelson, however, was not laughing. He knew the president was not telling the truth. And Nelson is neither conspiracy theorist nor midnight blogger. He's a senior research scientist for NASA and for Caltech's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, and an international authority on image analysis. Currently he's engrossed in analyzing digital photos of Saturn's moon Titan, determining its shape, whether it contains craters or canyons.





For the past week, while at home, using his own computers, and off the clock at Caltech and NASA, Nelson has been analyzing images of the president's back during the debates. A professional physicist and photo analyst for more than 30 years, he speaks earnestly and thoughtfully about his subject. "I am willing to stake my scientific reputation to the statement that Bush was wearing something under his jacket during the debate," he says. "This is not about a bad suit. And there's no way the bulge can be described as a wrinkled shirt."






Nelson and a scientific colleague produced the photos from a videotape, recorded by the colleague, who has chosen to remain anonymous, of the first debate. The images provide the most vivid details yet of the bulge beneath the president's suit. Amateurs have certainly had their turn at examining the bulge, but no professional with a résumé as impressive as Nelson's has ventured into public with an informed opinion. In fact, no one to date has enhanced photos of Bush's jacket to this degree of precision, and revealed what appears to be some kind of mechanical device with a wire snaking up the president's shoulder toward his neck and down his back to his waist.

Nelson stresses that he's not certain what lies beneath the president's jacket. He offers, though, "that it could be some type of electronic device -- it's consistent with the appearance of an electronic device worn in that manner." The image of lines coursing up and down the president's back, Nelson adds, is "consistent with a wire or a tube."

Nelson used the computer software program Photoshop to enhance the texture in Bush's jacket. The process in no way alters the image but sharpens its edges and accents the creases and wrinkles. You've seen the process performed a hundred times on "CSI": pixelated images are magnified to reveal a clear definition of their shape.

Bruce Hapke, professor emeritus of planetary science in the department of geology and planetary science at the University of Pittsburgh, reviewed the Bush images employed by Nelson, whom he calls "a very highly respected scientist in his field." Hapke says Nelson's process of analyzing the images are the "exact same methods we use to analyze images taken by spacecraft of planetary surfaces. It does not introduce any artifacts into the picture in any way."

How can Nelson be certain there's some kind of mechanical device beneath Bush's jacket? It's all about light and shadows, he says. The angles at which the light in the studio hit Bush's jacket expose contours that fit no one's picture of human anatomy and wrinkled shirts. And Nelson compared the images to anatomy texts. He also experimented with wrinkling shirts in various configurations, wore them under his jacket under his bathroom light, and couldn't produce anything close to the Bush bulge.

In the enhanced photo of the first debate, Nelson says, look at the horizontal white line in middle of the president's back. You'll see a shadow. "That's telling me there's definitely a bulge," he says. "In fact, it's how we measure the depths of the craters on the moon or on Mars. We look at the angle of the light and the length of shadow they leave. In this case, that's clearly a crater that's under the horizontal line -- it's clearly a rim of a bulge protruding upward, one due to forces pushing it up from beneath."

Hapke, too, agrees that the bulge is neither anatomy nor a wrinkled shirt. "I would think it's very hard to avoid the conclusion that there's something underneath his jacket," he says. "It would certainly be consistent with some kind of radio receiver and a wire."

Nelson admits that he's a Democrat and plans to vote for John Kerry. But he takes umbrage at being accused of partisanship. "Everyone wants to think my colleague and I are just a bunch of dope-crazed ravaged Democrats who are looking to insult the president at the last minute," he says. "And that's not what this is about. This is scientific analysis. If the bulge were on Bill Clinton's back and he was lying about it, I'd have to say the same thing."

"Look, he says, "I'm putting myself at risk for exposing this. But this is too important. It's not about my reputation. If they force me into an early retirement, it'll be worth it if the public knows about this. It's outrageous statements that I read that the president is wearing nothing under there. There's clearly something there."





Bush Was Wired
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 976 • Replies: 18
No top replies

 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Oct, 2004 10:23 pm
bm
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Oct, 2004 10:36 pm
dlowan wrote:
bm



Agreed.
0 Replies
 
kickycan
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Oct, 2004 10:36 pm
yet another thing that shows him to be a complete scumbag, but that can't be proven difinitively.

Scumbag, scumbag, scumbag.
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Oct, 2004 01:44 am
see photos
See photos in article:

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/10/29/bulge/index_np.html
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Oct, 2004 06:12 am
Ticomaya wrote:
dlowan wrote:
bm



Agreed.


I am overjoyed, if a little puzzled, by your agreement with my bookmark.

Do you collect them?

Here are some pretty ones to enjoy:

http://jpsart.home.att.net/bookmarks.jpg


But - we digress - perhaps we ought to return to the subject of the thread?
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Oct, 2004 06:17 am
It sure looks weird - but I am no expert.

This was alleged to be during the 3rd debate?

Is that the one where he was able to string two words together?
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Oct, 2004 06:18 am
I can see no evidence of anything going into his ear...
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Oct, 2004 06:20 am
I think Tico took bm (as I often do) to mean bowel movement... and agreed with it.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Oct, 2004 07:28 am
Here's what I wrote on the other thread:

Wow.

I still want to know what's up with John Kerry patting him on the back after the last debate. Did he feel something? Is he being a gentleman, found out it's something medical like Lash postulated? Did he just figure that if it was just his word, it wouldn't be believed -- I mean of anyone, he has the highest stake in showing that it WAS something. So he felt something but is trying to put out the word in the most credible way possible -- by, say, involving a top-level imaging scientist. (Who gave him that videotape?)

Hmmmm...
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Oct, 2004 07:28 am
dlowan wrote:
Ticomaya wrote:
dlowan wrote:
bm



Agreed.


I am overjoyed, if a little puzzled, by your agreement with my bookmark.

Do you collect them?

Here are some pretty ones to enjoy:

http://jpsart.home.att.net/bookmarks.jpg


But - we digress - perhaps we ought to return to the subject of the thread?


You can remain overjoyed, but don't be puzzled. FreeDuck is correct. I meant "BM" as in "bowel movement." You know ... "excrement" ... "poo" ...
0 Replies
 
Einherjar
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Oct, 2004 07:54 am
Won't work though, Bush supporters are 'fact resistant'.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Oct, 2004 08:02 am
Einherjar wrote:
Won't work though, Bush supporters are 'fact resistant'.


To what "facts" are you referring?

You anti-Bush folks like to jump to unsubstantiated conclusions ("A + B = D").
0 Replies
 
Einherjar
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Oct, 2004 08:11 am
Ticomaya wrote:
Einherjar wrote:
Won't work though, Bush supporters are 'fact resistant'.


To what "facts" are you referring?

You anti-Bush folks like to jump to unsubstantiated conclusions ("A + B = D").


Any and all facts really. There were statistics posted on this forum a while ago that showed Bush supporters to be clueless about wether WMD's existed in Iraq, wether Bush supported ICC, Kyoto and other treaties, and a lot of other facts.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Oct, 2004 08:21 am
(Let me correct my above example using numbers. Not sure how we were supposed to add letters up. .... You know what I meant. Very Happy )

"1" is a fact.

"2" is a fact.

But 1 + 2 does not equal 4, no matter how much you argue it does.

You can present those facts all day long, but you might have difficulty convincing me of your conclusion if I spot a fallacy in your premise or your logical reasoning.
0 Replies
 
Einherjar
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Oct, 2004 08:33 am
Ticomaya wrote:
(Let me correct my above example using numbers. Not sure how we were supposed to add letters up. .... You know what I meant. Very Happy )

"1" is a fact.

"2" is a fact.

But 1 + 2 does not equal 4, no matter how much you argue it does.

You can present those facts all day long, but you might have difficulty convincing me of your conclusion if I spot a fallacy in your premise or your logical reasoning.


Yeah, but I was reffering to the facts themselves. The poll showed a majority of Bush supporters thought Bush supported the ICC, that just isn't so.

And who on this forum has stated 1+2=4 ? I certainly have not.



But we digress, isn't that what it's called? We should probably get back on topic. NASA researcher calls Bush on 'nothing under suit' lie.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Oct, 2004 08:38 am
As dlowan said ....

dlowan wrote:
bm
0 Replies
 
Einherjar
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Oct, 2004 08:49 am
You've bookmarked this topic already.
0 Replies
 
blueveinedthrobber
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Oct, 2004 08:55 am
Ticomaya wrote:
Einherjar wrote:
Won't work though, Bush supporters are 'fact resistant'.


To what "facts" are you referring?

You anti-Bush folks like to jump to unsubstantiated conclusions ("A + B = D").


Unsubstantiated conclusions....would that be anything like "They have huge stockpiles of WMD's"....better launch a 225 billion dollar quagmire of a war?

I think you've gotten that backwards good buddy...that would be the pro bush folks and of course bush inc. itself......
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » NASA photo analyst: Bush wore a device during debate!
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/09/2024 at 08:22:35