A reader informs that a CNN Sunday night news broadcast offered what may be good evidence that W still wears a wire. Standing next to the Brazilian president (and wearing a blue shirt), Bush gave a short speech - and every word was preceded by a faint "second voice" speaking the same lines.
I've been looking for the video, but have yet to come across it. Can any readers help to confirm the story?
8 comments:
Hmmm. I was hoping you'd bring up Promptergate again sometime soon, Joe. One of the things that makes me most optimistic about the possibility that a Rove indictment could equal a Bush resignation is the question of who would feed Bush his lines if Rove were gone (especially if Card, McClellan and others also leave, go to prison or bail).
FROM WashPost 12/2000, followed by collage of photo's claiming to show identical, default 'pose' from recent appearances.
'Machine' Politician Exposed By Photos
By Gene Weingarten
Washington Post Staff Writer
Date: Wed Dec 27, 2000 6:40 pm
Subject: Li'L Georgie Junior only an animatronic robot .-..--.-
Hey all,
A friend just sent me this, and it might explain a lot. Then again, it might
not.;))
Happy holidays.
Peace,
Preston
From The Washington Post, 12/27/00:
http://washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A52767-2000Dec26.html
'Machine' Politician Exposed By Photos
By Gene Weingarten
Washington Post Staff Writer
First, don't panic.
There is probably a good explanation for the mystery of the
photographs, something that does not threaten the enslavement and/or
extermination of mankind.
There has to be a benign explanation.
I just haven't found it yet.
The first photograph appeared in The Washington Post on Dec. 18.
In it, the president-elect stands behind and to the side of
Condoleezza Rice, his nominee for national security adviser.
George W. Bush is slightly out of focus.
His head is cocked to the left and tilted slightly backward, his mouth
downturned in a perfect cartoonish crescent, the way a first-grader
might draw a frown.
His eyes are squinty.
The next photograph appeared in this paper two days later.
In it, the president-elect stands behind and to the side of Alberto R.
Gonzalez, his choice for White House counsel.
George W. Bush is slightly out of focus.
His head is cocked to the left and tilted slightly backward, his mouth
downturned in a perfect, cartoonish crescent, the way a first-grader
might draw a frown.
His eyes are squinty.
It is not a similar pose; it is an identical pose.
It is not a similar expression; it is the identical expression.
Both photos were sent to me via e-mail by Post reader Adam Shannon,
and at first I suspected chicanery: that as a joke, Shannon had
altered one or both of them in a Photoshop process.
But no, Post archives confirmed that both had been published.
Then the third photo appeared in The Post two days later:
The president-elect stands behind and to the side of Ann Veneman, his
nominee for agriculture secretary.
George W. Bush is slightly out of focus.
His head is cocked to the left and tilted slightly backward, his mouth
downturned in a perfect cartoonish crescent, the way a first-grader
might draw a frown.
His eyes are squinty.
Identical.
Different tie, identical pose.
Now I suspected chicanery of a different sort.
Could The Post have violated its own hallowed standards for accuracy
by ginning up these photos from old stock, to cover for lazy or
drunken photographers who missed their assignments?
Or something?
Then the fourth photo appeared.
This was in the Philadelphia Inquirer.
Bush, with his new EPA chief, Christine Todd Whitman.
Cocked head.
Backward tilt.
Crescent frown.
Squint.
Then, The Baltimore Sun.
The New York Times.
The Washington Times.
Bush, with his nominee for treasury secretary, Paul O'Neill.
Squints!
Frowns!
First-graders!
Tilt!
Then, El Nuevo Herald in Miami.
¡Ceños!
¡Cortaduras!
¡Estrabismos!
¡Cabezas inclinadas!
I felt I was losing my mind.
Adopting a background pose of requisite gravity is evidently a tricky
thing for a new president: In 1993, when Bill Clinton had to appear
beside his new nominees, this very newspaper commented how similar the
president-elect looked in the photographs: It was the birth of his
famed lip-bite pose.
But those photos were fraternal twins of each other.
These new ones are clones.
What could explain this?
It occurred to me that it might not be Bush in these photos at all.
The president-elect is a busy man these days, forced by circumstance
to collapse his interregnum into a few weeks.
Perhaps he hasn't the time to attend all these ceremonial events.
Perhaps what we are seeing is a stand-in, one of those cardboard
cutouts you can pose with on the street around the White House.
I telephoned J. Scott Applewhite, the Associated Press photographer
who took that first excellent picture of Bush and Condoleezza Rice.
Is it possible, I asked him respectfully, that he was fooled by a
cardboard cutout?
"A cardboard cutout?"
Yes, I said hopefully.
"It was Bush," he said.
You sure?
"I am absolutely certain. Otherwise, I wouldn't have said it was Bush
in my caption."
Hm.
I asked: How is your eyesight?
Silence.
"It does the job," he said, a little stiffly.
I admit I was pressing, but I was desperate.
The only alternative scenario I had was the one I did not wish to
visit.
Adam Shannon, the Washington communications consultant who first
brought this matter to my attention, had a theory of his own:
The Bush we know,
the Bush we see,
the Bush at the debates,
the Bush on the campaign trail,
the Bush we elected,
the Bush whom J. Scott Applewhite and others have been photographing,
is "an animatronic robot."
A machine?
"It's a fusion of a servo-motorized biofidelic shell and a
sophisticated artificial intelligence module," Shannon theorizes.
What we are seeing in these photos, he postulates, is "a machine that
has defaulted into standby mode."
At a press conference in which attention is directed elsewhere, he
said, the robot would "go into a temporary shutdown state in which it
assumes a preprogrammed pose while waiting its turn to reactivate and
begin speaking."
Let's follow this through to its logical conclusion.
The most powerful human on Earth is not a human at all but a machine
under the control of an unknown master with technological skills far
beyond ours, programmed to carry out God-knows-what for the benefit of
God-knows-who at the expense of you-know-very-well-who?
Oh, man.
Desperate for an alternative explanation, I went to our photo files,
and found a picture of George W. Bush at around age 7, holding his
baby brother Jeb.
If you look at this picture just right, you can see the hint of the
same downturned mouth, the same squint.
What could this mean?
I brought this new evidence to Shannon.
"Can you authenticate the age of this supposedly old photo?" he
demanded.
Well, no.
"See, if you were going to create an animatronic robot to run for
president, you would have to go back and establish a documentary
childhood. So you would have to build and photograph Mini-Me's. This
is probably a Mini-Me. Same default posture."
Oh, man.
archived @ http://groups.yahoo.com/group/konformist/message/1563
_____________________________________________________
Posted: Tue Oct 25, 2005 7:51 pm Post subject: Borg Bush in stasis again!
peRuse @ http://www.freedomcrowsnest.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=282414#282414
(please cut/paste address to yr. window, do not know how to enable clickable LINK)
danger! Will Robinson DANGER
_______________
what are the stakes when public discourse and eventual policy is contaminated by lies, deceit and Sin/Spin in a mind-snapping, soul numbing, heartbreaking, daily assault on common sense, decency and the honor of independent thinking and sovereignity of free, sentient beings desiring foward progress???
from a Bill Moyer's award speech 9/9/2005 ....9/11 and the Sport of God-
"What are the stakes? In his last book, the late Marvin Harris, a prominent anthropologist of the time, wrote that "the attack against reason and objectivity is fast reaching the proportions of a crusade." To save the American Dream, "we desperately need to reaffirm the principle that it is possible to carry out an analysis of social life which rational human beings will recognize as being true, regardless of whether they happen to be women or men, whites or black, straights or gays, employers or employees, Jews or born-again Christians. The alternative is to stand by helplessly as special interest groups tear the United States apart in the name of their "separate realities' or to wait until one of them grows strong enough to force its irrational and subjective brand of reality on all the rest."
The First Amendment neither inculcates religion nor inoculates against it. Americans could be loyal to the Constitution without being hostile to God, or they could pay no heed to God without fear of being mugged by an official God Squad. It has been a remarkable arrangement that guaranteed "soul freedom."
link= http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0909-36.htm
a war on truth is a war on You and threatens our collective future 0f the Good Life, Unbridled Liberty & joyfull Happiness of an unalienable RIGHT to PEACE!
An old roommate I had once espoused the theory that Pope John Paul II was animatronic. Why not Bush? Actually, I'd like to see more meaningful discussion on this blog, for posterity if nothing else, about the question of whether Bush, like Saddam and many other world leaders, uses stand-ins, or has in the past. There are those rumors of the George W. Bush, allegedly born after our ("our"?) W., who had all records of his life removed from various TX systems in the early '90s, and that "George W. Bush, Jr." convicted of "practicing medicine without a license" in 1986 in...CT? I don't know. I've always wanted to know--just how many of these guys are there? Do they all have to wear wires?
I don't think everybody should get so excited about this. This feed came a long distance via satellite and with rebroadcast etc. it is most likely this is a technical echo. When Bush wears a wire he listen a beat then (badly) rephrases what it said to him. Sometimes even added "wait a minute" type phrases. Never in the past has it been a word for word prompting.
Yes its happened again. I didn't see it, but my e-mail was flooded with reports of this "second voice" this morning.
We've been piling through footage and audio from over the weekend trying to pick up this second audio source... we'll try to get it online as soon as we find something.
It sounds similar to the Bush/Chirac footage from early in the Bulge-gate fiasco... but we'll all have to see it to be sure.
Keep it up, Joseph! Cheers!
Icone
www.bushwired.blogspot.com
Yeah, I'm the reader who reported this. It was a short clip of a speech or media availability of Bush and President Lulu on Sunday that I saw on CNN International. The vocal prompt may have been coming in via the TV audio and not the audio being projected to the crowd...
just to add to the post i just made: the prompting was "sentence for sentence" not "word for word." that is, Bush was repeating the voice's words once it finished a complete statement. And the voice wasn't monotonous, it had a dramatic flair apparently meant to convey to the president just how to say the line.
I watched it on CNN. It happened on Sunday, I think. I don't recall what GWB was talking about.
Because..
I heard the other voice as it led the President, sentence by sentence, through the speech.
I turned up the volume to listen more clearly.
Yes. There was another voice - muted a little - male, speaking in stacatto bursts, enunciating each word. Sentence by sentence. then pausing.
bush spoke in his usual stacatto monotone. He paused after each sentence. And Listened.
for his next line.
It was clear that another voice was prompting the President. That voice was feeding him, guiding. The voice often provided inflection and emphasis, as if showing the president how the words should flow.
The mystery voice was not some electronic pre-echo or print-through of Bush's voice.
It was not bush's voice. It was someone else's voice. Another man..
And he was the better actor
Post a Comment