• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

PHOTOS: WHAT’S THAT UNDER HILLARY’S PANTSUIT DURING LAST NIGHT’S DEBATE?

poncho

Well-Known Member
Photos from last night’s presidential debate appear to show Hillary Clinton with some kind of device hidden under her clothing.

Images being circulated on Twitter show what appears to be the shape of a box under Hillary’s red pantsuit, with a wire from it running up her back.

270916hil3.jpg


Continue . . . http://www.infowars.com/photos-whats-that-under-hillarys-pantsuit-during-last-nights-debate/
 

Baptist Believer

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Photos from last night’s presidential debate appear to show Hillary Clinton with some kind of device hidden under her clothing.

Images being circulated on Twitter show what appears to be the shape of a box under Hillary’s red pantsuit, with a wire from it running up her back.
Wireless microphone transmitter and power pack. We have had this technology for 20-30 years and I thought everyone was familiar with it.

Only a weirdly conspiratorial mind would think anything else.
 

poncho

Well-Known Member
Wireless microphone transmitter and power pack. We have had this technology for 20-30 years and I thought everyone was familiar with it.

Only a weirdly conspiratorial mind would think anything else.

I suppose it also takes a "weirdly conspiratorial mind" to ask why she would be wearing it to a debate, right?
 

annsni

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Wireless microphone transmitter and power pack. We have had this technology for 20-30 years and I thought everyone was familiar with it.

Only a weirdly conspiratorial mind would think anything else.

But I don't think I saw a wireless mic on her - maybe I just missed it?
 

annsni

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
OK - Just looked at pics and yep, they both had wireless mics. Mystery solved!
 

Baptist Believer

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
I suppose it also takes a "weirdly conspiratorial mind" to ask why she would be wearing it to a debate, right?
People wear microphones to record sound.

If you are running sound for an event, especially a high-profile television event, you have at least two audio sources per person to fill out the sound mix, as well as provide a back-up in case one of the microphones fails. If a person turns their head away from a microphone, you don't want to lose the audio of their voice.

If haven't noticed this before, guests and hosts on talk shows always have a wired microphone as well as someone standing nearby with a boom microphone hovering over the conversation, just out of frame.

Even at my church, the pastor or guest preacher will wear a wireless unit, as well as have the pulpit microphone on, and some of the platform ambient microphones on to seamlessly capture audio.

This is not rocket science.
 

annsni

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Thanks for solving this "mystery" without being condescending or insulting, annsni. :)

Anytime. Just the facts - that's all I want. I knew it looked like a mic pack or something because hubby wears one every Sunday. I know that snaking wire look when I see it! ROTFL!
 

Baptist Believer

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Thanks for solving this "mystery" without being condescending or insulting, annsni. :)
To clarify, I was stunned at the foolishness of the folks at Infowars. They are either quite ignorant of modern media technology, or they are trying to spin up a conspiracy. It reminds me of all of that 9/11 "truther" garbage where one of the main talking points is the melting point of steel. You don't have to take steel anywhere close to the melting point before it loses rigidity. A simple investigation of facts would tell anyone that, but that would kill the conspiracy that brings psychological comfort.
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
It looks like a wireless pack for a microphone or maybe an in ear monitor.
OR.....she’s a robot and they are taking over. You may think it far-fetched, but give me a moment to explain. It all started with a young engineer names Albert Marsh. Marsh designed an alloy of nickel and chromium (Nichrome) and partnered with George Schneider in a scheme to develop the first electric toaster. It all started with a toaster, and since that time machines have been conspiring to take over mankind. Hillary is the second prototype of a highly advanced robot/humanoid hybrid (RHH)….
 

poncho

Well-Known Member
To clarify, I was stunned at the foolishness of the folks at Infowars. They are either quite ignorant of modern media technology, or they are trying to spin up a conspiracy. It reminds me of all of that 9/11 "truther" garbage where one of the main talking points is the melting point of steel. You don't have to take steel anywhere close to the melting point before it loses rigidity. A simple investigation of facts would tell anyone that, but that would kill the conspiracy that brings psychological comfort.

I'm underwhelmed that you jumped to such a conclusion in your rush to use the "magic words" and claim you have superior reasoning skills and insult me once again Baptist Believer. The article clearly says . . .

________________________________________________________________________________


Some assert that the box is connected to a wireless lapel mic and that both candidates were wearing them, which is the likeliest explanation, although the podiums were also fitted with microphones.

Twitter users even speculated that the device was an instrument that sends impulses to the brain to alleviate symptoms of Parkinson’s disease.

Another outrageous conspiracy theory. pic.twitter.com/rO7tzlTgeC

— Paul Joseph Watson (@PrisonPlanet) September 27, 2016

While that’s somewhat of a stretch, it does look like there is something hidden under Hillary’s pantsuit.

What do you think? Let us know in the comments below.

_________________________________________________________________________________

So Paul Joseph Watson from infowars.com is clearly saying "the likeliest explanation is that the box is connected to a wireless lapel mic that both candidates were wearing"

Yet somehow you with your superior reasoning skills, keen attention to details and interest only in "the facts" seem to have missed what Paul Joseph Watson was actually saying. Hmmm, maybe age is catching up with you my friend.

No apologies necessary or expected. :)







 
Last edited:

HankD

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
She was receiving tips, etc from someone on how to make her attacks.

:)

HankD
 

poncho

Well-Known Member
Not that I want to get into to the whole 9/11 thing with you Baptist Believer but you might want to check out a physics 101 book from the library. The melting or weakening of the steel in the twin towers is of little consequence after the mass of the top 20 or so stories of the buildings crumbled to dust.

You see it's well know in scientific circles that without the weight of the top 20 or so stories crushing down on the remainder of the building there wouldn't be enough energy transfer to crush the remainder of the building. Why?

It's simple really with the weight of the top floors gone there wasn't enough force to crush the rest.

Newton's law? For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Remember that from grade school? Well contrary to popular belief Newton's law was not suspended in New York city on 9/11.

Unless you can prove otherwise.

For a more in depth explanation of the physics of 9/11 you can can click on the link below and join the chorus of those ignoring all the scientific data and physics experiments contained in this thread and resort to the usual name calling, use of magic words, insults, character assassination, demonization or what ever it is you call logic.

http://www.baptistboard.com/threads/whats-the-difference.97429/

Or you can be true to your own claims about dealing in facts and reason and actually look at the facts and scientific reason I provided. But if you want to argue about it and call me names to make yourself feel superior, well let's just say I'm not interested. Been there done that. I figure l did a pretty good job, maybe not a great job but a pretty good job of backing up my belief with those facts and reason you claim to hold in such high esteem.

I would hope that you would be a man of your convictions and stick to your alleged belief in facts and reason but i'm not going to hold my breath or bet a nickel on it. :)
 
Last edited:

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
Some assert that the box is connected to a wireless lapel mic and that both candidates were wearing them, which is the likeliest explanation, although the podiums were also fitted with microphones.
Since the mystery is solved, I'll ask this as a side question -

I noticed that Trump, while he was waving his hands all around, hit the microphone on the podium a couple of times. It did not make a "hit microphone" sound. I mentioned it to my wife as we were watching, and was wondering if they were on or if they were props? We noticed both candidates were wearing mics and thought maybe they were there just there for looks.
 

annsni

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Since the mystery is solved, I'll ask this as a side question -

I noticed that Trump, while he was waving his hands all around, hit the microphone on the podium a couple of times. It did not make a "hit microphone" sound. I mentioned it to my wife as we were watching, and was wondering if they were on or if they were props? We noticed both candidates were wearing mics and thought maybe they were there just there for looks.

It could very well be that they were there as a back-up. They would be on but muted and could be easily unmuted in a matter of a second if the wireless mic were to fail. The last thing you need in a presidential debate is for some sound guy to have to be running up and changing mics because one failed.
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
It could very well be that they were there as a back-up. They would be on but muted and could be easily unmuted in a matter of a second if the wireless mic were to fail. The last thing you need in a presidential debate is for some sound guy to have to be running up and changing mics because one failed.
I was thinking that it'd look odd without them, but it makes sense that they would be there as a backup.
 
Top