BUSH'S EARPIECE: Looking for proof

The political stakes for Bush's performance at yesterday's press conference were high. It is conceivable that his handlers would not want Bush to stick his foot in his mouth.

There's a thread suggesting that Bush was wearing an earpiece during last night's press conference. I see no evidence of this in the low res video.

I'm assuming that if Bush DID wear one it would be so high tech it could be concealed within the ear canal.... and there would be no need for a visible antenna as some suggested since any transmitter could be as close as the podium itself.

Has anyone seen on the web any high res photos of Bush last night that might show something in his ear? Enquiring minds want to KNOW... and not just assume.

It was in his left ear. They showed closeups of his right side but none of his left side.

Another Bill C. wrote: "It definitely was there. It was in his left ear. They showed closeups of his right side but none of his left side."

I have to ask again... what was your source? Video can play tricks... especially low res VHS. It can cause slight ghosting on edges which might appear to be a clip-on earpiece. Some are even claiming to see an antenna. It's rather incredible to believe that we'd see something on low-res video that people in the room would miss. It's also unlikely that his handlers would be so inept as to use a visible earpiece such as the Secret Service uses. If there's one, it should be almost impossible to see. Which is why I want to see some higher res photos.

While I realize some are just willing to bash Bush for anything... others prefer a higher standard before they come to a judgment. There were photographers all over that room with high powered telephoto lenses. Surely one of their pics would make more convincing proof than bad video.

The angle of the CSPAN cameras were more from Bush's left than others. It was quite clear that there was something in his ear. It reflected light differently. I didn't see an antenna though.

n/t

I wouldn't be surprised if they did feed him answers through an ear piece, but saying "They showed closeups of his right side but none of his left side." is NOT proof that he had something in his ear.

or maybe he's rigged with Bluetooth.

And Cheney was in China. Wonder who the cueman was?

I think that's who he'd want whispering in his ear.

but it was malfunctioning all night

The media is so lapdog they won't even ask him many of the hard questions on taxes, healthcare, etc.

there is a picture of the earpiece and more info.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=bush+earpiece+DU

If you have the URL to a picture that seems to show something in Bush's ear... just post it. I don't have time for these games.

Yup, right throught the earpiece!

what a tool.

they have to get the earpiece so they can hear the director's instructions. Maybe he has a moco coming out his nose. The director must be able to tell the speaker. It would be a distinct handicap to Bush or anyone to get thrown up on camera with only a mic and not an earpiece. It just wouldn't be done.

Now what is said into the earpiece (except "You're live, Mr. President") is anybody's guess. Anybody in the video system can speak into the earpiece, for example all the camerapeople can speak into the system if they need to, to ask instructions from the director, or to point out nice shots or shots coming up that the director might not be aware of. The floor director would be able to speak to him. And anybody else they want to can be added into the system. We don't know that for sure.

Karl Rove in the system? You saw him in the audience, did he look miced? Not to me.

Some other lackey might be on the line giving instructions to the Chimp. We will never know that though it might be true, it's is certainly possible.

But one thing we know for sure without argument. He was on live TV, therefore he was wearing an earpiece. Period. There cannot be an argument otherwise. Not wearing an earpiece WOULD NOT BE DONE!

http://www.circa75.com/showArticle.php?article=89

A funny thing happened at the December 15th presidential press conference. Asked to comment on an earlier statement by Howard Dean regarding his alleged foreknowledge of 9/11, Bush stumbles about the stage, clearly caught off guard by the question, then delivers the line: "It's an absurd asinuation."


I find several this event humorous on several levels. First, the sycophantic nature of the press core is witnessed when Bill Sammons, given the nickname of "Stretch" by the President, lovingly lobs Bush a peach of a question. The question is designed by the highly partisan Washington Post reporter to be a slam dunk, providing Bush with a chance to discredit his likely opponent in the 2004 election, Howard Dean.


Secondly, that the press corps consider it unthinkable that the Bush administration had advance knowledge of 9/11, when their own reporting indicates that this was the case. It has been widely reported that many intelligence warnings were given to the Bush administration prior to the attacks on 9/11. Sources as diverse as Israel, Russia, the Philippines, Germany, Saudi Arabia, and even the Taliban government are attributed as having provided warnings to the U.S. intelligence apparatus of the coming attacks.


Thirdly, it could not be more clear that Bush was provided the words with which to answer. At first, Bush stumbles about, repeating his previous line that "there's a time for politics." During this time, he's avoiding eye contact, shrugging, and delaying. Then, the answer is given to him, presumably through a wireless ear piece. Bush then suddenly delivers his line that "it's an absurd asinuation." The suddenness of his reply, after having been speechless, the smile in his eyes when he's given the correct answer, and his incorrect pronunciation of the word "insinuation" all lead to conclusion that he was prompted to provide this answer.

then it was just a big wad of gum stuck in his ear. Idiots have been known to do this on occasion.

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/techinnovations/2003-05-19-hss_x.htm

<snip>

Essentially, HSS for the first time does for sound what the laser did for light — intensely focuses and channels it so it can travel great distances without dispersing. In the demo, a technician points a speaker the size of a cereal box at someone standing 100 yards away. Amid the din of the nearby freeway, the technician plays a recording of ice cubes clinking into a glass.

<snip>

Though the technology is still years from becoming mainstream, HSS could be used to make laptop speakers that blare music to the person in front of the screen, while no one else could hear it. It could allow a grocery store to play audio advertisements that seem to come from, say, the display of Duracell batteries, yet the ad could be heard only by the shopper in front of the display. An HSS-equipped car could play one CD for the parents up front and another for kids in the back. Neither would hear even a whisper of the others' music.

<snip>

The technology is winning believers from Wal-Mart to McDonald's, Fox television, the Los Angeles Police Department, Procter & Gamble, the U.S. Navy and Cirque de Soleil. It is looking into whether HSS could be used to communicate instructions, midact, from the ground to a trapeze artist without the audience hearing. Companies are experimenting with HSS in TVs, rock concerts, museums, war and airport gates. Imagine hearing only your flight's announcements. In 2002, Popular Science magazine awarded HSS the grand prize for inventions. The Segway personal transporter took second.

<snip>

.
.
.

A revolutionary new design for a tooth implant which receives digital signals from radios and mobile phones will be on show from 21 June until November at the Science Museum‚ London.

http://www.mobiletechnews.com/info/2002/06/28/191107.html

"Sound reception is totally discreet enabling information to be received anywhere and at anytime‚ whether it is City traders receiving stock market information in the cinema or spin-doctors sending information to politicians as they are interviewed."

From the above URL in the previous post by ConcernedCanuk.

He'd start drooling, for Pete's sake.

...is because there will never be "conclusive proof" that will satisfy. Some people will be absolutely certain of an ear piece, and that's all there will ever be.

I'd rather not waste more time on it - that said I'm not denying the right of anyone to post whatever they want, and prioritize the importance of issues in whatever way the feel is best.

My earlier nastier comments are just frustration. I have a personal opinion, and that is that we frequently focus our attention on the wrong things. I respect the right of everyone to disagree with me on that, and I'll to my best to remain more open-minded and less confrontational whenever I can.

Selwynn wrote: "The reason why I reacted so negatively.....is because there will never be "conclusive proof" that will satisfy. Some people will be absolutely certain of an ear piece, and that's all there will ever be."

Which is why I started a separate thread on this issue... I wanted to remind people that conclusions must be based on evidence... and I suggested what that evidence might actually be. If some on the Left are driven to make baseless conclusions... then it's pretty difficult for them to back up any point they make simply because their conclusions are merely partisan observations which by their nature blow in the wind.

http://www.thelandofmacbeth.com/spy/inv_ear.htm

Invisible Earpiece

The cordless invisible earpiece is a useful device when monitoring a conversation from a receiver discreetly. The tiny earpiece fits snugly into the users ear and the induction loop is worn inconspicuously under the clothing and simply connects to the receiver being used. The user can then hear everything that the receiver picks up from a transmitter with absolute discretion. This system will operate with any type of receiver as well as any type of two way radio system.

Price...£342.00....US$569.00

Just because there are small earpieces doesn't mean Bush had one. Isn't that where we should start? Looking first for that evidence that there was something in his ear? If we start believing what's plausible instead of what's provable... then how are we different from the Rush's of the world who live in a world of partisan spin?

:)

I think that the world of partisan spin would first ask us to discount, as you are doing, the evidence that our own eyes give us. Example: Condi saying that the Aug. 6, 2001 PDB said nothing about attacks within the US, when the damned title of the brief was "Bin Laden Determined to Strike at US Targets." You are asking us, just as Condi did, not to believe our own eyes.

But, a journey of a thousand miles does begin with that first step....There is a question to be asked before we begin using the evidence in front of our eyes: Is this normal for any speaker on television?

That's the question we need answered first. Did Clinton wear an earpiece? Any other president?

Th1onein wrote: "I think you're wrong. I think that the world of partisan spin would first ask us to discount, as you are doing, the evidence that our own eyes give us."

You can claim to see anything... but even you are not showing any evidence. The room was full of photographers with powerful telephoto lenses. If there's something in Bush's ear... then it would be CLEARLY visible in some of these photos.... and some may be on the web or in the press. Is asking for someone to back up their claims with evidence now considered controversial?

"Example: Condi saying that the Aug. 6, 2001 PDB said nothing about attacks within the US, when the damned title of the brief was "Bin Laden Determined to Strike at US Targets." You are asking us, just as Condi did, not to believe our own eyes."

This has nothing to do with Condi or the PDB.

"But, a journey of a thousand miles does begin with that first step....There is a question to be asked before we begin using the evidence in front of our eyes: Is this normal for any speaker on television?"

Please get your priorities clear. The first step is being sure there IS evidence before your eyes. You're rushing to assume it's true. No one has presented any nor have I seen any in the video I've watched.
If you have some I'm dying to evaluate for myself. Unless the expectation here is that we're all Leftist ditto-heads.

I think that we first have to ask, "Even if it IS true, does it matter?" Otherwise, we are wasting our time.

And this has a LOT to do with the attitude that we have to show "proof" for everything, even when the proof is evident for everyone to see. Condi's assessment of the Aug. 6 PDB and your call for "proof" are prime examples of this attitude.

Why bother ourselves getting the "proof" no one but you is demanding, when the issue might be moot, to begin with?

And, by the way, your inference that anyone doesn't agree with you is a leftist dittohead is also typical of right-wing tactics; vis a vis if your not for the war in Iraq, then you're not a patriot.

Give me a break.

Th1onein wrote: "Bullshit. I think that we first have to ask, "Even if it IS true, does it matter?" Otherwise, we are wasting our time."

Uh? The question is WHETHER it's true. You have in past posts supported the claim it is. Please focus.

"And this has a LOT to do with the attitude that we have to show "proof" for everything, even when the proof is evident for everyone to see."

I prefer my opinions to be based in fact. If you choose a different standard... please just come right out and say so. If something were REALLY self-evident... I would not be asking for proof of someone's claims.

"Condi's assessment of the Aug. 6 PDB and your call for "proof" are prime examples of this attitude."

I think you're trying to borrow credibility from the PDB issue because you can't demonstrate any on the matter of whether Bush had an earpiece.

"Why bother ourselves getting the "proof" no one but you is demanding, when the issue might be moot, to begin with?"

Is having a SOLID basis for an opinion now a crime at DU?

"And, by the way, your inference that anyone doesn't agree with you is a leftist dittohead is also typical of right-wing tactics; vis a vis if your not for the war in Iraq, then you're not a patriot."

Irrationality knows no political boundaries. The Right has no monopoly on it nor is the Left immune.

My point here and in other threads is that if the Left is to distinguish itself from the mindless dittoheads of the Right... then the BEST way to do so is to ensure our beliefs have a solid base in rationality and fact. Unfortunately this inherently desirable quality is not self-evident to all.

FIRST: If EVERYONE who appears on TV, giving a press conference, wears an earpiece, what possible significance would it have to us if Bush wore one as well? If Clinton wore one; if Nixon wore one; LBJ wore one, if anyone who gives a press conference wears an earpiece, why should it even be an issue if Bush does?

Why go all out wasting our time finding the "proof" that you call for, if it is a moot point, in the first place?

1. I saw an earpiece as did many others.
2. Determine whether this is "normal" or not.
3. If it isn't, then gather evidence to publish.

That's how you get things done that actually might do some good. Otherwise you are going off on a wild goosechase; wasting your energy fighting windmills.

12 Posts and Not One Shred of Evidence? Yet no one doubts that Bush HAD to be wearing an earpiece. As a Leftist I'd've hoped for a higher standard than a Leftist version of ditto-head logic.

The whole issue about the earpiece is something that has been mentioned many times, and his pattern of speech surely would support it.. If you have ever listened to him speaking extemporaneously about something that he enjoys talking about,(like executing someone), his pattern of speech is very different..

The *****.....*****.....*****..... pattern is very compatible with the pause necessary to hear someone feeding you alswers..

So will any news person ever ask him?? Nope... Will anyoone get close enough to see it?? Probably not.. and if they were, a story would come out about how he has suffered "a slight hearing loss", and it's just to help him hear the questions in a noisy room...

Is there a law against us speculating a bit?? Is it part of Patriot Act, part deux??

Chill out.. :hi:

SoCalDem wrote: "Is there a law against us speculating a bit?? Is it part of Patriot Act, part deux??"

Speculation is one thing... coming to an unsupported conclusion is another and that's what just about all the posts I've read are doing.

If it's true then it's just another damning indictment of the Bush Junta. But just because I believe Bush is dangerous, irresponsible and a war criminal doesn't mean I'm going to blindly believe EVERY negative thing that someone claims or "speculates" about. Now if YOU want the DU to be a Leftist version of Rush's dittoheads... please just come out and say so. I, clearly, do not.

www.georgebushwearsanearpiece.com

:)

But does Bush still stutter like mad whenever he has to refer to himself as "I"?

We have our suspicions, and we discuss them. With any luck the rumour will get around. I don't have any moral problems with that, is it after all, quite likely true.
I'm not quite sure why this bothers you.

Screaming Lord Byron wrote: "We have our suspicions, and we discuss them."

I think it's clear that what most people are posting is a statement of fact... and not qualified as a suspicion. I'm just as suspicious of the Bush Junta as the next person but I still prefer any conclusions to be based in fact. If people are claiming to see an ear piece then I want to see what they claim to be seeing. A good photo we all can evaluate is certainly better than what one claims to see on their crappy videotape. I've looked and I see nothing.

"With any luck the rumor will get around. I don't have any moral problems with that, is it after all, quite likely true."

"Quite likely" is your standard?

"I'm not quite sure why this bothers you."

How about because I have a different standard. Rabid partisanship distorts the intellect. We see it all the time with the ditto-heads.
Are they to be condemned just because they are on the Right? Or because they are irrational?

I think it's quite likely some sort of earpiece is involved, and am perfectly happy with spreading that. As to any final real evidence, it is highly unlikely that we will have any, although the evidence of the DUer in the other thread on this subject who thought that some leakage from the device could be heard seems good to me. Speech patterns, posture and inflection suggest to me that Bush is receieving prompts. I don't think this is rabidly partisan. I would have this suspicion about any individual in this position. Compare us to the enemy all you like, but we believe this to be the case. I'm glad that you have what you consider to be high standards. I congratulate you on them. As for me, I am perfectly happy to perpetuate a story that, while it could be called a rumour, appears to me to have a strong likelihood of being true.

No proof exists, apparently ...

So therefore: do not make the assertion ...

IF INCONTROVERTIBLE proof arrives, you will be first to know ...

In the meantime? ... Find another, more productive line of argument ...

Getting angry at the lack of proof is hardly empowering ...

Trajan wrote: "Cool yer heels ULtrax ..."

The name's ulTRAX

"No proof exists, apparently ... So therefore: do not make the assertion ... "

Uh?

"IF INCONTROVERTIBLE proof arrives, you will be first to know ...
In the meantime? ... Find another, more productive line of argument ..."

And it's my fault that asking for proof is unproductive?

"Getting angry at the lack of proof is hardly empowering ..."

You have it backwards. It's not the lack of proof that's the problem. What is infuriating is how so many here believe that ANYTHING bad said about Bush must be accepted as true without proof.

Hardly ANYONE is actually demanding this is true ...

I havent the time to point out the absurd uselessness of your commentary on this thread ... I suppose you can figure it out by the responses you have received ....

If there IS no proof, then DONT claim it ...

ULtrax ...

tRAJAN wrote: "Nonsense ... Hardly ANYONE is actually demanding this is true ... "

I have no idea what you're reading. The reality is that in this thread and one from yesterday, the vast majority of responses were assuming the question settled.

"If there IS no proof, then DONT claim it ... "

Again I have NO idea WTF your referring to. I have NOT been claiming there's any proof... I've been asking of those who DO claim Bush had an earpiece to present THEIR proof. Any of this registering?

over at freaksville. I'm certain they'll give you your answer that you want to hear. Have a good one!

"But within 20 seconds of Mr Aznar starting to speak, Mr Bush's comprehension was exhausted and he reached for an earpiece carrying a translation."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/bush/story/0,7369,506114,00.html

TYY

Thanks for article but using an ear piece to get a translation hardly proves he wore one during his press conference. Since so many claim to have seen an ear piece, the PROOF would be in those high res photos no one yet seems to have produced.

Standard DU CW; Any notion, claim, story or source which supports DU Official Zeitgeist is accepted wholeheartedly and does not have to be supported by evidence, fact or reputation. Anything that runs contrary to DU Official Zeitgeist is automatically rejected as a filthy lie, misrepresentation, hoax and/or conspiracy, regardless of its provenance.

Get with the program.

leanings wrote: "C'mon, man. Standard DU CW; Any notion, claim, story or source which supports DU Official Zeitgeist is accepted wholeheartedly and does not have to be supported by evidence, fact or reputation. Anything that runs contrary to DU Official Zeitgeist is automatically rejected as a filthy lie, misrepresentation, hoax and/or conspiracy, regardless of its provenance.
Get with the program."

If true, then it fits perfectly with my comments in an earlier thread that extreme partisanship being a form of self-inflicted psychosis. LOL

I'd like to think the Left is immune from such irrationality but I know better.

. . . proof that the Booshes like to stick things in their ears.



Poppy wears an earplug.

TYY

TYY

you are god............you are God...............you are GOd............you are


GOD

are you afraid, bah ha ha ha

Bush in NC:

Bush had a brief meeting with the press where he rambled, which is no big deal, but he also seemed unusually disoriented.

He began by discussing a conversation he had with a local family, proceeded to say how he reassured them that the US is commited to Iraq. He concluded with:

"But the family was pleased to hear that we -- its son would not have died in vain. And that's an important message that I wanted to share with you today."

Its son? Okay, I know its not odd that Bush mixes up pronouns and antecedants, but this seems more profound to me given the transcript of the following exchange with reporters. This isn't just a guy who has trouble processing language, IMO. He's disturbed, medicated, or both.

This is how he starts the Q & A (emphasis added):
---


Let me ask you a couple of questions. Who is the AP person?

Q I am.

THE PRESIDENT: You are?

Q Sir, in regard to --

THE PRESIDENT: Who are you talking to?

Q Mr. President, in regard to the June 30th deadline, is there a chance that that would be moved back?

THE PRESIDENT: No, the intention is to make sure the deadline remains the same....yikkity yakkity yak...


----
He finishes up by saying something that makes me think he has no idea what has happened in Iraq, which is that Shia and Sunnis are actually uniting against the occupation. Instead he prattles on about how freedom haters are stirring up trouble by targeting shia and sunni individuals to create civil unrest between the groups. Funny, the shia aren't fighting with the sunni. Of course, no time for a follow-up question. But that's just his usual bs/stupidity. The beginning of the conference is the scary/strange part.

Here's the transcript,

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/04/20040405-4.html

but if you have time watch the tape on reuters.

http://tinyurl.com/3f4xr

Go to world news in the 2nd column, and click on *'s face.

Watch how he rocks back and forth, scans the crowd, and gesters as if he's selecting the speaker--but the reporter is nearly at the end of his question. Very, very odd.

I'm not sure if there's anything actually in the ear canal or the skin there is merely reflecting light differently. If there was another closeup from slightly behind (or Bush was facing more to the right) so we could definitely see the ear canal was blocked... then that would be more interesting.

your image only brought up an error: "error 404 Are you udderly cowfused by this error? Translation: The web page you have requested has been deleted or mooooved by the author of the web site you are visiting."

Thanks guys. I'm flattered.

-as

Doubter turned believer,
Jennifer

Here was my response

ulTRAX (661 posts) Thu Apr-15-04 01:28 PM
Response to Reply #42
46. thanks for that
I'm not sure if there's anything actually in the ear canal or the skin there is merely reflecting light differently. If there was another closeup from slightly behind (or Bush was facing more to the right) so we could definitely see the ear canal was blocked... then that would be more interesting.

As much as it wouldn't surprise me if * needed his answers fed to him, maybe he's just wearing a hearing aid. He wouldn't be the first guy in his 50s to wear one.

stop arguing over whether Bush wears an earpiece. That's really silly. Don't you know he has an implant in his brain that allows people to control him from a distance? The only problem is there are some glitches that have to be ironed out.

participating in the press conference with him/for him. Surely he would sound more intelligent if even Hughes or Rove was speaking for him.

Hi, this is my first post.

I don't think, even if Bush had an earpiece, he was being prompted, because he said really stupid things.

One of the most bizarely stupid things he said was in response to questions about CIA and FBI intelligence. He answered "We were kind of stovepiped". Now that was the phrase that Seymour Hersh used to describe in a long New Yorker article, how the neocons abused the intelligence vetting process to get raw (bad) intelligence on Iraq to the highest levels to justify the invasion.

I couldn't believe my ears when he used the term -- it was kind of like saying, yeah, we accelerated bad intelligence to the top levels of government. I was able to use google to find a cbs news story online that actually confirms that he said this!

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/04/13/politics/main611700.shtml

The only way I can understand his use of the term is that in administration discussions, he was told that bad investigative reporters acuse Cheney et al of stovepiping intelligence. Bush could not keep straight in his mind the meaning of that story or accusation.

This proves that he is much more confused than I thought and whatever coaching he received wasn't enough to rein him in.

When Bush finishes, he turns to the right and you can see down into his ear canal. There's a dark shadow. If there were an earpiece visible from the side... as some claim pictures show, it would be lite by the lights.

As for Bush's stammering... it's proof of nothing except that he can't deal with anyone questioning his delusions of infallibility.

n/t

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=1402989&mesg_id=1402989

which had 103 posts

http://www.rense.com/general35/voices.htm

This story from Rense has what I consider to be a good argument based on * movements and speech style.

If there's no evidence of an earpiece.... and in fact I believe the evidence is that there is NO earpiece... then there's some other explanation for Bush's odd behavior.

Yikes. If you don't like the thread.. then.. umm.. don't post in it. I watched Bush's speech. I saw the earpiece, as others did. When I found the photo of an earlier event, posted here, with the ear bud in there, it was EXACTLY the same as I saw during the press conference. I know you're trying to make some point about conjecture here.. but you just come off as being angry, and rather confrontational, when we're all just having fun with this.

There have been several uncoordinated reports of people actually HEARING things coming from Bush's earpiece before, at other events. Unless Karl Rove writes a tell all book, or Bush really blows it, we won't really know.. will we.

BTW. Karen Hughes.. she's the one yacking in his ear.

Caliphoto wrote: "Who peed in your Wheaties this morning? Yikes. If you don't like the thread.. then.. umm.. don't post in it."

UH? Take a look who started the thread Einstein.

"I watched Bush's speech. I saw the earpiece, as others did. When I found the photo of an earlier event, posted here, with the ear bud in there, it was EXACTLY the same as I saw during the press conference."

I looked at the BEST photo posted here and it did raise some questions at first... but it was not sufficient to draw a conclusion on. Which is why I asked if there was any better shots showing if his ear canal was actually blocked.

"I know you're trying to make some point about conjecture here.. but you just come off as being angry, and rather confrontational, when we're all just having fun with this."

While you may be having fun... there's a greater danger here that many are so partisan they revolve their world around whatever they believe helps their cause and hurts the other guy's. In reality there should be no place for anything but facts and if facts aren't available... strategies to get to the facts. It's not as if we're short of VALID issues to bash Bush with.

"There have been several uncoordinated reports of people actually HEARING things coming from Bush's earpiece before, at other events. Unless Karl Rove writes a tell all book, or Bush really blows it, we won't really know.. will we."

There ARE reports that Bush has used earpieces for translating foreign languages. Yet I also have to believe that as servile as the Washington press core is.... they were there... and in person. If anyone had this suspicion then... some ambitious photographer would have been positioning him/herself with one of those 1000mm telephoto lens to get the money shot. That would have been when Bush turned in such a way that clearly showed his ear canal was blocked. When Bush turns to leave the TV cameras get that shot and they don't show any such earpiece.