1) If this subterfuge was done, then wouldn't you think that the leader of the free world, president of the most technologically advanced country, with nearly limitless resources, dont you think he could do it in a FAR more subtle way- an undetectable way?

I would not presume that he would use the fictional gizmos used by James Bond and the Alias lady. I would not presume technology not in evidence. I would guess that he would use the same technology that everyone else uses when they want to be cued.

Or do you suppose DARPA spends a lot of time designing stuff like this? If something like this happened, then it is more likely to have come from the dirty tricks part of the Bush campaign, anyway. I would guess that they would not have involved CIA.

2) If he had succeeded he would have had a modest advantage... If the subterfuge had failed he would have a disaster - it would likely cost him the election... WHY take that risk?

How badly did his test runs go? How badly did they fear the real thing would go? I do not know the answers to those questions. If you assert that there could be no possible reason to take the risk, then you obviously have a lot more information at hand than I do.

Why would the Nixon campaign risk breaking and entering? Why would Clinton risk a beej in the oval office? Are these questions proofs that the events could not have happened?

Bear in mind that we are discussing the guy who would not face the 9/11 commission without Cheney. They risked taking heat for that.

3) Do you think his performance in the debates was unnaturally good? Good god, I remember feeling embarrassment FOR him many times in the debates- even your own article you linked pointed out that he seemed off balance.

Assuming he cheated, then I guess that his performance would have been worse without it.

But think about it, don't some of the wierd expressions on his face make sense if he was straining to listen to someone while Kerry was talking? And the particular incident mentioned in the piece I linked to, I remember specifically because I thought it was odd at the time: where Bush said something querulous about letting him finish, when no one showed any signs of interrupting.

4) DUDE its over- the idiot won, even if the silly conspiracy is true, is that the crime you want to emphasize?! I would be more upset about a war on false pretenses, false imprisonment of people without evidence, HUGE deficits.... the list goes on and on....

Total straw man. I have never said that he did not win. And I never claimed that this was a more important story than other stories. You have debated Brosz for too long, buddy.

All I maintain is that somebody competent ought to collect that video and do the analysis independently. This is a question that we can settle based on existing evidence.

It should not be dismissed as too silly for discussion. And it certainly should not be dismissed on the grounds that kooks have made wild assertions on the same topic (ample reason for the likes of Tom and Ed and Phil and Larry to throw me in with the kooks, but you should know better).