Merged Boston Marathon CTs

[DGM]

Bubba:

Do you realize there were thousands of people that witnessed this in person? I personally know several (notice my location).

 

[JohnG]

I recently witnessed a car accident and assisted the injured parties away from their vehicles when it appeared that one of the cars was about to go up in flames (it didn't, thankfully). If someone had been taking snapshots during the 10 minute period of time in question there would have been shots that made me appear to be just another dumbfounded onlooker. Other shots where it looked like I was doing something stupid by moving the injured parties when SOP is to not move them. Still other shots where I would've appeared to have abandoned the victims to root around in one of their cars for no apparent reason. All of this would've no doubt appeared odd, objectionable, perhaps even suspicious, to someone viewing the pictures without knowledge of the full context of what I did, why I did it and the order/timeframe in which I did those things.

 

[Bubba]

Sure, but you are going to insensitively blunder on regardless, are you not?

You claim to not have the skills to refute or verify, yet you seem to claim the skills to cast doubt in some undefined way. What skills do you have to cast that doubt?
Alleged cognitive skills. Please recall it was merely my perceived observation of (apparent) not-bloody/then bloody(claimed) incongruent sequencing of alleged visual data in those pics.

It would seem you have led a very sheltered life.

It is not at all odd. If you had witnessed any real trauma, you would know this.

Backing up already? Actually no. Since I said 'my bad' it was merely a correction. You saw that. Attempting to spin it otherwise only wastes time and energy.

People do all sorts of things in traumatic circumstances, sometimes even things they saw in movies that they thought were true.

Tell you what, when you watch a young man bleed out before your eyes, when you reassure him in soothing tones that he is going to be OK when you know he is dying in front of you, when he is dead and you stand up with shaky footing only to realise that you are slipping in a dead man's blood, when you have the visceral smell of spilt blood and death in your nose so strong and coppery metallic that you can taste it in the air, when you watch as the firemen hose the street to cleanse it of the blood and brain material, when you do that, then you might venture a personal opinion. I would not wish it on you, it never leaves you once experienced.

Notice I replied 'OK' when turingtest said "Just stop, ok?"

Moving on to abaddon's "visceral smell of spilt blood and death in your nose so strong and coppery metallic that you can taste it in the air, when you watch as the firemen hose the street to cleanse it of the blood and brain material, when you do that, then you might venture a personal opinion. I would not wish it on you, it never leaves you once experienced."

Respectfully abaddon, thank you for your service. I get that it is powerfully emotional for you. Whereas the question was only or principally about image fakery, this is a matter separate from the emotional intensity of on scene experience. Again, I respect and salute your service.

 

[Bubba]

Bubba:

Do you realize there were thousands of people that witnessed this in person? I personally know several (notice my location).

DGM:

Marblehead.

Do you realize the claim of broadcast digital fakery has almost nothing to do with what you are referring to?

 

[Butter!]

DGM:

Marblehead.

Do you realize the claim of digital fakery has nothing to do with what you are referring to?

Sure it does. He's saying tons of people witnessed in person the things this conspiracy theory claims are digitally faked. If people saw them happening, digital fakery couldn't really be to blame, could it?

I don't know what Marblehead refers to though. It's kind of late here and I may have missed something.

 

[Craig4]

DGM:

Marblehead.

Do you realize the claim of broadcast digital fakery has almost nothing to do with what you are referring to?

Why do you think to claim of digital fakery rates your attention?

 

[Bubba]

Sure it does. He's saying tons of people witnessed in person the things this conspiracy theory claims are digitally faked. If people[saw them happening, digital fakery couldn't really be to blame, could it?/HILITE] I don't know what Marblehead refers to though. It's kind of late here and I may have missed something.

We were told a Naumkeag fishing village changed hands and became Marblehead. "Old Ironsides" supposedly survived by sheltering under the guns of Marblehead's Fort Sewall a while back. Try google. DGM, his (alluded to) neighbors, and everyone else, perceive what they think they perceive according to what they are inclined to perceive according to what the information delivery systems present as reality. To a large extent these days pixels=perception per the major media information delivery systems. Certainly DGM's neighbors perceived what they think they perceived. Subsequent media spin could tell everyone else what to perceive, and it could influence and skew what DGM's neighbors (who were there on scene) thought they perceived. (answering DGM re his thousands of witnesses) We are now in a world where sophisticated programs control perception via the global information delivery system. That system is subject to agenda driven manipulation by the relatively tiny percentage of people controlling it. Consider that cutting edge (or better) CGI perception manipulation tech is involved. Please share your perceptions regarding what is real to you, isissxn, and what is not, based on what major media imagery tells you. Note the factor of perception control per the seminal contribution of Freud's nephew Bernays, + 70 years of progression. Note the relatively small percentage of today's corporate board family members across 100-200 years of consolidation of power, globally. Note control of perception is key, especially in the so called information age. Note the disparity in their private school education vs public 'education'. The golden rule says those with the gold rule. They know controlling everyone else's perception is key. Just sayin, isissxn. PS Note that some who will readily agree with "Victors write history" may nonetheless get all huffy about what you just read.

 

[Bubba]

Why do you think to claim of digital fakery rates your attention?

Because we are now living in an age where we can not know whether or not the imagery we are shown by 'media' and 'authority' is real or fake. Example: Anderson Cooper's nose disappears in typical green screen glitch during an alleged live interview with a major crime victim.

The TV news reports are usually accepted as reliable. More and more these days the "news" is, generally speaking, corporate employees reading on air the press releases they get from the authorities. Investigative journalism is a dying art. Search media news fakery.

 

[Kid Eager]

We were told a Naumkeag fishing village changed hands and became Marblehead. "Old Ironsides" supposedly survived by sheltering under the guns of Marblehead's Fort Sewall a while back. Try google.

DGM, his (alluded to) neighbors, and everyone else, perceive what they think they perceive according to what they are inclined to perceive according to what the information delivery systems present as reality. To a large extent these days pixels=perception per the major media information delivery systems.

We are now in a world where sophisticated programs control perception via the global information delivery system. That system is subject to agenda driven manipulation by the relatively tiny percentage of people controlling it.

Consider that cutting edge (or better) CGI perception manipulation tech is involved. Please share your perceptions regarding what is real to you, isissxn, and what is not, based on what major media imagery tells you. Note the factor of perception control per the seminal contribution of Freud's nephew Bernays, + 70 years of progression.

Note the relatively small percentage of today's corporate board family members across 100-200 years of consolidation of power, globally. Note control of perception is key, especially in the so called information age. Note the disparity in their private school education vs public 'education'.

The golden rule says those with the gold rule.

Just sayin, isissxn.

PS

Note that some who will readily agree with "Victors write history" may nonetheless get all huffy about what you just read.

Thank you for your speculation. Just sayin...

 

[Butter!]

We were told a Naumkeag fishing village changed hands and became Marblehead. "Old Ironsides" supposedly survived by sheltering under the guns of Marblehead's Fort Sewall a while back. Try google.

DGM, his (alluded to) neighbors, and everyone else, perceive what they think they perceive according to what they are inclined to perceive according to what the information delivery systems present as reality. To a large extent these days pixels=perception per the major media information delivery systems.

Certainly DGM's neighbors perceived what they think they perceived. Subsequent media spin could tell everyone else what to perceive, and it could influence and skew what DGM's neighbors (who were there on scene) thought they perceived. (answering DGM re his thousands of witnesses)

We are now in a world where sophisticated programs control perception via the global information delivery system. That system is subject to agenda driven manipulation by the relatively tiny percentage of people controlling it.

Consider that cutting edge (or better) CGI perception manipulation tech is involved. Please share your perceptions regarding what is real to you, isissxn, and what is not, based on what major media imagery tells you. Note the factor of perception control per the seminal contribution of Freud's nephew Bernays, + 70 years of progression.

Note the relatively small percentage of today's corporate board family members across 100-200 years of consolidation of power, globally. Note control of perception is key, especially in the so called information age. Note the disparity in their private school education vs public 'education'.

The golden rule says those with the gold rule. They know controlling everyone else's perception is key.

Just sayin, isissxn.

PS

Note that some who will readily agree with "Victors write history" may nonetheless get all huffy about what you just read.

I'm always on the lookout for media spin. That's why I dig through multiple (often opposing) news sources if I care enough about a story to want the whole picture before coming to any conclusion. Very big difference between that and thinking secret cabals run the world and "stage" events like this tragedy using "digital manipulation." (But using it just badly enough that paranoid people on the 'net can spot the errors, of course.) That kind of thinking is so outlandish to me, I can barely imagine what it must be like to even entertain such thoughts as possibilities. I imagine it's rather scary, at least.

Honestly, education can be your best weapon against these sorts of rabbit holes. Learn a lot about the world, politics, sociology, human behavior, science. It helps train your mind to be able to think critically, and to get a better idea of how the world actually works. The conspiracies you worry about are impossible.

Stop reading about them, and educate yourself on some of the other stuff I listed. Yeah, it's not as viscerally exciting. Sometimes facts can even be a bit dull. But the benefit to you if you soldier on through it anyway is immeasurable.

Anyway, Bubba, I'm only a tourist in this section. I mostly hang out in Current Events and General Skepticism, and lurk in Science and Mathematics. I pop in here every now and then because I like to know what people are talking about, but I ultimately find all this conspiracy stuff a little exhausting. I just popped in to comment because you seem nice enough, if maybe a little misguided (though aren't we all in some way). So if I don't answer anymore, don't be offended. I'm very tired, and by tomorrow I might not even remember I posted here.

ETA - Oh, for the record, no one's disputing that private school education is usually more thorough. If I believed in god, I'd thank Him every day that I was able to get a private school education because I've seen firsthand the difference it made. As for your point about the corporations, it's a LOT more disparate than you think. Another area where educating yourself on the boring minutia would come in handy. Ever taken an economics class or a business class? There's tons of books out there that can teach you the basics just as well. Look into it!

No one's denying that money is a great thing to have in this world. It opens a lot of doors and grants a lot of power to those who possess it. But it's not the be-all end-all either. It has limits, like everything else.

TL;DR = The conspiracy alleged in this thread is irrational, full stop.

 

[JayUtah]

Because we are now living in an age where we can not know whether or not the imagery we are shown by 'media' and 'authority' is real or fake.

You can know whether the coverage of an event with thousands of eyewitnesses is a wholesale fakery or not. You're conflating two very dissimilar contexts.

Further your criticism, even to the extent that it may be defensible, is comically one-sided. How many examples must you be shown of distortion and outright fabrication by the non-mainstream sources you so enthusiastically cling to? You seem to operate under the delusion that only mainstream sources distort and fabricate, and that escaping such misleading effects is simply a matter of stepping away from the mainstream and onto the margin, where everything is presumed to be accurately reported.

I cannot think of anything so obviously inimical to critical thought as that.

 

[threadworm]

I recently witnessed a car accident and assisted the injured parties away from their vehicles when it appeared that one of the cars was about to go up in flames (it didn't, thankfully). If someone had been taking snapshots during the 10 minute period of time in question there would have been shots that made me appear to be just another dumbfounded onlooker. Other shots where it looked like I was doing something stupid by moving the injured parties when SOP is to not move them. Still other shots where I would've appeared to have abandoned the victims to root around in one of their cars for no apparent reason. All of this would've no doubt appeared odd, objectionable, perhaps even suspicious, to someone viewing the pictures without knowledge of the full context of what I did, why I did it and the order/timeframe in which I did those things.

Indeed - any snapshot of a dynamic event is not going to give you the whole story of what happened.

The other side of this coin is the assumption by Bubba, and many others who seem incapable of empathy, is that they somehow know what they would have done, and because people didn't do what they think they should have done then this instantly makes it a fake event.

This is nonsense.

People do weird things in traumatic events. When they are surrounded by something that is not normal, they reach for the normal. People surrounded by carnage will tidy up litter, or pick themselves up and go about their business as if nothing happened - they will try and rationalise the irrational by imposing their own sense of order upon it and this behaviour can seem bizarre to those not involved in it.

Until you have been involved in trauma, you have no idea what how you will respond. People like Bubba perhaps need to learn some harder lessons before they will see the sense of their idiotic claims.

 

[Bubba]

You can know whether the coverage of an event with thousands of eyewitnesses is a wholesale fakery or not. You're conflating two very dissimilar contexts.

Further your criticism, even to the extent that it may be defensible, is comically one-sided. How many examples must you be shown of distortion and outright fabrication by the non-mainstream sources you so enthusiastically cling to? You seem to operate under the delusion that only mainstream sources distort and fabricate, and that escaping such misleading effects is simply a matter of stepping away from the mainstream and onto the margin, where everything is presumed to be accurately reported.
I cannot think of anything so obviously inimical to critical thought as that.

Respectfully Jay, no, no, no, and no. None of the hilited applies to me more than superficially. I've not elaborated sufficiently for you to grasp my posture. My bad. Therefore I take responsibility for your mistakes. I apologize for inadvertently leading you astray.

If it helps, I have sampled and rejected countless more non-mainstream sources than mainstream sources. I'm sure you appreciate how sampling then disqualifying innumerable sources could develop discernment. For all you really know, I could be researching hive mind behaviors across the web for a book project. I dont see any here, though.

You seem to operate under the delusion that only mainstream sources distort and fabricate, and that escaping such misleading effects is simply a matter of stepping away from the mainstream and onto the margin, where everything is presumed to be accurately reported.

You think I presume everything is accurately reported on the margin? No. Way no. Its a jungle out there. However I do think the so called mainstream has become essentially unreliable in certain key areas only. Special interests have way way too much influence.

Off topic I suppose, but interesting.

You can know whether the coverage of an event with thousands of eyewitnesses is a wholesale fakery or not.

Is that like one of the commandments, or is it more like a flexible guideline?

I'd say not necessarily. I see a disconnect between what national media broadcasts as reality, and what was witnessed on scene. If on scene witnesses wish to contradict what is broadcast, how do they reach us?

The claim of those crying fakery in the Boston (and other) imagery becomes that the so called 'PTB' can and do generate imagery for public consumption before the incident, and splice it in to the stream. That is not to say there is no incident. Of course there'd have to be an incident, unless the reported incident is far away from public view, in which case they are free to fabricate at will.

Anyway, these days the whole thing boils down to perception control technology on steroids. That is what we are really talking about, in my view, and I think it is the future, already and before already, already. Another thread perhaps.

 

[Bubba]

Indeed - any snapshot of a dynamic event is not going to give you the whole story of what happened.

The other side of this coin is the assumption by Bubba, and many others who seem incapable of empathy, is that they somehow know what they would have done, and because people didn't do what they think they should have done then this instantly makes it a fake event.

This is nonsense.

People do weird things in traumatic events. When they are surrounded by something that is not normal, they reach for the normal. People surrounded by carnage will tidy up litter, or pick themselves up and go about their business as if nothing happened - they will try and rationalise the irrational by imposing their own sense of order upon it and this behaviour can seem bizarre to those not involved in it.
Good points.

Until you have been involved in trauma, you have no idea what how you will respond. People like Bubba perhaps need to learn some harder lessons before they will see the sense of their idiotic claims.

assumption by Bubba, and many others who seem incapable of empathy,

You have no clue there. No offense.

you have no idea what how you will respond. People like Bubba perhaps need to learn some harder lessons before they will see the sense of their idiotic claims

You presume far too much.

 

[trustbutverify]

DGM, his (alluded to) neighbors, and everyone else, perceive what they think they perceive according to what they are inclined to perceive according to what the information delivery systems present as reality. To a large extent these days pixels=perception per the major media information delivery systems.

Since you never answered my question:

Why fake the marathon attack in the first place? Why not just do the bombing exactly as "those with the gold" wish it to be perceived as. Why go to all the enormous effort, and assume all of the obvious risks, by constructing some elaborate simulation? Why not just do the bombing?

 

[threadworm]

You have no clue there. No offense.


You presume far too much.

No, I think given that you can look at scenes showing the consequences of appalling human brutality, including photographs of an individual whose shattered leg bones are poking out from where the rest of his leg is entirely absent, including pictures of people in obvious shock and distress, surrounded by blood and tissue and instead of asking "what kind of sick mind conjures up this kind of act as a way of achieving anything" or saying "those poor people", you sit there in judgement and claim that they are actors and it is faked then I think I have it pretty much nailed.

You can cloak it with all the usual "oh I don't know it just kind of smells funny is all" that you like and equivocate by hiding behind the pronouncements of others, but yes, you are taking human misery and playing your own game with it and clearly don't understand what happens to people in events like this.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Since you never answered my question:

Why fake the marathon attack in the first place? Why not just do the bombing exactly as "those with the gold" wish it to be perceived as. Why go to all the enormous effort, and assume all of the obvious risks, by constructing some elaborate simulation? Why not just do the bombing?

Exactly this.

I think it is because if it is a 'simple' bombing there is nothing for the keyboard warrior to discover, there is no reason to feel that you are seperate and superior to the 'Sheep' that think it is just a bombing.

Where is the excitement and mystery in a lunatic setting off a bomb when you can have a complex plot involving fake victims, fake witnesses, digital image manipulation etc all masterminded and controlled by some secret Cabal operating in the shadows.

 

[turingtest]

No, I think given that you can look at scenes showing the consequences of appalling human brutality, including photographs of an individual whose shattered leg bones are poking out from where the rest of his leg is entirely absent, including pictures of people in obvious shock and distress, surrounded by blood and tissue and instead of asking "what kind of sick mind conjures up this kind of act as a way of achieving anything" or saying "those poor people", you sit there in judgement and claim that they are actors and it is faked then I think I have it pretty much nailed.

You can cloak it with all the usual "oh I don't know it just kind of smells funny is all" that you like and equivocate by hiding behind the pronouncements of others, but yes, you are taking human misery and playing your own game with it and clearly don't understand what happens to people in events like this.

Some CTists remind me of a scene from one of Joseph Wambaugh's novels (I think it was The Choirboys), in which some police officers working the scene of a pretty horrific highway accident are directing traffic around it; one car with an old man and his wife stop to do some real rubbernecking, and the wife (I think) rolls down her window and says to one cop "gee, officer, I hope no one was seriously hurt," all the while looking avidly around for body parts. The cop (kind of a rough character) proceeds to hold up a severed head in the old lady's face and says "well, ma'am, this one got banged up a little."

I think a lot of CTists (not necessarily Bubba) are like this- they're in it for the vicarious thrill of blood and gore, but refuse to get any on them, while they feel free to second-guess those whose job it is to clean up. They love web-sites like the one linked above, because they get the wallop of snuff-film voyeurism while avoiding any guilt for it by pretending it's all faaaake! anyway. And, after all, they're just searching for The Truth; they're standing up for all us mindless sheeple, dontcha know, and wading at a safe remove through the gore is a duty that makes them patriots, not really a wide-eyed pleasure that makes them immature, unfeeling little monsters.

(As I said, this isn't necessarily Bubba- I want to think better of him.)

 

[JayUtah]

For all you really know, I could be researching hive mind behaviors across the web for a book project. I dont see any here, though.

"I'm doing an experiment on human behavior" is one of the oldest and lamest ways of backing out of a failed argument without losing face. There is no "for all you know" about it. You're not doing any such thing. And "Sorry, I guess I was wrong" should probably find its way into your vocabulary at some point.

However I do think the so called mainstream has become essentially unreliable...

Nope, still ad hominem and one-sided. Not necessarily untrue, just not supportive of your present method. You can't show that your methods and sources are any more reliable. In fact, as you've seen, they end up being exceptionally unreliable. Hence we have to conclude your method isn't based on finding reliable information no matter its social characterization. Instead we have to conclude it's based on a knee-jerk rejection of information you perceive as widely accepted and the embrace of other information based on your assessment of the socio-political purity of its source. We can infer your method fairly straightforwardly from how you present your material.

Is that like one of the commandments, or is it more like a flexible guideline?

It's neither. It's simply to point out that you're taking evidence of media manipulation in cases where it can be effectively attempted and trying to overgeneralize it to cases where it cannot.

I see a disconnect between what national media broadcasts as reality, and what was witnessed on scene.

Irrelevant. Your method here consists of paying attention to people who were not there, but who are simply looking at cherry-picked bits and pieces of that same coverage and making up nonsense about it.

Rather than demonstrate that you have tested the reliability of these sources, you constantly suggest it is the responsibility of others to do so.

If on scene witnesses wish to contradict what is broadcast, how do they reach us?

Are you reading the thread?

Anyway, these days the whole thing boils down to perception control technology on steroids.

Irrelevant. Whether or not such a thing exists, you clearly apply a double standard based not on the inherent or discoverable reliability of the reporting, but instead upon whether you characterize the source as majority or minority.

As you have been told many, many times: a knee-jerk rejection of the majority belief is not critical thinking no matter how many paragraphs you choose to dress it in.

 

[JayUtah]

You have no clue there. No offense.


You presume far too much.

Nonsense. The behavior of people in stressful emergencies is well studied. In my fields, science and engineering, there are entire books written on why pilots, plant operators, spaceflight controllers, and other people in similar situations do what they do, often in defiance of what we later -- in great comfort and safety -- believe they would have or should have done.

Your method here is nothing more that pasting your uninformed and inexperience expectations on the behavior of people in a situation you did not attend or witness. Or more precisely, simply rubber-stamping the opinions of those other authors similarly situated. Trying to tell us we cannot know that you're wrong is desperate.