Merged Boston Marathon CTs

[Bubba]

I have not seen this item mentioned here.

A conspiracist website claims indisputable photo evidence it was staged. I hope it is fake because it does not makes sense.

The first pic is apparently shortly after the incident. Smoke is in the air. Three people are in a huddle; Jeff Bauman, a hooded guy, and a woman in a red shirt.

Bauman (injured) is on his back. The woman and the guy are at his legs. Bauman is not bleeding on himself or them. His shattered left leg is on her right shoulder and very close to the hooded guy. It appears that no blood is visible on or near them.

Later, Bauman is gone and there is a big bloodstain on the ground. The hooded guy is leaning on one elbow with legs outstretched, and he is still not bloody. The woman is to the left, and she is not bloody.

After that, the other two are now bloodied, and Baumann is back in the picture and bloodied, close to the big bloodstain.

Another odd thing is that while Bauman is horribly injured, the EMT staff are attending lesser injuries, including the (now adjacent) hooded guy, while Bauman is apparently left on his own. He should get priority attention with his obvious condition.

The issue is that the apparent sequencing seems not to add up per the early absence of blood, and then the absence of Bauman, and then his reappearance in the sequence. The sequencing is apparent whereas the other two people are not bloodied, and later they are bloodied.

Some of the captions are purely conjecture, but pics are pics. Unless I am mistaken, it seems that either the pics are faked, or the incident was faked, according to the apparently impossible bloodless then bloodied sequence.

Link

http://educate-yourself.org/cn/bostonbombingdidyouthink20apr13.shtml

.

 

[LashL]

...

http://americanloons.blogspot.ca/2013/02/432-ken-adachi.html

 

[trustbutverify]

I have not seen this item mentioned here.

A conspiracist website claims indisputable photo evidence it was staged. I hope it is fake because it does not makes sense.

The first pic is apparently shortly after the incident. Smoke is in the air. Three people are in a huddle; Jeff Bauman, a hooded guy, and a woman in a red shirt.

Bauman (injured) is on his back. The woman and the guy are at his legs. Bauman is not bleeding on himself or them. His shattered left leg is on her right shoulder and very close to the hooded guy. It appears that no blood is visible on or near them.

Later, Bauman is gone and there is a big bloodstain on the ground. The hooded guy is leaning on one elbow with legs outstretched, and he is still not bloody. The woman is to the left, and she is not bloody.

After that, the other two are now bloodied, and Baumann is back in the picture and bloodied, close to the big bloodstain.

Another odd thing is that while Bauman is horribly injured, the EMT staff are attending lesser injuries, including the (now adjacent) hooded guy, while Bauman is apparently left on his own. He should get priority attention with his obvious condition.

The issue is that the apparent sequencing seems not to add up per the early absence of blood, and then the absence of Bauman, and then his reappearance in the sequence. The sequencing is apparent whereas the other two people are not bloodied, and later they are bloodied.

Some of the captions are purely conjecture, but pics are pics. Unless I am mistaken, it seems that either the pics are faked, or the incident was faked, according to the apparently impossible bloodless then bloodied sequence.

Link

http://educate-yourself.org/cn/bostonbombingdidyouthink20apr13.shtml

.

So Bush killed Kennedy and the Boston marathon tragedy was an elaborate fake so the gumbemnt could get your guns and prevent the people's revolution. Gotcha.

 

[Foolmewunz]

I have not seen this item mentioned here.

A conspiracist website claims indisputable photo evidence it was staged. I hope it is fake because it does not makes sense.

The first pic is apparently shortly after the incident. Smoke is in the air. Three people are in a huddle; Jeff Bauman, a hooded guy, and a woman in a red shirt.

Bauman (injured) is on his back. The woman and the guy are at his legs. Bauman is not bleeding on himself or them. His shattered left leg is on her right shoulder and very close to the hooded guy. It appears that no blood is visible on or near them.

Later, Bauman is gone and there is a big bloodstain on the ground. The hooded guy is leaning on one elbow with legs outstretched, and he is still not bloody. The woman is to the left, and she is not bloody.

After that, the other two are now bloodied, and Baumann is back in the picture and bloodied, close to the big bloodstain.

Another odd thing is that while Bauman is horribly injured, the EMT staff are attending lesser injuries, including the (now adjacent) hooded guy, while Bauman is apparently left on his own. He should get priority attention with his obvious condition.

The issue is that the apparent sequencing seems not to add up per the early absence of blood, and then the absence of Bauman, and then his reappearance in the sequence. The sequencing is apparent whereas the other two people are not bloodied, and later they are bloodied.

Some of the captions are purely conjecture, but pics are pics. Unless I am mistaken, it seems that either the pics are faked, or the incident was faked, according to the apparently impossible bloodless then bloodied sequence.

Link

http://educate-yourself.org/cn/bostonbombingdidyouthink20apr13.shtml

.

No, Bubba!

We're not going to play again. You've just answered the (as it turns out to be) rhetorical question from our last meeting.... What have we learned from this?

Not a thing, apparently. You leave one thread, embarrassed and proceed to another where you get handed your arse, and proceed to another. In each one, you eventually withdraw your erroneous claims based on bogus sources, and in each one, we think that maybe, just maybe, you will learn something.

And then you go out and dig deeper down the rabbit hole for more certifiable loony toons conspiracists. Is there anything you won't believe? That's apparently the question that should be asked.

 

[JayUtah]

A conspiracist website claims...

And what did you do to verify it? Did you not learn anything from your previous experience following these unreliable sources uncritically? You were soundly refuted and had to retract the assertions you made based on them. What did you do in this case to ascertain that you weren't once again being taken for a ride?

 

[trustbutverify]

I have not seen this item mentioned here.

A conspiracist website...

Congratulations, you chase down the truth on racist websites.

 

[turingtest]

I have not seen this item mentioned here.

A conspiracist website claims indisputable photo evidence it was staged. I hope it is fake because it does not makes sense.

The first pic is apparently shortly after the incident. Smoke is in the air. Three people are in a huddle; Jeff Bauman, a hooded guy, and a woman in a red shirt.

Bauman (injured) is on his back. The woman and the guy are at his legs. Bauman is not bleeding on himself or them. His shattered left leg is on her right shoulder and very close to the hooded guy. It appears that no blood is visible on or near them.

Later, Bauman is gone and there is a big bloodstain on the ground. The hooded guy is leaning on one elbow with legs outstretched, and he is still not bloody. The woman is to the left, and she is not bloody.

After that, the other two are now bloodied, and Baumann is back in the picture and bloodied, close to the big bloodstain.

Another odd thing is that while Bauman is horribly injured, the EMT staff are attending lesser injuries, including the (now adjacent) hooded guy, while Bauman is apparently left on his own. He should get priority attention with his obvious condition.

The issue is that the apparent sequencing seems not to add up per the early absence of blood, and then the absence of Bauman, and then his reappearance in the sequence. The sequencing is apparent whereas the other two people are not bloodied, and later they are bloodied.

Some of the captions are purely conjecture, but pics are pics. Unless I am mistaken, it seems that either the pics are faked, or the incident was faked, according to the apparently impossible bloodless then bloodied sequence.

Link

http://educate-yourself.org/cn/bostonbombingdidyouthink20apr13.shtml

.

Jesus wept. The arrogant stupidity on that website just flabbergasts me. Photos are static things, Bubba; how you (or the idiot who posted that crap) think judgments like "relaxed posture" or "hand signals" can be made from them about a dynamic situation like the one in the pictures is just beyond me.* Here's a hint, Bubba- people move around. You can't find Jeff Bauman in the middle picture (which, BTW, is by a different photographer from an entirely different vantage point from the first sequence)? Maybe he moved, huh? (As did the photographer who took this sequence) In fact, if you look a little closer, just below the bent right elbow of "cowboy hat man" (Carlos Arredondo) you can see what looks like an outstretched left arm in a gray wrist-length sleeve- which looks a lot like the long-sleeved gray sweatshirt Bauman was wearing. It's possible that, at that point, he was trying to get up, and is hidden behind Arredondo and the red-headed woman in the red-and-black jacket. Then he laid back down, and, between that and the photographer changing position, came back into view.

Is this speculation? Sure it is. But it's a little more probable, I think, than some conspiracy setting up a phony scenario in which they moved Bauman, then had to put him back in the shot out of sequence- "Wait a sec, guys- don't we still need our fake double amputee here?"- instead of using their media control to change the sequence.

*The dumbest quote on that page is this:

Look to the left and see the cowboy hat man standing there doing nothing.

It's a still shot, for chrissake- what else do you expect a still shot to show? You're right, "pics are pics"- but that's all they are.

 

[Craig4]

Once again Bubba, distrust of authority is not the same as critical thinking.

 

[turingtest]

Once again Bubba, distrust of authority is not the same as critical thinking.

Bubba isn't really distrusting authority, he's just putting his trust in a different, self-proclaimed (and anonymous) one, specifically the guy on that website who keeps blatting "I'm an EMT, and this, this, and this is wrong, trust me!" And, of course, it's an EMT who wasn't there and doesn't know any more about the injuries than what he can gather from pictures. It's not only an argument from authority, it's an argument from misplaced authority.

 

[DGM]

I have not seen this item mentioned here.

This shows you are lazy. Why do you expect people to do all the work to dispel your fixation with conspiracies?

A conspiracist website claims indisputable photo evidence it was staged. I hope it is fake because it does not makes sense.

.

Why lie? This is the kind of thing that makes sense to you. Things don't make sense when you're too damn lazy to understand what's going on. That's you!

 

[Craig4]

Bubba isn't really distrusting authority, he's just putting his trust in a different, self-proclaimed (and anonymous) one, specifically the guy on that website who keeps blatting "I'm an EMT, and this, this, and this is wrong, trust me!" And, of course, it's an EMT who wasn't there and doesn't know any more about the injuries than what he can gather from pictures. It's not only an argument from authority, it's an argument from misplaced authority.

I'll refine my question. Bubba, the US and our allies have been turning Muslims of a certain persuasion into air pollution and dressing their salads with their own brains for 12 years (at the time of the attack). Why do you have a hard time believing that two Muslims who share the beliefs of our targets retaliated?

 

[threadworm]

So some dumbass posts a web page that basically consists of "Dude looks a bit like another dude" and that's it?

How do these morons get dressed?

 

[Major Major]

So some dumbass posts a web page that basically consists of "Dude looks a bit like another dude" and that's it?

How do these morons get dressed?

Mommy.

After she helps them brush their teeth, go potty, and eat up all their nice breakfast.

 

[Bubba]

Jesus wept. The arrogant stupidity on that website just flabbergasts me. Photos are static things, Bubba; how you (or the idiot who posted that crap) think judgments like "relaxed posture" or "hand signals" can be made from them about a dynamic situation like the one in the pictures is just beyond me.* Here's a hint, Bubba- people move around. You can't find Jeff Bauman in the middle picture (which, BTW, is by a different photographer from an entirely different vantage point from the first sequence)? Maybe he moved, huh? (As did the photographer who took this sequence) In fact, if you look a little closer, just below the bent right elbow of "cowboy hat man" (Carlos Arredondo) you can see what looks like an outstretched left arm in a gray wrist-length sleeve- which looks a lot like the long-sleeved gray sweatshirt Bauman was wearing. It's possible that, at that point, he was trying to get up, and is hidden behind Arredondo and the red-headed woman in the red-and-black jacket. Then he laid back down, and, between that and the photographer changing position, came back into view.

Is this speculation? Sure it is. But it's a little more probable, I think, than some conspiracy setting up a phony scenario in which they moved Bauman, then had to put him back in the shot out of sequence- "Wait a sec, guys- don't we still need our fake double amputee here?"- instead of using their media control to change the sequence.

*The dumbest quote on that page is this:

It's a still shot, for chrissake- what else do you expect a still shot to show? You're right, "pics are pics"- but that's all they are.

I concur re the dumb captions, thank you turingtest.

If you recall, I said the captions are conjecture. All the captions are irrelevant per the apparent visual data. It alone raises the authenticity question. What evidence is required to refute this conclusively? I dont have skills needed to refute or verify the claims associated with those images.

Mainly it is the seemingly impossible sequence of bloodstains appearing on those victims after they are seen without those bloodstains. All I can think is that something would surely seem upside down if those pics were deemed authentic.

Also odd is how Bauman is apparently ignored by people attending to lesser casualties on both sides of him while he is obviously in far worse condition. They would have to step over or around him to access the others.

BTW, my bad, Bauman is visible in the middle pic, behind the seated black woman. Only his injury is visible.

Maybe someone with skill (not I) and inclination (not you) can refute or verify. I have yet to see verification or refutation of this.
Proof of image fakery would satisfy some as refutation. While ridicule is understood, it falls short.

Then there is that strange brief footage, apparently to the left of where Bauman is seen. It shows a guy throwing a cloud of dust or flour over a group of helpers. It seems a futile method of applying anti-coagulant, since the helpers block the trajectory toward the victim, so the powder mostly lands on them. Anyone interested could search dust thrown on boston bomb victims. Slow motion shows it is dust rather than towels, as some claim. Others claim it is a prop for cameras meant to simulate blast residue.

 

[abaddon]

I concur re the dumb captions, thank you turingtest.

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

If you recall, I said the captions are conjecture. All the captions are irrelevant per the apparent visual data. It alone raises the authenticity question. What evidence is required to refute this conclusively? I dont have skills needed to refute or verify the claims associated with those images.

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?

Mainly it is the seemingly impossible sequence of bloodstains appearing on those victims after they are seen without those bloodstains. All I can think is that something would surely seem upside down if those pics were deemed authentic.

It would seem you have led a very sheltered life.

Also odd is how Bauman is apparently ignored by people attending to lesser casualties on both sides of him while he is obviously in far worse condition. They would have to step over or around him to access the others.

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

BTW, my bad, Bauman is visible in the middle pic, behind the seated black woman. Only his injury is visible.

Backing up already?

Maybe someone with skill (not I) and inclination (not you) can refute or verify. I have yet to see verification or refutation of this.
Proof of image fakery would satisfy some as refutation. While ridicule is understood, it falls short.

Then there is that strange brief footage, apparently to the left of where Bauman is seen. It shows a guy throwing a cloud of dust or flour over a group of helpers. It seems a futile method of applying anti-coagulant, since the helpers block the trajectory toward the victim, so the powder mostly lands on them. Anyone interested could search dust thrown on boston bomb victims. Slow motion shows it is dust rather than towels, as some claim. Others claim it is a prop for cameras meant to simulate blast residue.

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.

 

[trustbutverify]

Then there is that strange brief footage, apparently to the left of where Bauman is seen. It shows a guy throwing a cloud of dust or flour over a group of helpers. It seems a futile method of applying anti-coagulant, since the helpers block the trajectory toward the victim, so the powder mostly lands on them. Anyone interested could search dust thrown on boston bomb victims. Slow motion shows it is dust rather than towels, as some claim. Others claim it is a prop for cameras meant to simulate blast residue.

Putting aside this ridiculous website and it's ridiculous optical analysis, why would the USG, or the Elders of Zion, or whoever go to all of the trouble to fake the attack? Why not just perform the actual attack, and avoid the overwhelming minutia and co-conspirators necessary in a simulation? It makes no sense.

 

[turingtest]

I concur re the dumb captions, thank you turingtest.

If you recall, I said the captions are conjecture. All the captions are irrelevant per the apparent visual data. It alone raises the authenticity question. What evidence is required to refute this conclusively? I dont have skills needed to refute or verify the claims associated with those images.

Mainly it is the seemingly impossible sequence of bloodstains appearing on those victims after they are seen without those bloodstains. All I can think is that something would surely seem upside down if those pics were deemed authentic.

Also odd is how Bauman is apparently ignored by people attending to lesser casualties on both sides of him while he is obviously in far worse condition. They would have to step over or around him to access the others.

BTW, my bad, Bauman is visible in the middle pic, behind the seated black woman. Only his injury is visible.

Maybe someone with skill (not I) and inclination (not you) can refute or verify. I have yet to see verification or refutation of this.
Proof of image fakery would satisfy some as refutation. While ridicule is understood, it falls short.

Then there is that strange brief footage, apparently to the left of where Bauman is seen. It shows a guy throwing a cloud of dust or flour over a group of helpers. It seems a futile method of applying anti-coagulant, since the helpers block the trajectory toward the victim, so the powder mostly lands on them. Anyone interested could search dust thrown on boston bomb victims. Slow motion shows it is dust rather than towels, as some claim. Others claim it is a prop for cameras meant to simulate blast residue.

Great. You "concur" with me that the captions are dumb "conjecture"- then proceed to apply your own caption and conjecture (the highlighted) on the same failed basis as in the website. Which part of this aren't you getting, Bubba? You cannot make judgments, like "Bauman is apparently ignored," about a dynamic situation from still pictures of it. You have no idea what happened just before or just after the split second that photo represents; and neither you nor the original author of that idiotic site were there to make triage judgments in place of the EMTs who were there. Just stop, ok? If you want to call Bauman and those EMTs liars, at least man up about it- don't do it from the safety of the Internet, go tell Bauman to his face he's perpetrating a hoax. After all, this isn't like JFK (Sr or Jr)- the people involved are still alive, and you've got no excuse to avoid facing the evidence.

 

[JayUtah]

I concur re the dumb captions...

Do you dispute the captions because those specific claims are dumb, or because the idea of pasting your own story onto a set of still images of an event is dumb? Only the latter qualifies as critical thinking. The former just changes what flavor of conspiracy theorist you are today.

Mainly it is the seemingly...
Also odd...

Going on to paste your own conjectural nonsense on the photos doesn't improve your situation. Nor is it in any way, shape, or form an exercise in critical thinking to do so.

Maybe someone with skill (not I) and inclination (not you) can refute or verify.

No.

Clearly you lack either the skill or the inclination to think critically about evidence. That much has been made abundantly evident in the various attempts you've made to argue in favor of frankly some of the dumbest and least credible conspiracy theories out there.

But the options at this point are not limited to invinting someone else to verify your nonsense, or for someone else to affirmatively refute it. It's your nonsense, and if you decline to substantiate it then it dies on the vine, as have all your other arguments. That is how the world works. No one else has a burden of proof either way for your unsupported belief. You have provided nothing to refute -- only speculation. As speculation, without substantiation, it deserves no further attention.

 

[Bubba]

Great. You "concur" with me that the captions are dumb "conjecture"- then proceed to apply your own caption and conjecture (the highlighted) on the same failed basis as in the website. Which part of this aren't you getting, Bubba? You cannot make judgments, like "Bauman is apparently ignored," about a dynamic situation from still pictures of it. You have no idea what happened just before or just after the split second that photo represents; and neither you nor the original author of that idiotic site were there to make triage judgments in place of the EMTs who were there. Just stop, ok? If you want to call Bauman and those EMTs liars, at least man up about it- don't do it from the safety of the Internet, go tell Bauman to his face he's perpetrating a hoax. After all, this isn't like JFK (Sr or Jr)- the people involved are still alive, and you've got no excuse to avoid facing the evidence.

OK.

 

[JayUtah]

You have no idea what happened just before or just after the split second that photo represents; and neither you nor the original author of that idiotic site were there to make triage judgments in place of the EMTs who were there.

Second-guessing over months or years of contemplation what some person did over a few seconds or minutes in exigent and alarming conditions is absolutely the height of stupidity, even if you do know what you're talking about. I know what medical triage is, but I lack the experience and training to do it. But even second-guessing the actions of people in fields where I do have expertise, such as the flight controllers during the Apollo 13 accident, must necessarily ignore a literal ton of science that reveals why people act as they do in a crisis. Monday-morning water-cooler quarterbacking is not critical thinking.

Just stop, ok? If you want to call Bauman and those EMTs liars, at least man up about it- don't do it from the safety of the Internet...

Agreed. It's one thing to embolden oneself by eschewing what the majority believes, and on that basis throw in with some outlying interpretation. But until you actually demonstrate a willingness to face those whom you accuse and be responsible for your claims to that level, there is no honor or strength in it.