Merged Boston Marathon CTs

[DGM]

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.

Off topic but, you dispute this?

Also, My location is not close to Marblehead (Although I've been there many times).

 

[Axxman300]

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.
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.

No, we live in an age where news is delivered faster than the facts can be compiled. BS travels at the speed of light.

Just watching my Twitter feed after the NYPD shootings reveals that some people run with unsubstantiated information, and then refuse to backtrack until it is obvious they're being an ass.

Another recent example was the Siege in Sydney last week. There were side reports of backpacks, and an arrest which during the initial confusion seemed to all be related to the coffee shop jerk. Good reporting quickly straightened this out, and the only reason it was reported at all is because the police didn't know what was going on either.

In the case of the Marathon Bombing, there are few unanswered questions and no mysteries.

 

[Craig4]

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

.

It's perfectly obvious you need, for whatever reason for the Boston Marathon Bombing to be a conspiracy. Since you can't understand (or don't want to) what is happening in the picture and why you picked this as your proof.

Tell me what is your desired end state here? What is it you hope to affect? Is this all some conceit where you get to feel superior for having your silly little secret knowledge or is there something you want to accomplish?

Do try to keep in mind that people actually died in this attack so the subject should be approached with a certain amount of reverence. If you can't manage that, go back to ancient aliens building harbors in the Americas. This topic deserves better than you.

 

[trustbutverify]

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.

You're on point, obviously. But I'm really interested to know, from the CT'er, why the Bilderberg, NWO puppet masters would make the ridiculous choice of constructing an impossibly complex simulation instead of simply planting a few homemade bombs. It makes no sense to me.

Bubba?

 

[000063]

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.
...

I think it's sometimes a reverse Texas Sharpshooter fallacy. They think something is wrong, then look for "anomalies". And even when these anomalies are proven not to be anomalous, they just move on to the next one. Which is why they don't like to say what their strongest evidence is.

No, we live in an age where news is delivered faster than the facts can be compiled. BS travels at the speed of light.

Just watching my Twitter feed after the NYPD shootings reveals that some people run with unsubstantiated information, and then refuse to backtrack until it is obvious they're being an ass. ...

Sometimes not even that's enough.

 

[turingtest]

I think it's sometimes a reverse Texas Sharpshooter fallacy. They think something is wrong, then look for "anomalies". And even when these anomalies are proven not to be anomalous, they just move on to the next one. Which is why they don't like to say what their strongest evidence is.

Sometimes not even that's enough.

And their whole method of looking for (and finding) what they judge as "anomalies" is flawed from the get-go, because they ignore the basic rule of anomaly- that you cannot judge something to be an anomaly from a sample size of only one. You need a basis for comparison to inform expectations- you can't say "this is wrong" until you know, by contrast, what can be defined as "right."

The most glaring example of this, I think, is the Obama birth-certificate thing. So many birthers were ready to declare, on the basis of the PDF rendering of it, that it was an "obvious" forgery- "layers" and what-have-you. But the one PDF is all they ever look at to make this judgment; it seems never to occur to them that they need a bigger sample size, a contrast, to make "obvious" meaningful. Take a fair selection of roughly contemporaneous BCs, render them into PDFs by the same process used with Obama's, compare- then, and only then, can you judge an anomaly. (The only effort I remember seeing in this direction was in a WND article, where the White House PDF was compared to one contemporaneous BC. At which point, IIRC, the goalposts promptly moved- instead of finding meaningful differences in the PDF (which was the whole point of the exercise), WND found differences, on the order of 32nds of an inch, in the type- as if typewriters of that period were all perfectly machined clones of each other.)

Same thing here- you can't decide there are things "wrong" with the pictures of the bombing aftermath, or the behavior of the people in the shots, until you've established a base-line by comparison with photos of similar dynamic and chaotic events. "Anomaly" cannot be established in a vacuum.

 

[Bubba]

originally posted by Bubba

"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.."

Off topic but, you dispute this?...

No.
Use of the phrase 'we were told' is a reminder that someone said we cannot always be sure of what really happened, even if we were there at the time.

 

[DGM]

No.
Use of the phrase 'we were told' is a reminder that someone said we cannot always be sure of what really happened, even if we were there at the time.

You need to define "sure". Sounds like you have an excuse to dismiss history even if evidence confirms it.

 

[Bubba]

You're on point, obviously. But I'm really interested to know, from the CT'er, why the Bilderberg, NWO puppet masters would make the ridiculous choice of constructing an impossibly complex simulation instead of simply planting a few homemade bombs. It makes no sense to me.
Bubba?

Good question. There are theories of course, addressing why the hypothetical perps would operate in hypothetical ways that make no sense to some. I've heard of such theories applied to more complicated claims of (hypothetical) conspiracies orchestrated by the likes of the hypothetical 'imaginary' agencies you mention.

Hypothetically only, an example of such a claim might be gleaned from the 9/11 conspiracy theory which holds that the perps baited it with a spectrum of fake props of all manner of demolition, ie fake "evidence(s)" designed to snare any and every stripe of conspiracy gullibility. Part of the hypothetical motive could be to set the stage for (honey pots) all kinds of confusion, competing, and division to ensue, even going so far as to create bogus high profile conspiracy claimant individuals and groups.

Again, this is merely hypothetical, as in one profile of how your imaginary perp agencies (and or others) might operate. Applied to Boston, such a hypothetical scenario might include a combination of your homemade bombs and more sophisticated fake visual stuff, including cgi imagery, which is part of some claims regarding Boston.

 

[DGM]

Again, this is merely hypothetical, as in one profile of how your imaginary perp agencies (and or others) might operate. Applied to Boston, such a hypothetical scenario might include a combination of your homemade bombs and more sophisticated fake visual stuff, including cgi imagery, which is part of some claims regarding Boston.

Let me guess, because no one would really believe the actual carnage caused by a real device?

Just out of curiosity, What do you think the "preps" goal was in Boston? Was it achieved?

 

[LSSBB]

Good question. There are theories of course, addressing why the hypothetical perps would operate in hypothetical ways that make no sense to some. I've heard of such theories applied to more complicated claims of (hypothetical) conspiracies orchestrated by the likes of the hypothetical 'imaginary' agencies you mention.

Hypothetically only, an example of such a claim might be gleaned from the 9/11 conspiracy theory which holds that the perps baited it with a spectrum of fake props of all manner of demolition, ie fake "evidence(s)" designed to snare any and every stripe of conspiracy gullibility. Part of the hypothetical motive could be to set the stage for (honey pots) all kinds of confusion, competing, and division to ensue, even going so far as to create bogus high profile conspiracy claimant individuals and groups.

Again, this is merely hypothetical, as in one profile of how your imaginary perp agencies (and or others) might operate. Applied to Boston, such a hypothetical scenario might include a combination of your homemade bombs and more sophisticated fake visual stuff, including cgi imagery, which is part of some claims regarding Boston.

The more complicated the plan, the more likely the chance of failure.

In my experiencd, most management in government (and much of industry) is risk averse, because they like keeping their jobs, so they tend to go with a sure thing. Why a complicated plot with little apparent payoff, unless you are Dr. Evil?

 

[trustbutverify]

Hypothetically only, an example of such a claim might be gleaned from the 9/11 conspiracy theory which holds that the perps baited it with a spectrum of fake props of all manner of demolition, ie fake "evidence(s)" designed to snare any and every stripe of conspiracy gullibility. Part of the hypothetical motive could be to set the stage for (honey pots) all kinds of confusion, competing, and division to ensue, even going so far as to create bogus high profile conspiracy claimant individuals and groups.

Excuse me, but are you saying that this shadow government created a fake bombing so that people would think it was fake? And that they did this to create confusion and antagonism between those who thought it was real and those who figured out it was fake? And maybe the bombing was real, but the gold-holders planted fake evidence to stimulate conspiracy theories, thereby discrediting conspiracy theorists, so that when they did their later false flag operations, no one would believe those who exposed the "truth"?

Oh boy.

 

[JayUtah]

Good question. There are theories of course...

I'm sure there are, but we want to know what your answer is. Patching the glaring holes in your scenario is part of its burden of proof.

Hypothetically only, [...] the perps baited it with a spectrum of fake props [...]

Oh, lordy! Does no part of your critical-thinking apparatus kick in at that point and say, "Wait! That's not an answer; it's only a hypothetical excuse for why there is no coherent alternative theory for what happened on 9/11, even though all the incompatible and contradictory conspiracy theories claim to be based on evidence."

Can't you see the massive contradiction inherent in that approach? The conspiracy theorists for any given event maintain that their examination of the available evidence is necessarily more thorough, less biased, and therefore more likely to be correct than the mass-media portrayal. In other words, they say they're experts at sifting false information from true, and of ferreting out the truth regardless of what the government throws at them.

But then they turn around and "explain" the absurdity of their scenarios and the irrational and idiotic behavior the actors in them would have to stoop to as the effects of the government manipulating them by planting false clues that they fall for. In essence the conspiracists claim both that they are immune from misdirection, but that the absurdity of their claims is the result of being misdirected.

At the very least that should warn you that these conspiracy theorists admit tacitly they might be wrong, and you should examine their claims critically.

...more sophisticated fake visual stuff, including cgi imagery, which is part of some claims regarding Boston.

But again that's a very stupid way to try to fake evidence. You didn't answer the question. You just took a detour through 9/11 and then came back to restate your same silly claim. There were literally thousands of eyewitnesses to these events, and literally thousands of private cameras clicking. Explain why the alleged perpetrator of a false-flag event here would think that he could get away with fabricating images that could be easily contradicted by privately-held evidence that he couldn't control? Are you really going to claim it was to mislead conspiracy theorists?

 

[Bubba]

Let me guess, because no one would really believe the actual carnage caused by a real device?

Just out of curiosity, What do you think the "preps" goal was in Boston? Was it achieved?

Regarding your aforementioned hypothetical perp agencies (NWO, etc) I should think you can draw the answer to that question yourself, as in profiling theoretical goal(s) of such imaginary agencies.

by LSSBB

The more complicated the plan, the more likely the chance of failure.

In my experiencd, most management in government (and much of industry) is risk averse, because they like keeping their jobs, so they tend to go with a sure thing. Why a complicated plot with little apparent payoff, unless you are Dr. Evil?

Suppose you are Dr Evil. What profile of his motive ie payoff would you draw?

Originally Posted by trustbutverify:
Excuse me, but are you saying that this shadow government created a fake bombing so that people would think it was fake? And that they did this to create confusion and antagonism between those who thought it was real and those who figured out it was fake? And maybe the bombing was real, but the gold-holders planted fake evidence to stimulate conspiracy theories, thereby discrediting conspiracy theorists, so that when they did their later false flag operations, no one would believe those who exposed the "truth"?

Interesting concept.
I dont recall saying that.

Originally Posted by trustbutverify:...are you saying that this shadow government created a fake bombing so that people would think it was fake?

No.

Everything I said was hypothetical. Can you imagine how many scenarios emerge where paid profilers work in think tanks? Hypothetically, suppose you were some kind of a perp in position to harvest scenarios from well meaning profilers working for law enforcement. Would you be tempted to exploit their work for your plots? Would you invent projects for them, tailored to your needs? Only hypothetically, of course.

 

[LSSBB]

Suppose you are Dr Evil. What profile of his motive ie payoff would you draw?

I would draw that he is a cartoon version of a nefarious leader, made in parody of James Bond type villains.

 

[DGM]

[/HILITE]

Regarding your aforementioned hypothetical perp agencies (NWO, etc) I should think you can draw the answer to that question yourself, as in profiling theoretical goal(s) of such imaginary agencies.

I didn't ask what I thought. I asked you. You brought up this supposed conspiracy.

Specifically, what goals were achieved by this attack (and the way it's playing out).

 

[JayUtah]

Regarding your aforementioned hypothetical perp agencies (NWO, etc) I should think you can draw the answer to that question yourself...

Shifting the burden of proof. You're the one proposing that something nefarious was done. Therefore it is your responsibility to show who and why.

Suppose you are Dr Evil. What profile of his motive ie payoff would you draw?

You're dodging the question. You allege that there are real villains doing really villainous things. But the scenarios you propose are more the bailiwick of comical stage and screen villains of the cat-stroking, mustache-twirling type. Can't you come up with anything more believable?

I dont recall saying that.

You certainly led right up to it. You hypothesized that complicated scenarios arose from evidence that was intentionally planted in order to ensnare the gullible, create divisions among critics, and destroy criticism from false-flag groups that spout blatant nonsense. What purpose would that have if not to discredit conspiracy theorists?

Everything I said was hypothetical.

That's the problem -- everything you say is no more than hypothetical. You come up with a hypothetical scenario to explain what you think is anomalous evidence, and when the glaring holes it in are brought to your attention, you simply add more hypothesis. At no point do you actually prove or substantiate anything. When asked, you suggest it's someone else's job to do that.

Why is critical thinking always someone else's job in your book?

 

[DGM]

Shifting the burden of proof. You're the one proposing that something nefarious was done. Therefore it is your responsibility to show who and why.

I'd settle for why. The cast of suspects charged (according to him framed) makes me ask this.

 

[JayUtah]

I would draw that he is a cartoon version of a nefarious leader, made in parody of James Bond type villains.

Honestly I didn't think the point was that hard to miss. We laugh at Dr. Evil because, as the parody of Bond film villains, he relies on needlessly complex scenarios that could be accomplished so much more easily and reliably. If we laugh at Dr. Evil for that reason, why should we not also laugh at conspiracy theories that require their villains to do the same?

 

[Bubba]

...Are you really going to claim it was to mislead conspiracy theorists?

No. I should have clarified. Rather than applying the hypothetical 9/11 perps' hypothetical strategy(s) to Boston, it was meant to be taken only as a generalization regarding DGM's hypothetical perp group's, a generalization which could be applied to any claim of conspiracy, hypothetically. Sorry that was not clarified.