Basic summary-
Alex Jones, a radio host, made a claim that the Boston terrorist attack was perpetuated by the FBI and organized by the Federal government in an attempt to establish more power for the Federal government.
Such conspiracy theories have been made previously after massacres (the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre was a hoax/orchestrated by the Federal government to pass more gun laws for example), and seem to always occur after a tragedy.
And I just want to ask, why do people make such claims without a shred of evidence? Yes, it is true that the U.S. government has done horrible things, but it is also true that the government changes every time there is a new president. It is difficult to believe in an overarching conspiracy of such proportions unless you also believe that there is a power greater than the president at play in the U.S., which is a conspiracy theory in of itself.
But mostly I just wanted to say how disgusted I am by people who make such claims. While it may be difficult to have trust in the government, can't you at least try?
Because its easier to say everything is a hoax instead of accepting the truth. It is often a defense mechanism for less "aware" people.
Ah, the reverse sheeple tactic. You'll fit in quite nicely lol.
1. How did brother 1 end up dead if he surrendered unharmed.
To keep things on target, let's focus on one question at a time. This is #1, so let's start here.
It seems to me the answer is rather clear - Tamerlan did not surrender. The man shown in the pictures you link (at least the second and third - the first does not load for me), is not Tamerlan. It's a man who was briefly suspected, but soon released. I remember watching the news on the night it happened, and seeing the picture of the guy on the ground, and then hearing that he had been released.
Do we take your memory as a full credited source or could we find such news article so we can analyze it?
If you can prove that is not tamerlan that would be great as I'm only trying to figure out whats real and whats not. Thats why it bothers me that Vaclav is just ignoring everything and talking about illuminati conspiracies and personal dramas. Lets focus as you say, on that first subject. Lets find that video somehow, what channel was it on? Remember the headline? Hour? Anything?
I'm eager to see how you tackle question #2 (the other brother surrendering unharmed) and question #3 (Craft International). But lets stick to one at a time. So, the news video.
Okay, I'll get into it. Which video are we talking about? The one with the man laying flat on the street or the one of the naked man being escorted to the squad car? The first one of the man laying flat on the street is clearly neither one of the brothers. He had a different haircut, skin tone, hair color and etc. The second one of the naked man being escorted to the squad car looks eerily similar to the older brother but I personally have no way of proving it.
I'm sorry but I find it hilarious that your response to me, in the debate section of a forum is simply "I'm not offended, I'm annoyed because it's a waste of my time.". Why waste your time even acknowledging it then?
The former sentence is an answer to the latter: I'm acknowledging you because this is the Debate section. Also, I didn't say anything in the first person singular (except "I don't think so. I think..."). You made a general claim about how people react to conspiracy theories, and I made an equally general correction to that claim. If Alice pulls out a conspiracy theory, and Bob says something dismissive or walks away or whatever, then Bob is probably not offended; he is probably just annoyed. (Now, if Bob's real name is "Buzz Aldrin", Alice accuses him of lying about landing on the moon, and Bob punches her in the nose, then Bob's offended.)
I'm sorry but I find it hilarious that your response to me, in the debate section of a forum is simply "I'm not offended, I'm annoyed because it's a waste of my time.". Why waste your time even acknowledging it then?
The former sentence is an answer to the latter: I'm acknowledging you because this is the Debate section. Also, I didn't say anything in the first person singular (except "I don't think so. I think..."). You made a general claim about how people react to conspiracy theories, and I made an equally general correction to that claim. If Alice pulls out a conspiracy theory, and Bob says something dismissive or walks away or whatever, then Bob is probably not offended; he is probably just annoyed. (Now, if Bob's real name is "Buzz Aldrin", Alice accuses him of lying about landing on the moon, and Bob punches her in the nose, then Bob's offended.)
So you can only be offended if you're directly affected by said event? Also, forgive me, I thought I detected a bit of bias in your post. It was wrong of me to assume anything.
Indeed, I'm not angered - I'm frustrated a bit because this type of nonsense doesn't belong in Debate IMO. If it was to be part of this forum - I'd prefer it to be it's own little section I can ignore because I like stuff rooted in fact, not supposition.
(Case in point: I stated that pic was impossible to distinguish if it was him or not, we get a first person account of watching the report that it wasn't - and it's still being questioned - how much you want to bet his follow up gets questioned by Mr. Conspiracy again?)
Burden of proof is always supposed to be on the accuser - that doesn't mean "Well this might mean..." it means something concrete.
At least most opinions to be debated have some basis in reality that I can relate to - nonsensical theorycrafting that assumes the absolute worst possible scenario imaginable (and time and again at that!) defies reality as it has presented itself to me during my time on this rock hurdling through the void.
PS - On "Craft" the hat absolutely isn't one of theirs - their similar hat has three substantial differences: a) The "Skull" on the front has a small icon offset from the skull to the lower left of the skull, does not appear in the "conspiracy" photo, b) The text on the back of the hat is in red, c) the text on the back of the hat has a space on the "Craft" hat, no space on the "conspiracy" hat.
Additionally per "Craft" guidelines that they outline for uniform, uniforms are supposed to be a singular design in black or camo - if they were of a uniformed "Craft" unit they're not in any recognized uniform that the group uses.
Additionally, even if somehow it was "Craft" uniforms - they sell them on the web... I could be running around with one in a few days for it to ship - does that suddenly mean everything I do is a result of "Craft" actions? Seriously.
Believers will always believe and disbelievers will always disbelief. Its is absurdly funny how disbelievers shoot down every single theory based on the "uncredited sources" yet they believe any debunking story regardless of the source. Snopes.com? seriously?
It is funny i think that all conspiracy theorist use the same arguement book.
Why? because this is the same thing that every other conspiracy theorist says when you post reliable information that debunks their claims
Snope is regarded as a highly acceptable sight in getting rid of internet myths and conspiracy theorists.
The reason that conspiracy theorists do not like it is because they actually use real evidence to explain what happened.
Unlike conspiracy theorists that make stuff up based on the smallest fraction of evidence.
I saw none of it. Where is the debunking of real evidence?
because you don't want to see it.
Then they link the backpack to this random bystander
because it was a conspiracy claim but that guy's back pack didn't match the ones used.
Is it that difficult to see some pictures and use logic to clearly see that none of the tsarnaev brother had black backpack? Regardless of who the real owner of the backpack was, it wasn't the tsarnaev brothers. Thats no conspiracy theory, that the conclusion any rational person would get from looking at simple pictures.
evidently not to conspiracy theorists.
yet their only source to debunk it is that Jeff Bauman's father made a post on facebook about it? Thats a credited source? Seriously? A facebook post is supossed to debunk and destroy this analysis?
if you look at the pictures they don't even match. in fact they don't even look the same.
you calling this guy's dad a liar? prove it with some substantial information from a reliable source. IE not youtube.
your posts remind me of someone else i know.
he makes the exact same types of arguements that you do. i would ban him from the forum except for the fact he doesn't actually break rules.
although he doesn't do the same thing that you do.
when asked for evidence to support the claims
he can only post more conspiracy sites and youtube video's.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around. Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
Additionally per "Craft" guidelines that they outline for uniform, uniforms are supposed to be a singular design in black or camo - if they were of a uniformed "Craft" unit they're not in any recognized uniform that the group uses.
Also: if they were doing something so underhanded, why would they be in uniform at all?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I'm just always surprised by how poor the webdesign is on the websites that purport this sort of thing. It's so freaking consistent.
And when they link you to an article about how Jimmy Carter in league with the Masons invented AIDs in a lab, it does very little for their credibility.
I'm just always surprised by how poor the webdesign is on the websites that purport this sort of thing. It's so freaking consistent.
And when they link you to an article about how Jimmy Carter in league with the Masons invented AIDs in a lab, it does very little for their credibility.
When 12 million americans believe that people in power are lizard-men, it's not hard at all to see slightly more believable BS gets thrown around.
Why do people take anything Alex Jones says seriously and think it's a good topic for a debate on anything other than the clinically insane?
Sigged! But I personally think it's because of crank magnetism. Basically, if you're insane, you believe other insane people because you're all persecuted by "reality". This even includes things that really shouldn't make sense, like Elijah Muhammad inviting Lincoln Rockwell (head of the American Nazi Party and no relation to Norman Rockwell) to a Nation of Islam rally.
The most annoying thing is people who are skeptical in one way but insane in another, such as Bill Maher, who is quite good at satirizing religious fanatics...and thinks mercury in vaccines (which hasn't been in vaccines since the 90s, and ethylmercury is easily excreted) causes autism.
I'm just always surprised by how poor the webdesign is on the websites that purport this sort of thing. It's so freaking consistent.
You mean the white-or-green-on-black (or star-print), the lack of a site map, the use of Java when HTML would work just as good, and the fact that they still use <BLINK> and <MARQUEE> like those aren't the two most evil HTML tags ever coded. Seriously, it's like they never left the 90s.
What I find funny is the blatantly obvious shoopery on conspiracy sites' photos. Or, oh, you managed to draw 16 interconnecting lines on a map. (a T with the bar on the south end of the line, a pentagram superimposed on a pentagon, and a Masonic symbol)
And when they link you to an article about how Jimmy Carter in league with the Masons invented AIDs in a lab, it does very little for their credibility.
Oh you poor naïve fool. Everyone knows AIDS is an autoimmune reaction to semen. Or a reaction to poppers. Or malnutrition. But it can't be HIV. There is no way Maggiore's daughter died of AIDS, because AIDS isn't infectious, even though Pneumocystis carinii was found in her lungs. Also, condoms contain little holes in them that allow HIV to pass through; the celibate priest told me so.
I'm kidding, of course. But most AIDS conspiracy theories focus on denying the connection between HIV and AIDS. I've heard more out there ones, though, like that advocacy of condoms is racist or antisemitic or some other form of bigotry, somehow. Also ones trying to connect AIDS to evolutionary theories involving black people being more promsicuous. Do note that these evolutionary theories are more accepted by those who deny natural selection than by those who accept it.
When 12 million americans believe that people in power are lizard-men, it's not hard at all to see slightly more believable BS gets thrown around.
lizard people for ****'s sake.
Oh, it gets worse: When asked if "lizard men" was a code for Jews, Icke said that's preposterous: He actually means lizard men. So, he's clearly insane, but not a bigot.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Card advantage is not the same thing as card draw. Something for 2B cannot be strictly worse than something for BBB or 3BB. If you're taking out Swords to Plowshares for Plummet, you're a fool. Stop doing these things!
Oh, it gets worse: When asked if "lizard men" was a code for Jews, Icke said that's preposterous: He actually means lizard men. So, he's clearly insane, but not a bigot.
Ya know, I can respect that. He's more harmless and more entertaining this way. Also, it's always good to say what you mean plainly.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I just want to point out that some of us who distrust the government DON'T believe in these crazy nutjob conspiracies.
Some of us just think the government sucks, are incompetent, greedy, corrupt, and pass bills that violate the constitution because they don't know what else to do when they feel they need more power/control.
I don't believe Boston was a false flag conspiracy, but I DO think some government agencies jumped (like a dog in heat) at the chance to display their power via the police/HSA by locking down the city, marching around in armored vehicles with automatic weapons, kicking in doors without warrants or due process.
Is it so hard to believe that maybe the government has a modus operandi of killing flies with bazookas, and because of that habitual over-reaction we are losing our freedoms and have been since Wilson, LBJ, Nixon, ...
9/11 wasn't an inside job, but The Patriot Act sure was...now which one of those two things actually violates our constitutional rights?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
9/11 wasn't an inside job, but The Patriot Act sure was...now which one of those two things actually violates our constitutional rights?
Given 9/11 deprived several thousand people of all of their rights at once, I think you may be missing the bigger picture here.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Sing lustily and with good courage.
Be aware of singing as if you were half dead,
or half asleep:
but lift your voice with strength.
Be no more afraid of your voice now,
nor more ashamed of its being heard,
than when you sang the songs of Satan.
9/11 wasn't an inside job, but The Patriot Act sure was...now which one of those two things actually violates our constitutional rights?
Given 9/11 deprived several thousand people of all of their rights at once, I think you may be missing the bigger picture here.
It was actually just a few thousand, and those tragic deaths aside, do you really think a "few thousand all at once" is the big picture vs. "300+ million all the time for many years to come"?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
It was actually just a few thousand, and those tragic deaths aside, do you really think a "few thousand all at once" is the big picture vs. "300+ million all the time for many years to come"?
sev-er-al "more than two but fewer than many"
We all give up numerous rights for the purpose of protecting a handful of inalienable ones. This is the nature of the social contract.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Sing lustily and with good courage.
Be aware of singing as if you were half dead,
or half asleep:
but lift your voice with strength.
Be no more afraid of your voice now,
nor more ashamed of its being heard,
than when you sang the songs of Satan.
It was actually just a few thousand, and those tragic deaths aside, do you really think a "few thousand all at once" is the big picture vs. "300+ million all the time for many years to come"?
sev-er-al "more than two but fewer than many"
We all give up numerous rights for the purpose of protecting a handful of inalienable ones. This is the nature of the social contract.
I don't see how that supports what you said before.
Sure, the social contract is something we often compromise with.
However, how does that make a few thousand deaths the big picture versus everyone having the "inalienable" rights they don't want compromised, not just compromised, but handily eroded.
If people believe they have a right to be free from government intrusion into their privacy - how is some people getting killed the big picture, and the government intruding into their privacy not?
P.S.
Generally, I hate the use of the word "inalienable".
I disbelieve that our rights are "inalienable". I do believe we have naturally inherent rights. However, there are countless ways those naturally inherent rights can be alienated from us. Certainly we ALLOW many of them to be.
The two words are sometimes interchangeable, but I do not think they are identical. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/inalienable
I believe they can be given away, taken away, etc. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/inherent
I believe they are built-in.
I don't see how that supports what you said before.
Sure, the social contract is something we often compromise with.
However, how does that make a few thousand deaths the big picture versus everyone having the "inalienable" rights they don't want compromised, not just compromised, but handily eroded.
If people believe they have a right to be free from government intrusion into their privacy - how is some people getting killed the big picture, and the government intruding into their privacy not?
P.S.
Generally, I hate the use of the word "inalienable".
I disbelieve that our rights are "inalienable". I do believe we have naturally inherent rights. However, there are countless ways those naturally inherent rights can be alienated from us. Certainly we ALLOW many of them to be.
The two words are sometimes interchangeable, but I do not think they are identical.
What I'm saying is that the dichotomy you're setting up is meaningless and naïve.
Every law is an attempt to make a rational decision: do the benefits of this law (viz. "preventing people from being killed by airplanes flown by terrorists") outweigh the intrusions on people's rights. This is as true for the Patriot Act as it is for a law regulating airlines ("denying pilots the right to fly drunk") or for a law regulating vegetable growers ("denying farmers the right to poison their lettuce"). We, as a society, make the decision that certain rights or goals, here our right to life, are worth some more minor erosion of other rights. This is how laws work.
Of course the Patriot Act abridges some rights; so does the Wagner Act, and so does every other bill passed by Congress which does more than name a Post Office. The very fact that a bill abridges some rights is not a sufficient cause to condemn it unless that abridgment is unwarranted or severe enough to be unconstitutional, and the fact is that the Patriot Act has withstood repeated constitutional scrutiny.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Sing lustily and with good courage.
Be aware of singing as if you were half dead,
or half asleep:
but lift your voice with strength.
Be no more afraid of your voice now,
nor more ashamed of its being heard,
than when you sang the songs of Satan.
You're making a fatal error in your argument.
No one has an inherent OR inalienable right to murder other people, or put other peoples lives at unreasonable risk. You do not have a right to fly a plane full of people drunk, or poison the crops intended to feed others, or fly a plane into a building...)
Since we don't have those rights, then the social contract is NOT denying or infringing upon them.
So we outlaw those actions, and punish people for doing them.
However, we should NOT allow the rights we DO have to fall victim to laws created in a vain attempt to stop those actions.
That is the tightrope we must balance. I believe the government has been falling on the wrong side of that balance for many years.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
You're making a fatal error in your argument.
No one has an inherent OR inalienable right to murder other people, or put other peoples lives at unreasonable risk. You do not have a right to fly a plane full of people drunk, or poison the crops intended to feed others, or fly a plane into a building...)
Since we don't have those rights, then the social contract is NOT denying or infringing upon them.
So we outlaw those actions, and punish people for doing them.
However, we should NOT allow the rights we DO have to fall victim to laws created in a vain attempt to stop those actions.
That is the tightrope we must balance. I believe the government has been falling on the wrong side of that balance for many years.
No.
If you recall your Rousseau, you'll remember the discussion of the existence of "natural rights" and the concept of the "state of nature." The gist of it is that rights, regardless of what we theoretically understand to be natural rights, are a product of a social agreement between people to take us out of the state of nature, in which we have no guaranteed rights at all, and mutually place ourselves under certain limitations in order to protect what we, as a community, define as important.
No man in the state of nature has a "right to life" any more than he has a "right to murder," because in the state of nature the concept of a "right" is itself an anachronism. It is only in the context of a social contract that any rights are recognized, and as a result, any right is theoretically capable of being nullified by collective action. Rights are therefore a matter of social definition and not of divide providence.
As a society, we have made a decision to place "the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" as the paramount rights, but in order to protect the first, we understand that there is a need to curtail the second, because the first is the necessary precursor to an individual having any other rights at all1. Therefore, to "allow those rights we do have to fall victim to laws created... to stop those actions" is precisely the nature of government.
1: The logic behind this should be self-apparent; a man who can be deprived of his life at will has no guarantee of his liberty or his property.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Sing lustily and with good courage.
Be aware of singing as if you were half dead,
or half asleep:
but lift your voice with strength.
Be no more afraid of your voice now,
nor more ashamed of its being heard,
than when you sang the songs of Satan.
I would have been watching CNN. Given that the image is time stamped 1:53 AM, and I remember the man was reported released before I went to bed, probably around 3:00AM (EDIT: I realized this sentence is unclear. I mean that I went to bed at 3:00AM, not that I suspect he was reported released at 3:00AM - I suspect it was before that).
To be honest, I don't know how to go about finding that sort of video. However, you can find various articles which agree that CNN reported that. For example:
"At one point, an unknown person of interest stripped naked—presumably at the request of police to ensure he was not carrying some type of explosives—and was captured on camera by CNN walking in police custody. It is unclear what, if any, connection that man had to the unfolding manhunt. CNN reports that he has since been released, although police have not yet commented about the man on the record."
Now, granted, this is a report of a report. However, the idea that a man would be briefly taken into custody but then released after the FBI confirms he's not involved strikes me as quite reasonable - this explanation doesn't particularly require much of a leap.
Thats a start. So far I've been able to find a few videos, including the one of the guy on the floor surrendering. But I still can't find a video where it is clear that guy is the same guy being escorted naked to the squad car. If anyone can link up a video of the 2 scenes together maybe it'll bring a little more light into this.
Another video that could clear this up is the video of the actual shooting. If there is a video of the shooting then it could be accepted that the guy being escorted unharmed is not Tamerlan.
So lets keep trying to find any of those 2 videos. Until then I'll keep the other 2 questions on hold
Glad to see we can actually carry on a debate on such a sensitive issue in a civilized manner. Some people just plainly don't belong in a debate forum.
Case in point:
Quote from Vaclav »
Indeed, I'm not angered - I'm frustrated a bit because this type of nonsense doesn't belong in Debate IMO. If it was to be part of this forum - I'd prefer it to be it's own little section I can ignore because I like stuff rooted in fact, not supposition.
What type of debate did he actually expect to find in a topic titled "Boston False Flag"? If he finds it offensive that people are asking questions about suspicious photos then he clearly does not fit in a debate forum. He seems to think this forum should only allow talks on certain subjects that appeal to him and censor other subjects as he deems fit.
I will however address these points by Mystery45 as it was directed at me:
It is funny i think that all conspiracy theorist use the same arguement book.
Why? because this is the same thing that every other conspiracy theorist says when you post reliable information that debunks their claims
1. Why do you label me a conspiracy theorist? What conspiracy theory have I made? Fail!!!
2. So far I've only used logic and reason to make any claim, question or comment.
3. Neither you nor your snope link has touched on any of the 3 questions I posted so far, let alone debunk them. Yet you feel you've destroyed me some how. A bit delusional aren't we?
Snope is regarded as a highly acceptable sight in getting rid of internet myths and conspiracy theorists.
The bible is regarded as the word of God and it isn't, whats your point? Its the first time I even heard of snopes and from looking at their fisrt debunk attempt using silly debunk tactics like "his father made a facebook post about it" or attending silly conspiracies like a "family guy episode" and ignoring important topics like Craft International I think it will be the also the last time I use snopes to get information on anything. To come here and claim victory by posting a snopes.com link is pretty vague.
But just to prove how vague it is we'll go point by point:
FBI Previous Investigation of Tamerlan Tsarnaev
On 19 April 2013, the FBI confirmed that it had previously investigated the background of Boston Marathon bombing suspect Tamerlan Tsarnaev, stating in a press release that:
The two individuals believed to be responsible for the Boston Marathon bombings have been positively identified as Tamerlan Tsarnaev, now deceased, and Dzhokar Tsarnaev, now in custody. These individuals are brothers and residents of Massachusetts. Tamerlan Tsarnaev was a legal permanent resident and Dzhokar Tsarnaev is a naturalized U.S. citizen.
Once the FBI learned the identities of the two brothers, the FBI reviewed its records and determined that in early 2011, a foreign government asked the FBI for information about Tamerlan Tsarnaev. The request stated that it was based on information that he was a follower of radical Islam and a strong believer, and that he had changed drastically since 2010 as he prepared to leave the United States for travel to the country's region to join unspecified underground groups.
In response to this 2011 request, the FBI checked U.S. government databases and other information to look for such things as derogatory telephone communications, possible use of online sites associated with the promotion of radical activity, associations with other persons of interest, travel history and plans, and education history. The FBI also interviewed Tamerlan Tsarnaev and family members. The FBI did not find any terrorism activity, domestic or foreign, and those results were provided to the foreign government in the summer of 2011. The FBI requested but did not receive more specific or additional information from the foreign government.
There have been claims that the FBI had tioes to the Tsarnaev brothers. Snopes. debunks that with a press release by the FBI themselves saying they only checked their backgrounds after the attacks.
So the claim is that the FBI is playing dirty and the debunk comes from an FBI press release? Really?
One rumor posited the irony that the Boston Marathon bombing suspects, brothers Tamerlan and Dzhokar Tsarnaev (originally from the Russian republic of Kyrgyzstan or Chechnya) had become naturalized citizens of the U.S. on September 11, the anniversary of the 2001 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon. According to news accounts, Dzhokar came to America on 1 July 2002 as a tourist, asked for asylum, and was naturalized as a U.S. citizen on 11 September 2012. However, his older brother Tamerlan came to the U.S. later; although Tamerlan eventually acquired permanent residency status, he did not obtain U.S. citizenship.
The claim: the tsarnaev brothers where naturalized on on september 11.
The awesome debunking: Only one of them was naturalized on september 11.
Fail!
Coexist' Bumper Sticker
Over the night of April 18-19, the two suspects in the Boston Marathon bombings, Tamerlan and Dzhokar Tsarnaev, reportedly fatally shot an MIT police officer in Cambridge, carjacked a vehicle, led police on a car chase into Watertown, and engaged in a firefight that ended with Tamerlan being shot dead. His younger brother Dzhokar eventually abandoned the stolen vehicle and fled on foot; he was captured that evening after being discovered hiding in a boat parked behind a house.
Rumor later claimed that the vehicle the Tsarnaev brothers carjacked bore a 'Coexist' bumper sticker, a claim based on the following screen capture from a television news report:
However, the vehicle shown in that image does not appear to match the Mercedes SUV that other news accounts described and pictured as the one carjacked by the Tsarnaev brothers:
The claim: There was a bumper sticker in a car on one news channel.
The debunking: a picture of another car in another news channel.
Why a bumper sticker is being debunked is beyond me, still pretty vague and fail.
Pressure Cooker Ad
On 18 April 2013, both the print and digital versions of the Minneapolis Star Tribune inadvertently ran a Macy's advertisement for pressure cookers adjacent to a story about citizens helping victims wounded in the Boston Marathon bombings, something of a faux pas because it is believed that the Boston bombings were carried out using pressure cookers packed with explosives:
The claim: Macys put up a pressure coocker ad near a boston boming article.
The debunk: None that I can read. Macys did put up the ad.
I fail to see the relevance of an ad, specially when the bombs are only "believed" to have been made with pressure coockers. It is yet another epic fail.
By the way, why are we still not sure what the bombs where made of? They can ask Vaclav, he knows everything about the bombs including the type of shrapnel it contained.
Westboro Baptist Church
The Westboro Baptist Church (WBC), of Topeka, Kansas, is headed by pastor Fred Phelps. WBC is widely known for its anti-homosexual stance, and members of its congregation have drawn much publicity by staging anti-gay protests and picketing at the funerals of military members and celebrities. (At such funerals, WBC members typically portray the deceased's passing as God's punishment for America's tolerance of homosexuality.)
As they did after the Sandy Hook shootings, the WBC has announced an intention to picket the funerals of those killed in the Boston Marathon bombings in the sense that they stated so in a Twitter announcement on the afternoon of the bombings:
However, although the Westboro Baptist Church had said they planned to picket the funeral of Sandy Hook principal Dawn Hochsprung, motorcyclists lined up at the site of the service that day to confront the WBC's protesters, and the latter never did materialize. Supporters of the Boston Marathon victims are hoping the WBC will be no-shows at the funerals of those killed in that tragedy as well.
What the hell does a church marching against gay rights and claiming the bombs were sent by god have to do with anything? This one seems like the most epic fail of all of these "debunking" material.
Do you still trust snopes? Lets go on.
Suspect/Backpack Photos
A pair of circulated photographs purportedly show a black backpack from the scene of the Boston Marathon bombings and a man in the crowd at the marathon (who is said to be wanted by police) wearing a blue jacket and carrying what looks like that backpack:
According to news accounts, the former picture was included in a security bulletin issued to law enforcement agencies by the FBI and shows a shredded backpack in which one of the bombs was hidden. The latter picture was not one that was distributed by police for help in locating a suspect; rather, it is the product of various individuals on the Internet scouring photos of the Boston Marathon scene for clues and circulating their speculations online. .
On Thursday, 18 April 2013, the FBI released photographs of two suspects they were seeking additional information about, neither of whom was the man pictured above:
On 19 April, one of the suspects was killed in a shootout with police, and the second was apprehended later that same day in Watertown, Massachusetts.
The FBI released a photo and says it is the backpack which contained the bomb.
The claim: the claim tself is bogus because what people are claiming is that the bag belongs to Craft members and snopes fails to acknowledge that and makes it seem as if the claim by the people is that the bag belongs to the bystander with a blue jacket.
The debunk: Since they are making it look as if the conspiracy revolves around the blue jacket dude, they are debunking it by saying "the FBI did not release the blue jcaket guy's photo.
Only FBI approved material is to looked at? Fail yet again.
"Early Creation" Facebook Pages
As occurred after the Sandy Hook shooting, conspiracy proponents claimed that a number of the Facebook Boston Marathon bombing-related pages of the type which inevitably spring up in the aftermath of such tragedies (e.g., memorials, tributes, condolences, and donation sites for victims) bear dates indicating they were created earlier than the occurrence of the events they reference, thus exposing those tragedies as "false flag" events planned and coordinated by some sinister force (usually said to be the government) intent on deflecting blame away from the "real" perpetrators.
After the Boston Marathon bombing, one page titled "Our thoughts and prayers go out to all involved in the Boston bombings" was flagged as such because it was allegedly created several hours prior to the bombings, and another (since removed) page with the title "Thoughts go out to all involved in the Boston explosions" was similarly identified as suspicious because it bore a "Joined Facebook" date of Saturday, April 13 (two days before the bombings it references).
However, as we discuss in another article, the dates shown on Facebook pages are not reliable indicators of their dates of creation. The date indicating when the entity associated with the page was Born, Founded, Started, Created, Opened, or Launched is a user-selectable value that can be set to anything the page creator wishes to choose. (Hence our own snopes.com Facebook page bears the legend "Launched in 1994," because that's when we first began publishing material about urban legends on the web.)
Likewise, "Joined Facebook" dates by themselves do not provide reliable timelines documenting the creation dates of Facebook pages. Facebook page names can be changed, and pages which were initially created prior to particular events for other reasons and then renamed/repurposed after those events retain their original pre-tragedy dates.
So, an unused Facebook page created in March 2013 can be quickly renamed to serve as a memorial for victims who died in an April 2013 bombing, but the "Joined Facebook" date will reflect the earlier (March 2013) date.
The claim: A facebook page was made days earlier, thus proving prior knowledge of the event.
The debunk: Facebook creation dates are not accurate.
Fail?
I don't even see how a facebook page is proof of a conspiracy, so I don't even understand why they are debunking a facebook page. Still their "debunking evidence" is more bogus than the claim itself.
One prominent rumor claimed that one of the Boston Marathon bombing victims was an 8-year-old girl who attended school at Sandy Hook and/or was running the marathon for the victims of the Sandy Hook shootings. Some iterations of the rumor included a photograph of the purported victim:
This rumor is false: the child killed in the bombings was not a participant in the race, and children are not allowed on the course. As reported in the Boston Globe, the young victim was Martin Richard, an 8-year-old boy who was killed as he waited near the finish line with his parents and siblings:
Grief-stricken neighbors today described Martin Richard, the 8-year-old Dorchester boy killed when two bombs detonated at the finish line of the Boston Marathon , as a child full of life who was part of a very close-knit family.
“They were always together," neighbor Jane Sherman said of the Richard family, who live next door to her on Carruth Street in Dorchester. "This is the worst tragedy I have ever been through in my life. It’s a horrific situation."
The boy was killed and his mother and his younger sister gravely wounded as they waited at the Boylston Street finish line.
The picture of the girl is completely unrelated to the Boston Marathon bombings; it's a photograph taken from another race (the 3rd Annual Joe Cassella 5K) run in Virginia back in May 2012.
To be a prominent claim I never even heard of a little girl running in the marathon and dying. But what should we expect from snopes if they so far have made vague attempts to debunk vague claims.
To be frank I don't even understand the claim, much less the debunking. All I can figure here is that a child was reported dead and its identity was a source of debate until it was correctly identified. Not much debunking there.
Martin Richard Photo
After Martin Richard was identified as the 8-year-old child who had been killed by one of the explosions, a photograph was circulated showing a boy holding up a sign decorated with hearts and a peace sign and bearing the legend "No more hurting people. Peace." This photo was said to be a picture of Martin Richard:
This is Martin, 8. He died in the Boston bombing yesterday. He was at the finish line with his family, waiting for his dad to cross. His mother and little sister were catastrophically injured. He was the student of our dear friend, Rachel Moo. His message resonates powerfully today. My prayer is that we all live by Martin's words, paying tribute to his too-brief, but immeasurably valuable life by following his example.
This is indeed a picture of Martin Richard, taken in April 2012 during a classroom lesson on the shooting of Trayvon Martin. A photo gallery published by the New York Post includes this image along with other photographs of Martin Richard and pictures of well-wishers visiting the Richard's home to leave messages, flowers, and other tokens of support.
The claim BY SNOPES: A picture of Martin circulated the internet.
The debunk: The picture is of 2012.
Huh? This makes as much sense as imaginary being on the clouds looking down on us. Where is the conspiracy theory and the debunking? I see neither. Are they debunking themselves?
One circulated photograph reportedly showed a man in a posture of anguish after learning that his girlfriend, whom he planned to propose to after she completed running the Boston Marathon, had been killed in the bombings:
The man in the red shirt planned to propose to his girlfriend as she crossed the finish line at the Boston Marathon, but she passed away. Most of us will never experience this amount of emotional pain. Occurrences like this remind us how fragile life is and how important each person is to so many people. My heart goes out to all of the people affected.
According to news accounts, this photograph shows a man attempting to render aid to Sydney Corcoran, an 18-year-old high school student whose legs were shredded by shrapnel from one of the bombs. The so far unidentified man in the red shirt has been described as a "stranger" and not her boyfriend, and Sydney Corcoran was not a participant in the race (nor was she killed by the explosion that injured her):
Shrapnel from one of the bombs that exploded during the Boston Marathon shredded both of Sydney's legs, leaving her with deep arterial injuries, said her older brother, Tyler Corcoran, during an interview in the kitchen of the family's home in the city's Pawtucketville neighborhood.
Sydney, with her mother, Celeste, and father Kevin, were in Boston to watch her aunt, Carmen Accabo, of Westford, finish the storied event. Celeste, too, was struck by shrapnel and overnight had both legs amputated below the knee, Tyler said. Kevin received minor injuries, but otherwise was physically okay. He was at the Boston Medical Center bedsides of both his wife and daughter Tuesday, said his brother, Tim Corcoran, of Rhode Island.
The picture [of her being aided by a stranger] in a red t-shirt was so touching that it sparked a false rumor on Twitter that he was proposing to his dying girlfriend.
This one is laughable.
The claim apparently is that the guy in red shirt was the dead girl's boyfriend. Is that the wild and crazy conspiracy theory they will debunk?
The debunk: He is not the boyfriend.
Epic win, they finally debunked something even if its as silly as this it still counts as a debunk or not?
This is sad, I don't even want to continue. The only interesting bit about that is this:
"Shrapnel from one of the bombs that exploded during the Boston Marathon shredded both of Sydney's legs, leaving her with deep arterial injuries, said her older brother, Tyler Corcoran, during an interview in the kitchen of the family's home in the city's Pawtucketville neighborhood."
Thats interesting because Vaclav claimed the shrapnel was bearing type shrapnel and not only did not shredd flesh, but it rather lodged deep and was able to cauterize two blown off legs from Bauman. Bad science anyone?
On the afternoon of April 15, the Twitter feed of the Boston Globe reported that officials had stated "There will be a controlled explosion opposite the library within one minute as part of bomb squad activities":
This tweet was proffered by conspiracy theorists as proof that officials planned for a "controlled explosion" to be under way at the same time as the marathon explosions, a highly suspect "coincidence" that indicated the bombings were "false flag" operation. However, this tweet was issued about an hour after the bomb blasts and referenced a controlled detonation of a suspicious device near the central branch of the Boston Public Library, which is on the stretch of Boylston Street where the initial explosions occurred.
A fire coincidentally broke out at the JFK Presidential Library and Museum at about the same time as the explosions, and as a precaution police were summoned to the scene while bomb squads swept the building for explosive devices:
A fire and possible explosion Monday afternoon at the JFK Presidential Library and Museum prompted a full-scale investigation by local, state, and federal authorities to determine whether the incidents were linked to the deadly Boston Marathon blasts.
The fire broke out shortly before 3 p.m. — around the same time as the Marathon explosions several miles away — in an HVAC
system in a section of the complex opened in 2011 that houses offices, a classroom, and some archival material, said Rachel Flor, a library spokeswoman. Everyone evacuated the building in Dorchester safely and no injuries were reported, she said.
Thomas Putnam, the library’s director, told reporters around 4 p.m. that a bomb squad was coming in as a precautionary measure in light of the Marathon blasts.
Shortly afterward, Boston police and State Police cars swarmed the library parking lot, along with authorities from the US Secret Service and the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.
They ordered all employees and visitors off the property, as they conducted a full sweep for bombs.
I think it has been made clear that there were bomb squads present at the marathon. The bomb drills have not been confirmed yet by police or the FBI I believe. I remember a video of one of the bomb squad tanks prior to the bombings, but thats only my memory, how about the memory of an actual runner and ey witness?
As happened with the Sandy Hook shooting, conspiracy buffs have circulated images claiming that persons associated with the Boston Marathon bombing are not who they claim to be, but rather "actors" or "plants" employed to pull off a staged event. One such image stated that a news photograph showing a bombing victim who suffered a serious leg injury in one of the explosions actually pictured Nick Vogt, a U.S. Army lieutenant who lost both his legs to an IED explosion in Afghanistan in November 2011:
However, the Boston Marathon bombing victim pictured in the upper left-hand quadrant of this image was identified on Facebook as Jeff Bauman Jr., of Chelmsford, Massachusetts, by his father, Jeff Bauman Sr.:
"Can everyone pray for my son Jeff Jr.?" Jeff Bauman Sr. wrote in an emotional plea on his Facebook page hours after the bombings at the Boston Marathon.
The elder Bauman, of Chelmsford, posted that message under a news photo of his critically injured son being rushed from the scene, after two explosions near the finish line killed three and injured more than 140.
Bauman, who could not be reached for comment, wrote that his son was at the finish line when he was injured by one of the blasts. His son was transported to a hospital where he was undergoing surgery on his legs.
"I just can't explain what's wrong with people today to do this to people," Bauman posted. "I'm really starting to lose faith in our country."
From his hospital room, Jeff Bauman Jr. provided the FBI with a description of a man whom he saw drop a bag near the finish line of the Boston Marathon, information which may have helped law enforcement identify one of the suspects.
I think I've addressed this already.
The claim: Bauman is Nick Vogt acting.
The debunk: Bauman's father made a post on facebook.
Am I supposed to take a facebook post as debunk material?
How does snopes address these two pieces of evidence:
Another image purportedly demonstrated a connection between the Boston Marathon bombing and the Sandy Hook shooting:
Whoa! Government is slipping up! This lady supposedly died in the elementary school shooting & apparently died again in the bombing at Boston. They have to be smarter than this, right?
The woman pictured above is the late Dawn Lafferty Hochsprung, the school principal who was killed in the Sandy Hook shootings, and the right-hand panel purportedly shows her picture being displayed on the screen during an interview with someone named Donna about the Boston Marathon bombings. Some commentators have noted that the woman who stepped in as principal at Sandy Hook after Dawn Hochsprung's death was Donna Page and theorized that the former was the "Donna" referenced during the pictured interview about the Boston Marathon bombings (in the course of which her predecessor's picture was shown on-screen). Although at least one woman named Donna who ran in the marathon that day did give media interviews about her experience, the only such reference we have seen that mentioned a surname identified the interviewee as Donna Bruce, not Donna Page.
A group of Newtown parents known as Team Newtown Strong entered the Boston Marathon and ran the 26 miles to honor the 26 victims of the Sandy Hook shootings, so it's possible Dawn Hochsprung would have been mentioned if one or more of those team members had been interviewed.
Being that this was debunked pretty much everywhere else, we can give this one to snopes without even reading it.
Another widely circulated image was snapped by college student Dan Lampariello, who was taking pictures along the race sidelines and coincidentally happened to capture the moment when one of the bombs exploded. The picture he took became a subject of great interest online because it showed a figure striding across the roof of a high-rise building block just as the explosion occurred on the street below, causing many to speculate (without foundation) that the person pictured in the photo had some connection to the bombings:
No evidence yet suggests there is any reason to connect the person atop a nearby building with either of the explosions, as there are plenty of innocuous reasons why someone might have been in that location at the time.
I think this is the picture that started all the rumors. But even to conspiracy theorists it should be plain obvious that this guy has nothing to with the bombs, hes not even near the ledge. My best guess is that this guy heard the explosions, walked up to the roof and was walking towards the ledge to see what was going on. I don't see how snopes needs to "debunk" such an irrelevant photos, stickers and ads when there is more damning evidence out there, but hey, they are regarded as the top of the creme in debunking aren't they?
Saudi Man
Various news accounts reported that 20-year-old Saudi national named Abdul Rahman Ali Al-harbi who was injured in one of the explosions was being investigated as a "person of interest" by law enforcement authorities to ascertain whether he might have had any connection to the bombings:
Police took a 20-year-old Saudi national into custody near the scene of the horrific Boston Marathon bomb attack, law-enforcement sources said.
The potential suspect was questioned by the FBI and local police at Boston's Brigham and Women’s Hospital, where he was under heavy guard while being treated for shrapnel injuries to his leg sustained in the blast.
In late afternoon, a large group of federal and state law enforcement agents raided an apartment in a building in the Saudi man’s hometown of Revere, Mass.
FBI agents could be seen through one window. It was not clear what, if anything, they found. But Revere fire officials said they were called out to support bomb-squad officers as part of an investigation of a "person of interest" in the marathon attack.
At the hospital, investigators seized the man's clothes to examine whether they held any evidence that he was behind the attack. The law-enforcement sources also said that the man was not free to leave the medical center.
Later news accounts reported that the young man was considered a witness, not a suspect:
He didn't do it.
The Saudi national questioned in the aftermath of the Boston Marathon terror blasts that killed three is considered a witness rather than a suspect, sources said.
Abdul Rahman Ali Alharbi, 22, remained hospitalized in Boston as investigators searched every inch of his Revere, Mass., apartment and grilled his roommate.
But it turns out the student was apparently in the wrong place at the wrong time when two bombs exploded near the finish line of the event that draws runners from around the globe.
Alharbi's Facebook page indicated that he was in the United States on a scholarship to study at the New England School of English. He reportedly held a student visa.
A school classmate echoed Bada, describing Alharbi as a low-key guy who never showed any inkling of anti-American sentiment.
"He is a geek," said pal Abdullah Alkayid, 19. "He likes to study a lot. ... He's a quiet person, doesn't like to go out a lot."
A few days after the bombings, a rumor began to circulate that the U.S. would be deporting Alharbi back to Saudi Arabia the following week on "security and related grounds." Since then contradictory reports have claimed that he is being deported, that he is not being deported, and that the U.S. government was planning to deport him but is now reconsidering the move (or has decided against it).
I'm not too familiar with this story. But I fail too see any debunking here. Snopes seem to just be commenting on the chronology of it. This was also the story Glenn Beck ran as the "Super conspiracy secret he was to present against Obama". Glenn Beck presenting it on national television makes me skeptical from the get go. Still, there was no debunking done here that I could see.
I think I'll skip the guy walking on a sidewalk story and the family guy story. Pretty sure they have nothing relevant about them.
So, tell me again how was it that you posted a reliable source that debunked my claims? Epic fail man.
The reason that conspiracy theorists do not like it is because they actually use real evidence to explain what happened.
I think we just covered what snope's real evidence is.
Unlike conspiracy theorists that make stuff up based on the smallest fraction of evidence.
So in short, yes, I probably do know more than him - I keep up with Jay13x here who is an EMT-I/99 IIRC here in MD that has the highest EMT standards in the entire US (although a few states match us - go figure with the highest ratio of lawyers and doctors we'd have the highest medical standards though...)
I should be clear that I'm an EMT-B in Maryland. When I took it, it was a 120 hour course that covered anatomy, all the first aid 'basics', Basic Trauma Life Support, etc. It's since expanded, but the regular 'referesher' courses cover the newer material. EMT-B in Maryland is a legitimate healthcare provider, although many of the EMT-Bs don't take it very serious (it's a requirement for all Fire & Rescue people, the volunteers who constitute the majority of providers tend to not take it very seriously).
I would say I'm pretty knowledgeable when it comes to mass casualty incidents and trauma immediately after an incident, having studied it both for my EMT and in school. My master's degree is a fusion of public health, EMS and disaster management issues.
Your answers so far?
1. He got roughed up on the way.
2. IR cameras can’t see blood.
3. That’s a punisher hat, boston people are punisher fans.
All laughable answers, yet you feel you have set me straight with all your nonsense.
These are all legitimate reasons, I'm not sure why you are dismissing them out of hand when you expect people to take your explanations seriously.
I've skimmed through the last few pages and looked at a few of your links, but right now I see several problems with your images. The biggest issue is one of authorship and credibility. Those websites love to preach 'thinking' over 'believing' - but the problem is they rarely engage in critical thinking themselves, but instead engage in the classic counterculture tactic of 'less people are into it, therefore it's better/true', which is a huge logical fallacy. So let's think about the basic premise here a little bit, and discuss this entire premise:
Where are these proof images coming from, and what makes them authentic?
Why is an amateur internet detectives 'work' to be trusted any more than a professional officer? How is this any more legitimate than the Saudi man who was also identified?
If it was legitimate, why wouldn't any mainstream media follow-up on it, when they will spend hours on the president's birth credentials and covered the Saudi man who was originally misidentified as a suspect?
What motives would the craft organization have to bomb the marathon? Isn't it possible they were hired as private security for the event? Why would the FBI hire them to do so?
What makes this a more credible alternative to noted radicals fitting the same general pattern of lone wolf terror attacks over the last 30 years? Are there less 'conspiracy' explanations that could suit the available evidence?
I should also note that weird things happen. I've worked all sorts of disasters over the last few years, and I have to say the amount of general confusion and miscommunication that goes on even over a prolonged disaster is nothing compared to the first few days after a terror-related attack. A mass casualty especially is a black hole for information, and I can guarantee the Boston PD screwed some things up or let their emotions get the better of them, but in my experience the government isn't really competent enough for conspiracies.
Also, many of the websites you posted are blocked from my computer (by spyware filters), so if you could save the images and post them on some sort of photo sharing site, that would help.
Jay: Ah - I knew it was clear you had further education and knew you took EMT stuff very seriously. It was clear your knowledge went beyond the EMT-B course. (I was guesstimating based on the knowledge I've seen you have + the pretests I was messing with - and I saw Oregon's quoted in weeks - what was ours before the enhanced standards you mention? 6 weeks (not sure what the "weekload" for OR was)?
Zero: I'm ignoring you for the mostpart and for example your comment on the person who had both of their legs shredded is part of why - I specified that people close to the shockwave (and they were PRACTICALLY ON IT) as different from those outlying that only received buckshot wounds. [And honestly "his family" saying it was shrapnel doesn't mean anything - more than likely the wounds he incurred were from the shockwave ten times over compared to anything shrapnel did at that range]
I made it very clear. And frankly the "buckshot lodging" effect as I'm referencing it as (probably has it's own effect) is really, really well known - its part of why if you get shot by an arrow short term until you're ready to treat the bleed you leave the head lodged because the wound engulfs it to minimize bleeding.
Jay: Ah - I knew it was clear you had further education and knew you took EMT stuff very seriously. It was clear your knowledge went beyond the EMT-B course. (I was guesstimating based on the knowledge I've seen you have + the pretests I was messing with - and I saw Oregon's quoted in weeks - what was ours before the enhanced standards you mention? 6 weeks (not sure what the "weekload" for OR was)?
Well, my Dad's a vet and epidemiologist, so I grew up hearing stories about depopulating chicken populations in India or things like that. My sister is a Nurse and a trained paramedic (but she went straight into Nursing School after getting a BS degree as a Paramedic). My wife is a third year medical student, I've got 10 years as an EMT-B, two of which I also worked for a private ambulance company AND I work in public health. So yeah, I tend to be fairly knowledgeable about that kind of stuff. I don't really want to get into more detail than that, as I don't want to ever sound like I'm speaking for where I work.
The course load for EMT-B in Maryland is about 12-16 weeks, give or take how many weekend sessions they do. I'm not sure how long the new one is, but we have to take a 32 hour refresher course every three years. It's the equivalent of a 4 credit undergraduate class (and IS in some programs). I couldn't tell you the old course load. It was 120 hours when I took it in the early 2000's. Also, EMT-I is a weird thing in Maryland, while many older CRTs were 'grandfathered in' as EMT-I's, it's been back and forth over the last 10 years as to whether or not that's even a designation, and there haven't been any EMT-I classes that I know of in the last 10 years. It's pretty much just Bs and Ps, and the few I's are generally the older EMS folks.
Zero: I'm ignoring you for the mostpart and for example your comment on the person who had both of their legs shredded is part of why - I specified that people close to the shockwave (and they were PRACTICALLY ON IT) as different from those outlying that only received buckshot wounds. [And honestly "his family" saying it was shrapnel doesn't mean anything - more than likely the wounds he incurred were from the shockwave ten times over compared to anything shrapnel did at that range]
I made it very clear. And frankly the "buckshot lodging" effect as I'm referencing it as (probably has it's own effect) is really, really well known - its part of why if you get shot by an arrow short term until you're ready to treat the bleed you leave the head lodged because the wound engulfs it to minimize bleeding.
A better way to imagine it is in 'zones'. The first stage of effect is generally damage from the shockwave - these will result in the most amputations and losses of limb. Pretty much everyone in this area will at least have their inner ears damaged, the post-explosion deafness movies like to treat like it goes away in a minute or two (it doesn't). This is the 'kill' zone, and will result in the most life-threatening injuries. Just outside of that is the shrapnel's main area of effect. This is where you will get those serious wounds and people with impaling injuries. Outside of that is the 'wound zone', where the remaining small bits of shrapnel land. This can extend for quite a distance depending on the open space and the force of the explosion/size of the shrapnel.
I should also be clear that these aren't neatly defined zones, but rough approximations. People immediately next to the bomb can get a lot of shrapnel, bit and small, and someone fairly far away can get a large piece of shrapnel, it's really just luck as to where exactly you are standing, what kind of shrapnel is involved (is it just bomb fragments or did they add something?). Or someone nearby can just get concussive injuries and burns and very little shrapnel. Someone with a concussive injury from a reasonable distance away can develop a brain hemorrhage and die unexpectedly.
Jay: Ah... that would explain the difficulties finding our qualifications for I then if they pretty much sunseted the program. Just figured it was because this is such a litigious state that it was impractical for most. (And amusing that our backgrounds are so similar besides career parts - although with my unapplied LPN likely a decent amount of overlap there even)
And on shockwave stuff - yea, that's a more verbose way to clarify it, basically what I was trying to say though. [I just didn't care to clarify the other "zones" but I think shockwave I covered tersely and accurately] And wouldn't you agree that bleeds from such forces between lodging/erratic flesh tears/heat of the material being flung and the like can be deceptively slow to show on the skin?
[And note of course in the case of his pics he's using for "evidence" - it's a difference of about 40 seconds from what I've seen of those photos repeated elsewhere with timestamps - so we're discussing stuff that's deceptively slow to appear in the under a minute range]
Ah, the reverse sheeple tactic. You'll fit in quite nicely lol.
Okay, I'll get into it. Which video are we talking about? The one with the man laying flat on the street or the one of the naked man being escorted to the squad car? The first one of the man laying flat on the street is clearly neither one of the brothers. He had a different haircut, skin tone, hair color and etc. The second one of the naked man being escorted to the squad car looks eerily similar to the older brother but I personally have no way of proving it.
C'mon, seriously, man? You must really want to think somebody's offended.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
So you can only be offended if you're directly affected by said event? Also, forgive me, I thought I detected a bit of bias in your post. It was wrong of me to assume anything.
It would much better explain a large majority of the responses in this thread.
Better than annoyance? I really don't see it. Offense tends to lead to anger. What you're seeing isn't that.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
(Case in point: I stated that pic was impossible to distinguish if it was him or not, we get a first person account of watching the report that it wasn't - and it's still being questioned - how much you want to bet his follow up gets questioned by Mr. Conspiracy again?)
Burden of proof is always supposed to be on the accuser - that doesn't mean "Well this might mean..." it means something concrete.
At least most opinions to be debated have some basis in reality that I can relate to - nonsensical theorycrafting that assumes the absolute worst possible scenario imaginable (and time and again at that!) defies reality as it has presented itself to me during my time on this rock hurdling through the void.
PS - On "Craft" the hat absolutely isn't one of theirs - their similar hat has three substantial differences: a) The "Skull" on the front has a small icon offset from the skull to the lower left of the skull, does not appear in the "conspiracy" photo, b) The text on the back of the hat is in red, c) the text on the back of the hat has a space on the "Craft" hat, no space on the "conspiracy" hat.
Additionally per "Craft" guidelines that they outline for uniform, uniforms are supposed to be a singular design in black or camo - if they were of a uniformed "Craft" unit they're not in any recognized uniform that the group uses.
Additionally, even if somehow it was "Craft" uniforms - they sell them on the web... I could be running around with one in a few days for it to ship - does that suddenly mean everything I do is a result of "Craft" actions? Seriously.
Re: People misusing the term Vanilla to describe a flying, unleash (sometimes trample) critter.
It is funny i think that all conspiracy theorist use the same arguement book.
Why? because this is the same thing that every other conspiracy theorist says when you post reliable information that debunks their claims
Snope is regarded as a highly acceptable sight in getting rid of internet myths and conspiracy theorists.
The reason that conspiracy theorists do not like it is because they actually use real evidence to explain what happened.
Unlike conspiracy theorists that make stuff up based on the smallest fraction of evidence.
because you don't want to see it.
because it was a conspiracy claim but that guy's back pack didn't match the ones used.
evidently not to conspiracy theorists.
if you look at the pictures they don't even match. in fact they don't even look the same.
you calling this guy's dad a liar? prove it with some substantial information from a reliable source. IE not youtube.
your posts remind me of someone else i know.
he makes the exact same types of arguements that you do. i would ban him from the forum except for the fact he doesn't actually break rules.
although he doesn't do the same thing that you do.
when asked for evidence to support the claims
he can only post more conspiracy sites and youtube video's.
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around.
Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
And when they link you to an article about how Jimmy Carter in league with the Masons invented AIDs in a lab, it does very little for their credibility.
Cube talk, design community and much much more!
When 12 million americans believe that people in power are lizard-men, it's not hard at all to see slightly more believable BS gets thrown around.
lizard people for ****'s sake.
Sigged! But I personally think it's because of crank magnetism. Basically, if you're insane, you believe other insane people because you're all persecuted by "reality". This even includes things that really shouldn't make sense, like Elijah Muhammad inviting Lincoln Rockwell (head of the American Nazi Party and no relation to Norman Rockwell) to a Nation of Islam rally.
The most annoying thing is people who are skeptical in one way but insane in another, such as Bill Maher, who is quite good at satirizing religious fanatics...and thinks mercury in vaccines (which hasn't been in vaccines since the 90s, and ethylmercury is easily excreted) causes autism.
You mean the white-or-green-on-black (or star-print), the lack of a site map, the use of Java when HTML would work just as good, and the fact that they still use <BLINK> and <MARQUEE> like those aren't the two most evil HTML tags ever coded. Seriously, it's like they never left the 90s.
What I find funny is the blatantly obvious shoopery on conspiracy sites' photos. Or, oh, you managed to draw 16 interconnecting lines on a map. (a T with the bar on the south end of the line, a pentagram superimposed on a pentagon, and a Masonic symbol)
Oh you poor naïve fool. Everyone knows AIDS is an autoimmune reaction to semen. Or a reaction to poppers. Or malnutrition. But it can't be HIV. There is no way Maggiore's daughter died of AIDS, because AIDS isn't infectious, even though Pneumocystis carinii was found in her lungs. Also, condoms contain little holes in them that allow HIV to pass through; the celibate priest told me so.
I'm kidding, of course. But most AIDS conspiracy theories focus on denying the connection between HIV and AIDS. I've heard more out there ones, though, like that advocacy of condoms is racist or antisemitic or some other form of bigotry, somehow. Also ones trying to connect AIDS to evolutionary theories involving black people being more promsicuous. Do note that these evolutionary theories are more accepted by those who deny natural selection than by those who accept it.
Oh, it gets worse: When asked if "lizard men" was a code for Jews, Icke said that's preposterous: He actually means lizard men. So, he's clearly insane, but not a bigot.
On phasing:
Ya know, I can respect that. He's more harmless and more entertaining this way. Also, it's always good to say what you mean plainly.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Some of us just think the government sucks, are incompetent, greedy, corrupt, and pass bills that violate the constitution because they don't know what else to do when they feel they need more power/control.
I don't believe Boston was a false flag conspiracy, but I DO think some government agencies jumped (like a dog in heat) at the chance to display their power via the police/HSA by locking down the city, marching around in armored vehicles with automatic weapons, kicking in doors without warrants or due process.
Is it so hard to believe that maybe the government has a modus operandi of killing flies with bazookas, and because of that habitual over-reaction we are losing our freedoms and have been since Wilson, LBJ, Nixon, ...
9/11 wasn't an inside job, but The Patriot Act sure was...now which one of those two things actually violates our constitutional rights?
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
Given 9/11 deprived several thousand people of all of their rights at once, I think you may be missing the bigger picture here.
Be aware of singing as if you were half dead,
or half asleep:
but lift your voice with strength.
Be no more afraid of your voice now,
nor more ashamed of its being heard,
than when you sang the songs of Satan.
It was actually just a few thousand, and those tragic deaths aside, do you really think a "few thousand all at once" is the big picture vs. "300+ million all the time for many years to come"?
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
sev-er-al "more than two but fewer than many"
We all give up numerous rights for the purpose of protecting a handful of inalienable ones. This is the nature of the social contract.
Be aware of singing as if you were half dead,
or half asleep:
but lift your voice with strength.
Be no more afraid of your voice now,
nor more ashamed of its being heard,
than when you sang the songs of Satan.
I don't see how that supports what you said before.
Sure, the social contract is something we often compromise with.
However, how does that make a few thousand deaths the big picture versus everyone having the "inalienable" rights they don't want compromised, not just compromised, but handily eroded.
If people believe they have a right to be free from government intrusion into their privacy - how is some people getting killed the big picture, and the government intruding into their privacy not?
P.S.
Generally, I hate the use of the word "inalienable".
I disbelieve that our rights are "inalienable". I do believe we have naturally inherent rights. However, there are countless ways those naturally inherent rights can be alienated from us. Certainly we ALLOW many of them to be.
The two words are sometimes interchangeable, but I do not think they are identical.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/inalienable
I believe they can be given away, taken away, etc.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/inherent
I believe they are built-in.
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
What I'm saying is that the dichotomy you're setting up is meaningless and naïve.
Every law is an attempt to make a rational decision: do the benefits of this law (viz. "preventing people from being killed by airplanes flown by terrorists") outweigh the intrusions on people's rights. This is as true for the Patriot Act as it is for a law regulating airlines ("denying pilots the right to fly drunk") or for a law regulating vegetable growers ("denying farmers the right to poison their lettuce"). We, as a society, make the decision that certain rights or goals, here our right to life, are worth some more minor erosion of other rights. This is how laws work.
Of course the Patriot Act abridges some rights; so does the Wagner Act, and so does every other bill passed by Congress which does more than name a Post Office. The very fact that a bill abridges some rights is not a sufficient cause to condemn it unless that abridgment is unwarranted or severe enough to be unconstitutional, and the fact is that the Patriot Act has withstood repeated constitutional scrutiny.
Be aware of singing as if you were half dead,
or half asleep:
but lift your voice with strength.
Be no more afraid of your voice now,
nor more ashamed of its being heard,
than when you sang the songs of Satan.
No one has an inherent OR inalienable right to murder other people, or put other peoples lives at unreasonable risk. You do not have a right to fly a plane full of people drunk, or poison the crops intended to feed others, or fly a plane into a building...)
Since we don't have those rights, then the social contract is NOT denying or infringing upon them.
So we outlaw those actions, and punish people for doing them.
However, we should NOT allow the rights we DO have to fall victim to laws created in a vain attempt to stop those actions.
That is the tightrope we must balance. I believe the government has been falling on the wrong side of that balance for many years.
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
No.
If you recall your Rousseau, you'll remember the discussion of the existence of "natural rights" and the concept of the "state of nature." The gist of it is that rights, regardless of what we theoretically understand to be natural rights, are a product of a social agreement between people to take us out of the state of nature, in which we have no guaranteed rights at all, and mutually place ourselves under certain limitations in order to protect what we, as a community, define as important.
No man in the state of nature has a "right to life" any more than he has a "right to murder," because in the state of nature the concept of a "right" is itself an anachronism. It is only in the context of a social contract that any rights are recognized, and as a result, any right is theoretically capable of being nullified by collective action. Rights are therefore a matter of social definition and not of divide providence.
As a society, we have made a decision to place "the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" as the paramount rights, but in order to protect the first, we understand that there is a need to curtail the second, because the first is the necessary precursor to an individual having any other rights at all1. Therefore, to "allow those rights we do have to fall victim to laws created... to stop those actions" is precisely the nature of government.
1: The logic behind this should be self-apparent; a man who can be deprived of his life at will has no guarantee of his liberty or his property.
Be aware of singing as if you were half dead,
or half asleep:
but lift your voice with strength.
Be no more afraid of your voice now,
nor more ashamed of its being heard,
than when you sang the songs of Satan.
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
Thats a start. So far I've been able to find a few videos, including the one of the guy on the floor surrendering. But I still can't find a video where it is clear that guy is the same guy being escorted naked to the squad car. If anyone can link up a video of the 2 scenes together maybe it'll bring a little more light into this.
Another video that could clear this up is the video of the actual shooting. If there is a video of the shooting then it could be accepted that the guy being escorted unharmed is not Tamerlan.
So lets keep trying to find any of those 2 videos. Until then I'll keep the other 2 questions on hold
Glad to see we can actually carry on a debate on such a sensitive issue in a civilized manner. Some people just plainly don't belong in a debate forum.
Case in point:
What type of debate did he actually expect to find in a topic titled "Boston False Flag"? If he finds it offensive that people are asking questions about suspicious photos then he clearly does not fit in a debate forum. He seems to think this forum should only allow talks on certain subjects that appeal to him and censor other subjects as he deems fit.
I will however address these points by Mystery45 as it was directed at me:
1. Why do you label me a conspiracy theorist? What conspiracy theory have I made? Fail!!!
2. So far I've only used logic and reason to make any claim, question or comment.
3. Neither you nor your snope link has touched on any of the 3 questions I posted so far, let alone debunk them. Yet you feel you've destroyed me some how. A bit delusional aren't we?
The bible is regarded as the word of God and it isn't, whats your point? Its the first time I even heard of snopes and from looking at their fisrt debunk attempt using silly debunk tactics like "his father made a facebook post about it" or attending silly conspiracies like a "family guy episode" and ignoring important topics like Craft International I think it will be the also the last time I use snopes to get information on anything. To come here and claim victory by posting a snopes.com link is pretty vague.
But just to prove how vague it is we'll go point by point:
On 19 April 2013, the FBI confirmed that it had previously investigated the background of Boston Marathon bombing suspect Tamerlan Tsarnaev, stating in a press release that:
The two individuals believed to be responsible for the Boston Marathon bombings have been positively identified as Tamerlan Tsarnaev, now deceased, and Dzhokar Tsarnaev, now in custody. These individuals are brothers and residents of Massachusetts. Tamerlan Tsarnaev was a legal permanent resident and Dzhokar Tsarnaev is a naturalized U.S. citizen.
Once the FBI learned the identities of the two brothers, the FBI reviewed its records and determined that in early 2011, a foreign government asked the FBI for information about Tamerlan Tsarnaev. The request stated that it was based on information that he was a follower of radical Islam and a strong believer, and that he had changed drastically since 2010 as he prepared to leave the United States for travel to the country's region to join unspecified underground groups.
In response to this 2011 request, the FBI checked U.S. government databases and other information to look for such things as derogatory telephone communications, possible use of online sites associated with the promotion of radical activity, associations with other persons of interest, travel history and plans, and education history. The FBI also interviewed Tamerlan Tsarnaev and family members. The FBI did not find any terrorism activity, domestic or foreign, and those results were provided to the foreign government in the summer of 2011. The FBI requested but did not receive more specific or additional information from the foreign government.
There have been claims that the FBI had tioes to the Tsarnaev brothers. Snopes. debunks that with a press release by the FBI themselves saying they only checked their backgrounds after the attacks.
So the claim is that the FBI is playing dirty and the debunk comes from an FBI press release? Really?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/10008638/Boston-bomber-FBI-dropped-the-ball-over-Tamerlan-Tsarnaev.html
And how do we address the tsarnaev brother's mother claiming the FBI had been in contact with them over the past 5 years?:
http://rt.com/usa/tsarnaev-brothers-parents-innocent-124/
Fail!
One rumor posited the irony that the Boston Marathon bombing suspects, brothers Tamerlan and Dzhokar Tsarnaev (originally from the Russian republic of Kyrgyzstan or Chechnya) had become naturalized citizens of the U.S. on September 11, the anniversary of the 2001 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon. According to news accounts, Dzhokar came to America on 1 July 2002 as a tourist, asked for asylum, and was naturalized as a U.S. citizen on 11 September 2012. However, his older brother Tamerlan came to the U.S. later; although Tamerlan eventually acquired permanent residency status, he did not obtain U.S. citizenship.
The claim: the tsarnaev brothers where naturalized on on september 11.
The awesome debunking: Only one of them was naturalized on september 11.
Fail!
Over the night of April 18-19, the two suspects in the Boston Marathon bombings, Tamerlan and Dzhokar Tsarnaev, reportedly fatally shot an MIT police officer in Cambridge, carjacked a vehicle, led police on a car chase into Watertown, and engaged in a firefight that ended with Tamerlan being shot dead. His younger brother Dzhokar eventually abandoned the stolen vehicle and fled on foot; he was captured that evening after being discovered hiding in a boat parked behind a house.
Rumor later claimed that the vehicle the Tsarnaev brothers carjacked bore a 'Coexist' bumper sticker, a claim based on the following screen capture from a television news report:
However, the vehicle shown in that image does not appear to match the Mercedes SUV that other news accounts described and pictured as the one carjacked by the Tsarnaev brothers:
The claim: There was a bumper sticker in a car on one news channel.
The debunking: a picture of another car in another news channel.
Why a bumper sticker is being debunked is beyond me, still pretty vague and fail.
On 18 April 2013, both the print and digital versions of the Minneapolis Star Tribune inadvertently ran a Macy's advertisement for pressure cookers adjacent to a story about citizens helping victims wounded in the Boston Marathon bombings, something of a faux pas because it is believed that the Boston bombings were carried out using pressure cookers packed with explosives:
The claim: Macys put up a pressure coocker ad near a boston boming article.
The debunk: None that I can read. Macys did put up the ad.
I fail to see the relevance of an ad, specially when the bombs are only "believed" to have been made with pressure coockers. It is yet another epic fail.
By the way, why are we still not sure what the bombs where made of? They can ask Vaclav, he knows everything about the bombs including the type of shrapnel it contained.
The Westboro Baptist Church (WBC), of Topeka, Kansas, is headed by pastor Fred Phelps. WBC is widely known for its anti-homosexual stance, and members of its congregation have drawn much publicity by staging anti-gay protests and picketing at the funerals of military members and celebrities. (At such funerals, WBC members typically portray the deceased's passing as God's punishment for America's tolerance of homosexuality.)
As they did after the Sandy Hook shootings, the WBC has announced an intention to picket the funerals of those killed in the Boston Marathon bombings in the sense that they stated so in a Twitter announcement on the afternoon of the bombings:
However, although the Westboro Baptist Church had said they planned to picket the funeral of Sandy Hook principal Dawn Hochsprung, motorcyclists lined up at the site of the service that day to confront the WBC's protesters, and the latter never did materialize. Supporters of the Boston Marathon victims are hoping the WBC will be no-shows at the funerals of those killed in that tragedy as well.
What the hell does a church marching against gay rights and claiming the bombs were sent by god have to do with anything? This one seems like the most epic fail of all of these "debunking" material.
Do you still trust snopes? Lets go on.
A pair of circulated photographs purportedly show a black backpack from the scene of the Boston Marathon bombings and a man in the crowd at the marathon (who is said to be wanted by police) wearing a blue jacket and carrying what looks like that backpack:
According to news accounts, the former picture was included in a security bulletin issued to law enforcement agencies by the FBI and shows a shredded backpack in which one of the bombs was hidden. The latter picture was not one that was distributed by police for help in locating a suspect; rather, it is the product of various individuals on the Internet scouring photos of the Boston Marathon scene for clues and circulating their speculations online. .
On Thursday, 18 April 2013, the FBI released photographs of two suspects they were seeking additional information about, neither of whom was the man pictured above:
On 19 April, one of the suspects was killed in a shootout with police, and the second was apprehended later that same day in Watertown, Massachusetts.
The FBI released a photo and says it is the backpack which contained the bomb.
The claim: the claim tself is bogus because what people are claiming is that the bag belongs to Craft members and snopes fails to acknowledge that and makes it seem as if the claim by the people is that the bag belongs to the bystander with a blue jacket.
The debunk: Since they are making it look as if the conspiracy revolves around the blue jacket dude, they are debunking it by saying "the FBI did not release the blue jcaket guy's photo.
Only FBI approved material is to looked at? Fail yet again.
As occurred after the Sandy Hook shooting, conspiracy proponents claimed that a number of the Facebook Boston Marathon bombing-related pages of the type which inevitably spring up in the aftermath of such tragedies (e.g., memorials, tributes, condolences, and donation sites for victims) bear dates indicating they were created earlier than the occurrence of the events they reference, thus exposing those tragedies as "false flag" events planned and coordinated by some sinister force (usually said to be the government) intent on deflecting blame away from the "real" perpetrators.
After the Boston Marathon bombing, one page titled "Our thoughts and prayers go out to all involved in the Boston bombings" was flagged as such because it was allegedly created several hours prior to the bombings, and another (since removed) page with the title "Thoughts go out to all involved in the Boston explosions" was similarly identified as suspicious because it bore a "Joined Facebook" date of Saturday, April 13 (two days before the bombings it references).
However, as we discuss in another article, the dates shown on Facebook pages are not reliable indicators of their dates of creation. The date indicating when the entity associated with the page was Born, Founded, Started, Created, Opened, or Launched is a user-selectable value that can be set to anything the page creator wishes to choose. (Hence our own snopes.com Facebook page bears the legend "Launched in 1994," because that's when we first began publishing material about urban legends on the web.)
Likewise, "Joined Facebook" dates by themselves do not provide reliable timelines documenting the creation dates of Facebook pages. Facebook page names can be changed, and pages which were initially created prior to particular events for other reasons and then renamed/repurposed after those events retain their original pre-tragedy dates.
So, an unused Facebook page created in March 2013 can be quickly renamed to serve as a memorial for victims who died in an April 2013 bombing, but the "Joined Facebook" date will reflect the earlier (March 2013) date.
The claim: A facebook page was made days earlier, thus proving prior knowledge of the event.
The debunk: Facebook creation dates are not accurate.
Fail?
I don't even see how a facebook page is proof of a conspiracy, so I don't even understand why they are debunking a facebook page. Still their "debunking evidence" is more bogus than the claim itself.
One prominent rumor claimed that one of the Boston Marathon bombing victims was an 8-year-old girl who attended school at Sandy Hook and/or was running the marathon for the victims of the Sandy Hook shootings. Some iterations of the rumor included a photograph of the purported victim:
This rumor is false: the child killed in the bombings was not a participant in the race, and children are not allowed on the course. As reported in the Boston Globe, the young victim was Martin Richard, an 8-year-old boy who was killed as he waited near the finish line with his parents and siblings:
Grief-stricken neighbors today described Martin Richard, the 8-year-old Dorchester boy killed when two bombs detonated at the finish line of the Boston Marathon , as a child full of life who was part of a very close-knit family.
“They were always together," neighbor Jane Sherman said of the Richard family, who live next door to her on Carruth Street in Dorchester. "This is the worst tragedy I have ever been through in my life. It’s a horrific situation."
The boy was killed and his mother and his younger sister gravely wounded as they waited at the Boylston Street finish line.
The picture of the girl is completely unrelated to the Boston Marathon bombings; it's a photograph taken from another race (the 3rd Annual Joe Cassella 5K) run in Virginia back in May 2012.
To be a prominent claim I never even heard of a little girl running in the marathon and dying. But what should we expect from snopes if they so far have made vague attempts to debunk vague claims.
To be frank I don't even understand the claim, much less the debunking. All I can figure here is that a child was reported dead and its identity was a source of debate until it was correctly identified. Not much debunking there.
After Martin Richard was identified as the 8-year-old child who had been killed by one of the explosions, a photograph was circulated showing a boy holding up a sign decorated with hearts and a peace sign and bearing the legend "No more hurting people. Peace." This photo was said to be a picture of Martin Richard:
This is Martin, 8. He died in the Boston bombing yesterday. He was at the finish line with his family, waiting for his dad to cross. His mother and little sister were catastrophically injured. He was the student of our dear friend, Rachel Moo. His message resonates powerfully today. My prayer is that we all live by Martin's words, paying tribute to his too-brief, but immeasurably valuable life by following his example.
This is indeed a picture of Martin Richard, taken in April 2012 during a classroom lesson on the shooting of Trayvon Martin. A photo gallery published by the New York Post includes this image along with other photographs of Martin Richard and pictures of well-wishers visiting the Richard's home to leave messages, flowers, and other tokens of support.
The claim BY SNOPES: A picture of Martin circulated the internet.
The debunk: The picture is of 2012.
Huh? This makes as much sense as imaginary being on the clouds looking down on us. Where is the conspiracy theory and the debunking? I see neither. Are they debunking themselves?
One circulated photograph reportedly showed a man in a posture of anguish after learning that his girlfriend, whom he planned to propose to after she completed running the Boston Marathon, had been killed in the bombings:
The man in the red shirt planned to propose to his girlfriend as she crossed the finish line at the Boston Marathon, but she passed away. Most of us will never experience this amount of emotional pain. Occurrences like this remind us how fragile life is and how important each person is to so many people. My heart goes out to all of the people affected.
According to news accounts, this photograph shows a man attempting to render aid to Sydney Corcoran, an 18-year-old high school student whose legs were shredded by shrapnel from one of the bombs. The so far unidentified man in the red shirt has been described as a "stranger" and not her boyfriend, and Sydney Corcoran was not a participant in the race (nor was she killed by the explosion that injured her):
Shrapnel from one of the bombs that exploded during the Boston Marathon shredded both of Sydney's legs, leaving her with deep arterial injuries, said her older brother, Tyler Corcoran, during an interview in the kitchen of the family's home in the city's Pawtucketville neighborhood.
Sydney, with her mother, Celeste, and father Kevin, were in Boston to watch her aunt, Carmen Accabo, of Westford, finish the storied event. Celeste, too, was struck by shrapnel and overnight had both legs amputated below the knee, Tyler said. Kevin received minor injuries, but otherwise was physically okay. He was at the Boston Medical Center bedsides of both his wife and daughter Tuesday, said his brother, Tim Corcoran, of Rhode Island.
The picture [of her being aided by a stranger] in a red t-shirt was so touching that it sparked a false rumor on Twitter that he was proposing to his dying girlfriend.
This one is laughable.
The claim apparently is that the guy in red shirt was the dead girl's boyfriend. Is that the wild and crazy conspiracy theory they will debunk?
The debunk: He is not the boyfriend.
Epic win, they finally debunked something even if its as silly as this it still counts as a debunk or not?
This is sad, I don't even want to continue. The only interesting bit about that is this:
"Shrapnel from one of the bombs that exploded during the Boston Marathon shredded both of Sydney's legs, leaving her with deep arterial injuries, said her older brother, Tyler Corcoran, during an interview in the kitchen of the family's home in the city's Pawtucketville neighborhood."
Thats interesting because Vaclav claimed the shrapnel was bearing type shrapnel and not only did not shredd flesh, but it rather lodged deep and was able to cauterize two blown off legs from Bauman. Bad science anyone?
On the afternoon of April 15, the Twitter feed of the Boston Globe reported that officials had stated "There will be a controlled explosion opposite the library within one minute as part of bomb squad activities":
This tweet was proffered by conspiracy theorists as proof that officials planned for a "controlled explosion" to be under way at the same time as the marathon explosions, a highly suspect "coincidence" that indicated the bombings were "false flag" operation. However, this tweet was issued about an hour after the bomb blasts and referenced a controlled detonation of a suspicious device near the central branch of the Boston Public Library, which is on the stretch of Boylston Street where the initial explosions occurred.
A fire coincidentally broke out at the JFK Presidential Library and Museum at about the same time as the explosions, and as a precaution police were summoned to the scene while bomb squads swept the building for explosive devices:
A fire and possible explosion Monday afternoon at the JFK Presidential Library and Museum prompted a full-scale investigation by local, state, and federal authorities to determine whether the incidents were linked to the deadly Boston Marathon blasts.
The fire broke out shortly before 3 p.m. — around the same time as the Marathon explosions several miles away — in an HVAC
system in a section of the complex opened in 2011 that houses offices, a classroom, and some archival material, said Rachel Flor, a library spokeswoman. Everyone evacuated the building in Dorchester safely and no injuries were reported, she said.
Thomas Putnam, the library’s director, told reporters around 4 p.m. that a bomb squad was coming in as a precautionary measure in light of the Marathon blasts.
Shortly afterward, Boston police and State Police cars swarmed the library parking lot, along with authorities from the US Secret Service and the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.
They ordered all employees and visitors off the property, as they conducted a full sweep for bombs.
I think it has been made clear that there were bomb squads present at the marathon. The bomb drills have not been confirmed yet by police or the FBI I believe. I remember a video of one of the bomb squad tanks prior to the bombings, but thats only my memory, how about the memory of an actual runner and ey witness?
http://blog.al.com/live/2013/04/boston_marathon_explosion_univ.html
False Victim
As happened with the Sandy Hook shooting, conspiracy buffs have circulated images claiming that persons associated with the Boston Marathon bombing are not who they claim to be, but rather "actors" or "plants" employed to pull off a staged event. One such image stated that a news photograph showing a bombing victim who suffered a serious leg injury in one of the explosions actually pictured Nick Vogt, a U.S. Army lieutenant who lost both his legs to an IED explosion in Afghanistan in November 2011:
However, the Boston Marathon bombing victim pictured in the upper left-hand quadrant of this image was identified on Facebook as Jeff Bauman Jr., of Chelmsford, Massachusetts, by his father, Jeff Bauman Sr.:
"Can everyone pray for my son Jeff Jr.?" Jeff Bauman Sr. wrote in an emotional plea on his Facebook page hours after the bombings at the Boston Marathon.
The elder Bauman, of Chelmsford, posted that message under a news photo of his critically injured son being rushed from the scene, after two explosions near the finish line killed three and injured more than 140.
Bauman, who could not be reached for comment, wrote that his son was at the finish line when he was injured by one of the blasts. His son was transported to a hospital where he was undergoing surgery on his legs.
"I just can't explain what's wrong with people today to do this to people," Bauman posted. "I'm really starting to lose faith in our country."
From his hospital room, Jeff Bauman Jr. provided the FBI with a description of a man whom he saw drop a bag near the finish line of the Boston Marathon, information which may have helped law enforcement identify one of the suspects.
I think I've addressed this already.
The claim: Bauman is Nick Vogt acting.
The debunk: Bauman's father made a post on facebook.
Am I supposed to take a facebook post as debunk material?
How does snopes address these two pieces of evidence:
1. The photo analysis: http://www.fromthetrenchesworldreport.com/are-you-just-a-believer-or-do-you-think/41807
2. The missing pinky on both Bauman and Vogt analysis (analysis starts at the 8:15 minute): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pzTFI61VKVo
Another image purportedly demonstrated a connection between the Boston Marathon bombing and the Sandy Hook shooting:
Whoa! Government is slipping up! This lady supposedly died in the elementary school shooting & apparently died again in the bombing at Boston. They have to be smarter than this, right?
The woman pictured above is the late Dawn Lafferty Hochsprung, the school principal who was killed in the Sandy Hook shootings, and the right-hand panel purportedly shows her picture being displayed on the screen during an interview with someone named Donna about the Boston Marathon bombings. Some commentators have noted that the woman who stepped in as principal at Sandy Hook after Dawn Hochsprung's death was Donna Page and theorized that the former was the "Donna" referenced during the pictured interview about the Boston Marathon bombings (in the course of which her predecessor's picture was shown on-screen). Although at least one woman named Donna who ran in the marathon that day did give media interviews about her experience, the only such reference we have seen that mentioned a surname identified the interviewee as Donna Bruce, not Donna Page.
A group of Newtown parents known as Team Newtown Strong entered the Boston Marathon and ran the 26 miles to honor the 26 victims of the Sandy Hook shootings, so it's possible Dawn Hochsprung would have been mentioned if one or more of those team members had been interviewed.
Being that this was debunked pretty much everywhere else, we can give this one to snopes without even reading it.
Another widely circulated image was snapped by college student Dan Lampariello, who was taking pictures along the race sidelines and coincidentally happened to capture the moment when one of the bombs exploded. The picture he took became a subject of great interest online because it showed a figure striding across the roof of a high-rise building block just as the explosion occurred on the street below, causing many to speculate (without foundation) that the person pictured in the photo had some connection to the bombings:
No evidence yet suggests there is any reason to connect the person atop a nearby building with either of the explosions, as there are plenty of innocuous reasons why someone might have been in that location at the time.
I think this is the picture that started all the rumors. But even to conspiracy theorists it should be plain obvious that this guy has nothing to with the bombs, hes not even near the ledge. My best guess is that this guy heard the explosions, walked up to the roof and was walking towards the ledge to see what was going on. I don't see how snopes needs to "debunk" such an irrelevant photos, stickers and ads when there is more damning evidence out there, but hey, they are regarded as the top of the creme in debunking aren't they?
Saudi Man
Various news accounts reported that 20-year-old Saudi national named Abdul Rahman Ali Al-harbi who was injured in one of the explosions was being investigated as a "person of interest" by law enforcement authorities to ascertain whether he might have had any connection to the bombings:
Police took a 20-year-old Saudi national into custody near the scene of the horrific Boston Marathon bomb attack, law-enforcement sources said.
The potential suspect was questioned by the FBI and local police at Boston's Brigham and Women’s Hospital, where he was under heavy guard while being treated for shrapnel injuries to his leg sustained in the blast.
In late afternoon, a large group of federal and state law enforcement agents raided an apartment in a building in the Saudi man’s hometown of Revere, Mass.
FBI agents could be seen through one window. It was not clear what, if anything, they found. But Revere fire officials said they were called out to support bomb-squad officers as part of an investigation of a "person of interest" in the marathon attack.
At the hospital, investigators seized the man's clothes to examine whether they held any evidence that he was behind the attack. The law-enforcement sources also said that the man was not free to leave the medical center.
Later news accounts reported that the young man was considered a witness, not a suspect:
He didn't do it.
The Saudi national questioned in the aftermath of the Boston Marathon terror blasts that killed three is considered a witness rather than a suspect, sources said.
Abdul Rahman Ali Alharbi, 22, remained hospitalized in Boston as investigators searched every inch of his Revere, Mass., apartment and grilled his roommate.
But it turns out the student was apparently in the wrong place at the wrong time when two bombs exploded near the finish line of the event that draws runners from around the globe.
Alharbi's Facebook page indicated that he was in the United States on a scholarship to study at the New England School of English. He reportedly held a student visa.
A school classmate echoed Bada, describing Alharbi as a low-key guy who never showed any inkling of anti-American sentiment.
"He is a geek," said pal Abdullah Alkayid, 19. "He likes to study a lot. ... He's a quiet person, doesn't like to go out a lot."
A few days after the bombings, a rumor began to circulate that the U.S. would be deporting Alharbi back to Saudi Arabia the following week on "security and related grounds." Since then contradictory reports have claimed that he is being deported, that he is not being deported, and that the U.S. government was planning to deport him but is now reconsidering the move (or has decided against it).
I'm not too familiar with this story. But I fail too see any debunking here. Snopes seem to just be commenting on the chronology of it. This was also the story Glenn Beck ran as the "Super conspiracy secret he was to present against Obama". Glenn Beck presenting it on national television makes me skeptical from the get go. Still, there was no debunking done here that I could see.
I think I'll skip the guy walking on a sidewalk story and the family guy story. Pretty sure they have nothing relevant about them.
So, tell me again how was it that you posted a reliable source that debunked my claims? Epic fail man.
I think we just covered what snope's real evidence is.
Lol?
"When you get your opponent down to 0 sanity, you win the game!"
I should be clear that I'm an EMT-B in Maryland. When I took it, it was a 120 hour course that covered anatomy, all the first aid 'basics', Basic Trauma Life Support, etc. It's since expanded, but the regular 'referesher' courses cover the newer material. EMT-B in Maryland is a legitimate healthcare provider, although many of the EMT-Bs don't take it very serious (it's a requirement for all Fire & Rescue people, the volunteers who constitute the majority of providers tend to not take it very seriously).
I would say I'm pretty knowledgeable when it comes to mass casualty incidents and trauma immediately after an incident, having studied it both for my EMT and in school. My master's degree is a fusion of public health, EMS and disaster management issues.
Can you re-post your examples for each in a coherent fashion, point for point. I'll take a look and discuss reasonably.
These are all legitimate reasons, I'm not sure why you are dismissing them out of hand when you expect people to take your explanations seriously.
I've skimmed through the last few pages and looked at a few of your links, but right now I see several problems with your images. The biggest issue is one of authorship and credibility. Those websites love to preach 'thinking' over 'believing' - but the problem is they rarely engage in critical thinking themselves, but instead engage in the classic counterculture tactic of 'less people are into it, therefore it's better/true', which is a huge logical fallacy. So let's think about the basic premise here a little bit, and discuss this entire premise:
Where are these proof images coming from, and what makes them authentic?
Why is an amateur internet detectives 'work' to be trusted any more than a professional officer? How is this any more legitimate than the Saudi man who was also identified?
If it was legitimate, why wouldn't any mainstream media follow-up on it, when they will spend hours on the president's birth credentials and covered the Saudi man who was originally misidentified as a suspect?
What motives would the craft organization have to bomb the marathon? Isn't it possible they were hired as private security for the event? Why would the FBI hire them to do so?
What makes this a more credible alternative to noted radicals fitting the same general pattern of lone wolf terror attacks over the last 30 years? Are there less 'conspiracy' explanations that could suit the available evidence?
I should also note that weird things happen. I've worked all sorts of disasters over the last few years, and I have to say the amount of general confusion and miscommunication that goes on even over a prolonged disaster is nothing compared to the first few days after a terror-related attack. A mass casualty especially is a black hole for information, and I can guarantee the Boston PD screwed some things up or let their emotions get the better of them, but in my experience the government isn't really competent enough for conspiracies.
Also, many of the websites you posted are blocked from my computer (by spyware filters), so if you could save the images and post them on some sort of photo sharing site, that would help.
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
Zero: I'm ignoring you for the mostpart and for example your comment on the person who had both of their legs shredded is part of why - I specified that people close to the shockwave (and they were PRACTICALLY ON IT) as different from those outlying that only received buckshot wounds. [And honestly "his family" saying it was shrapnel doesn't mean anything - more than likely the wounds he incurred were from the shockwave ten times over compared to anything shrapnel did at that range]
I made it very clear. And frankly the "buckshot lodging" effect as I'm referencing it as (probably has it's own effect) is really, really well known - its part of why if you get shot by an arrow short term until you're ready to treat the bleed you leave the head lodged because the wound engulfs it to minimize bleeding.
Re: People misusing the term Vanilla to describe a flying, unleash (sometimes trample) critter.
Well, my Dad's a vet and epidemiologist, so I grew up hearing stories about depopulating chicken populations in India or things like that. My sister is a Nurse and a trained paramedic (but she went straight into Nursing School after getting a BS degree as a Paramedic). My wife is a third year medical student, I've got 10 years as an EMT-B, two of which I also worked for a private ambulance company AND I work in public health. So yeah, I tend to be fairly knowledgeable about that kind of stuff. I don't really want to get into more detail than that, as I don't want to ever sound like I'm speaking for where I work.
The course load for EMT-B in Maryland is about 12-16 weeks, give or take how many weekend sessions they do. I'm not sure how long the new one is, but we have to take a 32 hour refresher course every three years. It's the equivalent of a 4 credit undergraduate class (and IS in some programs). I couldn't tell you the old course load. It was 120 hours when I took it in the early 2000's. Also, EMT-I is a weird thing in Maryland, while many older CRTs were 'grandfathered in' as EMT-I's, it's been back and forth over the last 10 years as to whether or not that's even a designation, and there haven't been any EMT-I classes that I know of in the last 10 years. It's pretty much just Bs and Ps, and the few I's are generally the older EMS folks.
A better way to imagine it is in 'zones'. The first stage of effect is generally damage from the shockwave - these will result in the most amputations and losses of limb. Pretty much everyone in this area will at least have their inner ears damaged, the post-explosion deafness movies like to treat like it goes away in a minute or two (it doesn't). This is the 'kill' zone, and will result in the most life-threatening injuries. Just outside of that is the shrapnel's main area of effect. This is where you will get those serious wounds and people with impaling injuries. Outside of that is the 'wound zone', where the remaining small bits of shrapnel land. This can extend for quite a distance depending on the open space and the force of the explosion/size of the shrapnel.
I should also be clear that these aren't neatly defined zones, but rough approximations. People immediately next to the bomb can get a lot of shrapnel, bit and small, and someone fairly far away can get a large piece of shrapnel, it's really just luck as to where exactly you are standing, what kind of shrapnel is involved (is it just bomb fragments or did they add something?). Or someone nearby can just get concussive injuries and burns and very little shrapnel. Someone with a concussive injury from a reasonable distance away can develop a brain hemorrhage and die unexpectedly.
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
And on shockwave stuff - yea, that's a more verbose way to clarify it, basically what I was trying to say though. [I just didn't care to clarify the other "zones" but I think shockwave I covered tersely and accurately] And wouldn't you agree that bleeds from such forces between lodging/erratic flesh tears/heat of the material being flung and the like can be deceptively slow to show on the skin?
[And note of course in the case of his pics he's using for "evidence" - it's a difference of about 40 seconds from what I've seen of those photos repeated elsewhere with timestamps - so we're discussing stuff that's deceptively slow to appear in the under a minute range]
Re: People misusing the term Vanilla to describe a flying, unleash (sometimes trample) critter.