Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
ouija ouija

'Boston Bomber': shot by police, not suicide

217 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

stereologist

This thread makes the lunacy of the chemtrails thread look respectable in comparison.

We have people standing up for a murder that was seen on video at the scene with a backpack, known to have purchased the materials used in the explosions, wrote a confession in the boat where he hid, caught after a gun battle and bomb chase through a residential area, etc. I thank all of these people for posting the typical nonsense of the conspiracy fans. We have the claims of being on the CIA payroll. There are claims about being patsies. We have BR showing off that he knows nothing about explosives with the comment:

Yeah, pressure cookers with fire crackers and black powder inside them. LOL.

As far as the brother is concerned we have his dead body at a shootout with police hiding out in Watertown after a chase with bombs and they in a vehicle they STOLE at gunpoint and took a hostage and forced the person to hand over cash. And what exactly is their excuse for all of this going to be in court?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DecoNoir

Crisis actors, smoke bombs, fake blood and literal "smoke and mirrors" were all part of what was the false flag terrorist attack called the Boston Marathon Bombing. To anyone who saw the pictures and footage of fake blood, make- up artists and smiling “victims”. It was obvious that something was not right. For those involved in filmmaking and in the know the discrepancies were obvious. We spoke to famous Hollywood filmmaker, producer and director Nathan Folks about why he is certain the Boston Marathon Bombing was a false flag terrorist attack.

Read more: http://voiceofrussia...han-Folks-7658/

Well as someone who knows a thing or two (or alot more than that) about the film industry myself, I can tell you this is a load of crap. First off, Nathan Folks is not a director, he started off as a marketing executive for "Titanic" and later became a producer for independent films. So we already have the article trying desperatly to fluff its importance. Second, look at that dialouge, really look at it. Who talks like that? Here's an example:

Folks: Back in 2013 I was watching the events unfold and as a producer, you can pinpoint very specific things that didn’t seem right. And I started to realize that we are watching yet another false flag event unfold. And as I started putting the pieces together I realized that we are up against an environment that is trying to create a fear factor in the media. And the fear factor is to keep us scared and to keep us in fear as long as they can.

And the events that I know to be true, including the "Boston hero" who was a person in my last film, “The prosecution of an American president” and his wife, I started to recognize that this was not an event that was at all 100% true.

Read more: http://voiceofrussia...han-Folks-7658/

There's nothing of any substance in that interview, just fluff, clearly written by someone who knows next to nothing about what goes into creating the sorts of effects that it's claiming. Just as asinine as people who claim the Apollo landing was directed by Kubric.

Edited by DecoNoir
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sweetpumper

Yeah, he seems legit. If it's so obvious, why are there not thousands of other orthopedic surgeons coming forward to support his claims?

The author's name is John Robles. I'm sure you can contact him with any inquiries through the website.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rafterman

The author's name is John Robles. I'm sure you can contact him with any inquiries through the website.

You posted it, why don't you defend it? Or are you saying you don't believe it either?

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sweetpumper

I post things I run across during the day every once in a while, if I know there's a thread pertaining to it. I don't think Still Waters or Waspie Dwarf get called out to defend the 100 articles that they post in a day. Maybe if I would've commented on it myself, maybe.

Plus, I don't know any orthopedic surgeons to ask.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DecoNoir

You posted it, why don't you defend it? Or are you saying you don't believe it either?

But that would require the use of logic, and reason! To much effort compared to simply copying and pasting off conspiracy sites.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DecoNoir

I post things I run across during the day every once in a while, if I know there's a thread pertaining to it. I don't think Still Waters or Waspie Dwarf get called out to defend the 100 articles that they post in a day. Maybe if I would've commented on it myself, maybe.

Plus, I don't know any orthopedic surgeons to ask.

Simple, Waspie and SW post scientific articles that can be backed up. Your knowingly posting into an ongoing debate with an article that is largely unsubstantiated, and doesn't attempt to do so in any way. And when the evidence points to the content of the article being largely false, we expect a reason as to why you think it has merit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sweetpumper

Simple, Waspie and SW post scientific articles that can be backed up. Your knowingly posting into an ongoing debate with an article that is largely unsubstantiated, and doesn't attempt to do so in any way. And when the evidence points to the content of the article being largely false, we expect a reason as to why you think it has merit.

Gotcha.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sweetpumper

I'll be sure and put a disclaimer at the bottom next time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DecoNoir

I'll be sure and put a disclaimer at the bottom next time.

That'd clarify things. I find the general rule of thumb is a person is going to post something they themselves put some measure of faith in unless otherwise stated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Babe Ruth

The Voice of Russia. Certainly the first place I think of when I want the truth. Or Pravda as I believe they call it.

Yes, NBC, Fox, CBS & ABC are far superior in the truth-telling department. I believe every word they say. :innocent:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Babe Ruth

But that would require the use of logic, and reason! To much effort compared to simply copying and pasting off conspiracy sites.

No, logic and reason would suggest that maybe, just maybe, as the evidence builds against the official version of __________, there may be something to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DecoNoir

No, logic and reason would suggest that maybe, just maybe, as the evidence builds against the official version of __________, there may be something to it.

There's a difference between evidence and "anomalies". What you thrive on is "anomalies", things you pint out that seem to point against a particular story. What a critical thinker does is draw on their knowledge base and/or expand their knowledge base to find what could cause such "anomalies". Unfortunately, we can't account for each and every single variable that could cause such "anomalies" as this is the real world and the exact conditions for any event can never ever be repeated. The best we as human beings could do is draw a conclusion that answers more questions than it asks. The large majority of conspiracy theorist fail to do this. They take "anomalies", treat them as something repeatable and don't take into account variables (if they can be accounted for) and people don't expand there knowledge base in order to ask questions for that theory, although the people who tout such theories are willing to poke holes in any theory with a government stamp on it and any study that supports it.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Babe Ruth

There's a difference between evidence and "anomalies". What you thrive on is "anomalies", things you pint out that seem to point against a particular story. What a critical thinker does is draw on their knowledge base and/or expand their knowledge base to find what could cause such "anomalies". Unfortunately, we can't account for each and every single variable that could cause such "anomalies" as this is the real world and the exact conditions for any event can never ever be repeated. The best we as human beings could do is draw a conclusion that answers more questions than it asks. The large majority of conspiracy theorist fail to do this. They take "anomalies", treat them as something repeatable and don't take into account variables (if they can be accounted for) and people don't expand there knowledge base in order to ask questions for that theory, although the people who tout such theories are willing to poke holes in any theory with a government stamp on it and any study that supports it.

New to me, I just heard a plausible explanation of what might cause some of those anomalies observed in the TV coverage of the streetside events in Boston--Green Screen, as is so popular these days. That angle might explain some of the strange actions of so many of those involved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist

All there is is nothing from the alternative groupies that think there is something other than the story witnessed by many people from those injured by the bombs, the videos, the carjacked individual, the police, the neighbors where the massacre fiends were stopped.

Anomalies? Laughable claim. Time for this one to go back to their sizzling neutrons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DecoNoir

New to me, I just heard a plausible explanation of what might cause some of those anomalies observed in the TV coverage of the streetside events in Boston--Green Screen, as is so popular these days. That angle might explain some of the strange actions of so many of those involved.

Take it from a guy whose studied filmmaking since they were a child and hopes to make a career out of it: "Strange actions" should be expected in events like these. This is real life, not the neat and tidy world of cinema. Also, unless you have a power house like Weta Digital, or ILM, your not greenscreening something on that scale without quite a few significant tells, and even then the trained eye can pick it up without any real difficulty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Border Collie

Yes, NBC, Fox, CBS & ABC are far superior in the truth-telling department. I believe every word they say. :innocent:

Interesting that you should consider them an appropriate comparison. Whilst Fox and the rest regularly spin and twist the news, the Russian state media are in a different league. I suggest you research their efforts. The Stalin era is of particular note.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
preacherman76

Neither of the suspects back pack matches the one used in the bombing. This detective work is as basic as it gets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sweetpumper

Bostonians to Protest Surveillance and Militarized Police During Urban Shield SWAT Drills

One year after the police lockdown of Watertown following the Marathon bombing, Bostonians who live and work in neighborhoods and communities facing SWAT raids and surveillance will testify at a “speak out” against police militarization on the weekend of the Urban Shield SWAT training in Boston. Speakers will be available on-site for interview, and by phone before Sunday.

  • "The post above contains information about bombers 'n stuff. The information is not verified, and should not be treated as such."
  • "Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing paragraph, SP does not represent, warrant, undertake or guarantee ... that the information in the post is correct, accurate, complete or non-misleading."
  • "SP will not be liable to you in respect of any special, indirect or consequential loss or damage."

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tiggs

Neither of the suspects back pack matches the one used in the bombing. This detective work is as basic as it gets.

Since we're at the basic detective work stage - perhaps you can provide evidence that that particular backpack is the one that the FBI are going to claim in court that the bombers actually used, and isn't just a backpack that someone else was wearing at the scene that the FBI initially suspected may have been used prior to any actual forensic analysis having been carried out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Babe Ruth

Interesting that you should consider them an appropriate comparison. Whilst Fox and the rest regularly spin and twist the news, the Russian state media are in a different league. I suggest you research their efforts. The Stalin era is of particular note.

There is no doubt in my mind that RT spins things in their favor. I seldom get to watch RT, but I have in years gone by.

Nor is there any doubt that the MSM in the US spins things in their favor, and regurgitates government talking points. I watch them about 3 or 4 nights a week. Pure propaganda.

The few times I did watch RT, I found it to be somehow refreshing. They actually ask questions, unlike the MSM.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
preacherman76

Since we're at the basic detective work stage - perhaps you can provide evidence that that particular backpack is the one that the FBI are going to claim in court that the bombers actually used, and isn't just a backpack that someone else was wearing at the scene that the FBI initially suspected may have been used prior to any actual forensic analysis having been carried out.

That will prove difficult. His trial is held in secret, out of public view. Of course we can only assume that will be because its a kangaroo court. Or they are worried about the ties between these brothers and the CIA will be exposed. Im guessing thats why the FBI murdered the friend of the younger brother as well with 6 gun shots, one to the back of the head.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tiggs

That will prove difficult. His trial is held in secret, out of public view.

Since when?

All of the hearings in the trial so far have been public, and as far as I'm aware, no-one, neither defense, prosecution or judge has called for a closed court room.

Basically, you're claiming that a bag - a bag that no-one has formally claimed was the one carrying the bomb - doesn't match the one the Tsarnaev's were carrying.

As usual - you're trying hard to reverse engineer "Evil Gov did it" with the small amount of actual information currently available to you.

Or they are worried about the ties between these brothers and the CIA will be exposed.

In the "they have an uncle" way? If I have an uncle who used to work in the CIA - does that make me an employee of the CIA, too?

Also - if you know about it - how secret do you think it is?

Im guessing thats why the FBI murdered the friend of the younger brother as well with 6 gun shots, one to the back of the head.

The guy who confessed to a triple murder, threw a coffee table at the FBI agent, ran into his kitchen, and then returned with a metal broomstick?

Both the DOJ and the State attorney have independently investigated and exonerated the FBI agent and the two state troopers involved.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DecoNoir

In the "they have an uncle" way? If I have an uncle who used to work in the CIA - does that make me an employee of the CIA, too?

.

You disagreed with the CTs, therefore you must be a CIA plant, its the only possible conclusion, for CTs are never wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Babe Ruth

CTs are curious, that's all.

Because they are human, they can reach wrong conclusions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.