1. qed

    qed Senior Member

    A cornerstone of a valuable scientific theory is the ability to make predictions. I have a theory of what happened in Boston, gleaned from the ample visual material. Rather than waste our time debating this theory, I am going to make a prediction, and if this prediction fails, I will reject the theory. This prediction is so outrageous, that if it comes true, you must take seriously the theory.

    The case is soon to be heard in a civil trial (i.e., a trial by a jury of peers, as in Law and Order). The evidence of the state will be available to all. Jeff and the Corcoran's will be questioned by the defense. I expect Dzhokhar will receive excellent legal council.

    If my theory is valid, this trial cannot take place as afore described.

    • Either the trial will change to some more military trial, without the standard rules of engagement and disclosure, or Dzhokhar will die before the trial. Or something analogous that prevents the trial.

    I request that we just let this thread sleep until after the trial or my prediction comes true.

    Attempting to outline my theory will demand debate, and so I won't. For anyone wishing to investigate around this topic, I suggest, The Center for an Informed America and NoDisinfo, both of whom make such (potentially) libelous assertions that they will be sued to high heavens by American heroes, if the theory is wrong (libel being the proof tool of investigative jounalism).

    I have no problem turning out to be wrong, and I assume so do you.
     
  2. JRBids

    JRBids Senior Member

    So you have a theory that you do not want to discuss and you want this thread which you just created, to die. Okey doke!
     
    • Like Like x 1
  3. qed

    qed Senior Member

    Not in this thread.
     
  4. JRBids

    JRBids Senior Member

    What thread do you want to discuss it in?
     
  5. David Fraser

    David Fraser Senior Member

    If you are not willing to discuss your assertion why bring it up? Seeing as he is in the criminal justice system what mechanism are you proposing he is removed? Is there precedent and case law for this?
     
  6. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    State your theory or this thread heads to Rambles.

    Random predictions have no place here.
     
  7. qed

    qed Senior Member

    State or justify?
     
  8. qed

    qed Senior Member

    I do not think
    • 14 people required leg amputations.
    • Jeff lost any limbs in the blast.
    • Sydney Corcoran legs were "shredded by shrapnel" "including a torn femoral artery".
    I think
    • Paint-balls were used to place blood on people.
    I will attempt to justify each of these in its own thread, given the number of pictures involved.

    I also accept that I may be wrong about all of this.
     
  9. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    I have very little patience for this subject. So make sure you read and understand the posting guidelines before posting anything. They will be rigorously enforced. If you want more flexibility I suggest you go start a blog.

    https://www.metabunk.org/threads/posting-guidelines.2064/
     
    Last edited: Nov 20, 2013
    • Like Like x 1
  10. Soulfly

    Soulfly Banned Banned

    So you're saying this little girl didn't lose her leg?
    http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/20...sthetic-leg/PzLCNfpsJZep8Ttn69E7eN/story.html
    16richardpic.

    [...]
     
    • Like Like x 2
  11. ColtCabana

    ColtCabana Active Member

    So, my buddy, who was working at one of the hospitals after the Marathon, was helping sew up wounds and cleaning fake blood? He's wrong when he says the blood was real?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  12. JeffreyNotGeoffrey

    JeffreyNotGeoffrey Active Member

    The usual (just asking questions). So let's cut to the chase.

    You think the Boston Marathon Bombing was staged. What is your evidence for that? If it is the assertions that people were not injured in the blast, that is patently false. I wonder why you would think such a thing.

    fyi, we all respect you more when you come out with your point of view and move on with the evidence. Plenty of truthers and whatnot here. We talk to them. You might get flack, but you obviously got plenty of flack for circling around to the point.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 12, 2013
    • Like Like x 1
  13. Pete Tar

    Pete Tar Senior Member

    I'm curious as to how you do your research - what sources did you use to get to your theory? Is it all based on your judgement of the photos of the scene? How about personal or medical reports?
     
  14. qed

    qed Senior Member

    Most of you have me wrong, and have only yourselves to blame for that.

    I admit that I have reached the psychological state that I feel that the might be a possibility that there is a conspiracy. You, of course, feel that the possibility that there is a conspiracy is absolutely zero.

    I always add "debunked" to my Google search after a particularly compelling argument. That is how I got here (and ironically, to the Center for an Informed America).

    All the debunking sites I visited with respect to this issue are currently terrible. Some even admit to debunking without reading the argument! While the old conspiracies are well debunked, this one is current and not debunked properly anywhere.

    That is why I am here (for ##### sake).

    I am someone that you can convince! And convincing me will go a long way to convincing many others. I understand that there are people that cannot be convinced of truth. On this forum I even met "truthers" who doubt evolution, radio/carbon dating, rate of expansion of the universe, etc. Some even believe in the supernatural.

    For me truth is an absolute. Finding truth requires being wrong most of the time, unless one is omniscient. Being rational, means being wrong only once (for each assertion). It should not be a sin to be wrong once. Hanging at conspiracy forums is scientifically useless to me. I need a debunking forum.

    I have been very slow, very cautious and very polite, since joining this forum. Slow, because I do not want to publicly embarrass myself. I do not like being wrong, the aforementioned not withstanding. Cautious, because Google says "you" are bullies. You are and it is not cool. It is bad science.

    I posted this thread because I had decided to flee. I honestly believe if a civil trial does proceed the truth will emerge clearly. So I was simply going to wait until there was more data. My conscience kept nagging, however, that if it was true, then Dzhokhar would die before the trial, and instead of a civil trial we would have a Warren Commission. Oxy's byline forced me back. Hence this thread. This thread will ensure that if Dzhokhar does die, then Metabunk will go viral.

    You want to debate, however, and so you should, this is a debunking site for goodness sake! So I will present each of the current conspiracy theories up as offerings to debunk.

    But if Dzhokhar does die before the trial, then there is a conspiracy. His brother is horrifically dead and his friend has been killed by the FBI while detained. In Britain this alone would be an outrage, yet Americans don't blink. But three makes a conspiracy.
     
  15. qed

    qed Senior Member

    The why this site? You seem to enjoy debunking? I honestly do not understand.
     
  16. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    I have little time for this because it's very low quality bunk. It's libelous. It's a waste of time. It's obvious the bombs and injuries were real. I don't enjoy debunking things that are so obvious and that heap insulting accusation upon such a vast amount of pain and suffering.

    YOU should be perfectly capable of debunking these things yourself. Like Sydney Corcoran for example. Before you publicly accuse someone of lying, you should be very very sure about your evidence. You were not. You based it on the specious assumption that because her legs were injured then she would be unable to walk.

    Don't just invent bunk for others to debunk. Try to actually find the truth.
     
    • Like Like x 4
  17. qed

    qed Senior Member

    I really do understand.

    I request guidance from other members.

    I am happy to wait until after the trial or something happens to Dzhokhar. If a civilian trial runs to completion and Dzhokhar is found guilty, I will no longer have any suspicions.

    In essence that was what I tried to do by asking not to debate.

    But if Dzhokhar does die before or during trial, you must accept a conspiracy.
     
  18. David Fraser

    David Fraser Senior Member

    Again I ask under what mechanism the case can be transferred out of civil jurisdiction ?
     
  19. ColtCabana

    ColtCabana Active Member

    I'd still like to know what makes you more qualified than my friend to know what is real blood and what is fake blood.
     
  20. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

  21. David Fraser

    David Fraser Senior Member

    You have obviously not been paintballing. Its hard to tell the difference especially with the orange and yellow ones :p
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Funny Funny x 1
  22. JeffreyNotGeoffrey

    JeffreyNotGeoffrey Active Member

    Bright red paint also doesn't dry to a deep, dark maroon. Was a painter, just telling you.

    In fact the bright red blood that is almost perspiring out of my new tattoo has dried in areas to the aforementioned maroon. NO PAINT has that dramatic of a color change.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  23. Bill McDonald

    Bill McDonald New Member

    If Dzhokhar dies, it does not make it a conspiracy. His risk of death is high, he is probably a suicide risk. Qed, you may be committing a post hoc fallacy here, saying because a coin came up heads twice, there must be a conspiracy if it comes up heads a third time.
     
  24. Oxymoron

    Oxymoron Banned Banned

    I think it was a brave gambit to start the thread and I can understand where you are coming from on this but I do think it is flawed because as Mick says, people do commit suicide in prison, especially when facing such huge charges. I think it best to just leave it lay as is.

    Do they need a mechanism. The U.S does what it wants when it wants and cares not one jot for the law of the land or International Law.

    I honestly wouldn't be surprised if they brought in some reason to hold the trial in Gitmo. It is hardly unprecedented. They wouldn't even need to give reasons, just say... 'It's a matter of National Security'. If people like me start going on about it on here, there are enough debunkers who would defend the position as is evidenced in the thread on Usurping Democracy. 'People don't need to know the reasons. It's secret because the Govt deems it necessary and they know what's best'.
     
  25. David Fraser

    David Fraser Senior Member

    Oxy. International Law has nothing to do with this. Yes you are right to bring up Guantanamo but that just emphasises my point. Prior to a trial someone takes the authority. At Guantanamo it was allowed the military could. This guy is in the civil system and has had one hearing. That hearing decides the basis for the trial. the military did not represent and there is no appeal. So the question is under what mechanism can his trial be transferred, without a change in legislation or common law.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  26. Soulfly

    Soulfly Banned Banned

    Not to mention paintballs hitting something looks nothing like blood pooling on the ground. Must have been one giant paint ball I say. Wonder if they shot it from one of those space weapons the government has, you know like the one that shot lasers at the WTC.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  27. Oxymoron

    Oxymoron Banned Banned

    I take your point Dave but with respect I was not referring specifically to this case on that but to a proven predisposition on the part of the U.S, (and other Countries), to use the law, being international or domestic, as it sees fit and to disregard the same when it so chooses.

    The law is like semantics, open to wide interpretation and there are obscure laws which the likes of you and I have no knowledge, much less understanding of. All I am saying is, I wouldn't be surprised.

    So let's wait and see but just to be clear, would you be concerned if they did decide to move the trial to military rules or to withhold, (seal), evidence? Sealing evidence is pretty standard practice but the danger with that is similar to the danger of going to war on the basis of 'sealed evidence', i.e. 'take our word for it'.
     
    Last edited: Sep 14, 2013
  28. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    I'd be incredibly surprised. It would be entirely unprecedented to take a US citizen, non-military, charged with a domestic crime, out of the criminal justice system. It would create an incredible stir.

    But we can just wait and see. Unless you fancy a friendly wager.
     
  29. Oxymoron

    Oxymoron Banned Banned

    I will just wait and see Mick. :)

    But it wouldn't be without precedent if they did decide to do it.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/José_Padilla_(prisoner)
    Also as I said previously, it is well precedented to hear evidence in camera and to seal such evidence for many years after.

    Also changing laws is no big deal and can be done by Presidential order, (I think that is the right term). as happened with the 'enemy combatant' ruling which allowed drone attacks and assassinations in foreign Countries.

    If it is open and fair, I will be surprised but relieved.

    It is certainly being discussed on the net anyway.

    https://www.facebook.com/TheConstitutionalPatriotsofAmerica/posts/451060674978214
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 20, 2013
  30. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Padilla had not really entered into the civilian court system, he'd just returned from the Afghanistan/Pakistan region, and it was just a few months after 9/11. The Padilla case got so much scrutiny, and exposed so many failings of the system, that I think it makes it less likely to happen in this case, not more.

    And the President cannot change the law. He can put out a "signing statement" when signing a law, or later have memo issued, saying how he's going to interpret the law in particular contexts. But the law remains the same, and he is subject to the authority of the courts in that regard. His interpretation of the law can be challenged in court. It's pushing the boundaries of legality.
     
    Last edited: Sep 14, 2013
    • Like Like x 1
  31. Oxymoron

    Oxymoron Banned Banned

    I may be wrong on this but it appears to boil down to semantics. And I do take into account that it was allegedly an act of terrorism which on the face of it denotes exceptions but then that is part of the argument... the blurring of lines and creep.

    http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...ton-marathon-dzhokhar-tsarnaev-mirnada-rights
    Now let's be honest about this. Anyone can be designated a 'terror suspect', if the Govt wants to do so. Terror laws have been and are being used against whistleblowers and others... It is the creeping and erosion of 'rights' that 'becomes accepted practice', that is to be feared IMO.
     
  32. Noblelox

    Noblelox Member

    You wrote "14 people required amputations." However, that many people didn't loose limbs at the scene which seems to be confusing to you. Actually that's very normal. As a long time biker dude I've 5 mates that are amputees. Not one of them lost a limb at the scene. Well, one guy did but that was his lower false leg after being knocked off again. That time he had to have more of his shattered stump amputated. Many leg injuries are amputated in hospital because the bone surgeon has little to work with.

    You also wrote "paint-balls were used to place blood on people" That statement alone adds a whole new avenue which I was tempted to get right into but realized I'd being going off topic so started another thread. Perhaps you would like to comment on?

    https://www.metabunk.org/threads/practical-bunk-used-to-debunk.2404/

     
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 20, 2013
  33. Pete Tar

    Pete Tar Senior Member


    Also does that mean that there were people with paintball guns aiming at the 'fake injuries'? Or they had the paintballs in their hands and just popped them on to the 'actors'?
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 20, 2013
  34. JeffreyNotGeoffrey

    JeffreyNotGeoffrey Active Member

    And even if the bombs were only flash and bang type explosives, they still had tremendous concussive force. They produced enough force to shove objects around and to break much of the storefronts in the vicinity. That kind of force can still be very lethal to those around it. Just hard to see all this prep and danger for a fake set of bombs to make fake injuries.
     
  35. JRBids

    JRBids Senior Member

    Frankly, a conspiracy theory where real bombs are placed would be more believable.
     
    • Like Like x 3
  36. JeffreyNotGeoffrey

    JeffreyNotGeoffrey Active Member

    At the end of the day it just seems unbelievably convoluted. What was the end goal? Why? Surely there were far easier and simpler ways to do whatever it was that they wanted to.
     
  37. Soulfly

    Soulfly Banned Banned

    You haven't figured it out yet? They want to take your rights away! INFOWARS.COM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
     
    • Like Like x 2
  38. Noblelox

    Noblelox Member

    Really? I'd have thought is easier to believe two bothers with malice and forethought contrived, successfully, to explode home made bombs in a public area, rather than anything Alex Jones says, who, if you haven't figured out yet, makes a shed load of money from his syndicated show / advertising.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  39. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Satire fail :) Too close to reality.
     
    • Like Like x 5
  40. Soulfly

    Soulfly Banned Banned

    I always forget the :) to make sure it's known I'm being funny.
     
    • Like Like x 1