1. Pete Tar

    Pete Tar Senior Member

    Any reason why it shouldn't be marked 'debunked'? The demonstration was clear. (eventually, it just took a while to get there)
     
    • Agree Agree x 4
  2. Trailblazer

    Trailblazer Moderator Staff Member

    Jon, that is clearly ridiculous. This thread is marked as Debunked, because it is 100% debunked. Whatever your other theories about the Boston bombings, the idea that anything is out of the ordinary about the photos of Jeff Bauman with his legs blown off has been comprehensively disproved, by me and others. Your failure to acknowledge it doesn't alter that fact.

    By "give Chemtrails and Morgellon's a closer look", do you mean "search for confirmation bias that will feed my passion for conspiracy theories" by any chance?
     
    • Agree Agree x 6
    • Like Like x 1
  3. MikeC

    MikeC Closed Account

    Lots of threads are not labeled "debunked" - and thread titles are changed to include "Debunked" only once that has actually occurred.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  4. occams rusty scissor

    occams rusty scissor Active Member

    Having a look around this site before posting should have left you with no doubts about the sincerity of anyone here when it comes to debunking theories based on little more than "I think this is different to how I think it should look". You didn't even put forward a working argument or theory other than "I think his legs look strangely positioned".
    I would be a bit more careful in throwing around doubts about people's sincerity given you are trying to say that several people (one of them a child) didn't die, that numerous people weren't severely injured and thousands of others were not traumatised given that you think one or two photos look a bit dodgy. For those of us who have assisted real victims and know the trauma they go through during violent acts, I would shudder to think how conspiracy theorists doubting their reality might further affect them. And that is one of the key reasons that causes me to participate on this site.
    Really? Just going to pout and walk away because you didn't have anyone agree with you? So let me understand this - a group of debunkers provided convincing and concise explanation to your query, and his makes you WANT to turn to two, unrelated and thoroughly debunked urban myths just out of spite? Sounds rational.
     
    • Agree Agree x 7
    • Like Like x 2
  5. Trailblazer

    Trailblazer Moderator Staff Member

    Wow, how unfair is that, @JonB? I and several other people have spent several hours of unpaid time (and whatever nonsense anybody spreads about this site, NOBODY is paid for their time here: as a member you know this) trying to explain this issue to you, both on the public thread and in private messages, posing skeletons, taking compromising photos of ourselves, and rather than thanking us you cast doubts in our sincerity and slink off down the rabbit hole?

    If you care about the truth, the you should accept the truth, whether it agrees with your preconceptions or not. In this case, the idea that the photos show the legs in an "impossible" position is demonstrably not true.

    You said that you simply came across this claim in a video. If so, I have to wonder why you are so desperate for it to be true. Are JonB and "CitizenCSI" perhaps related?
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
    • Like Like x 1
  6. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    he may care about 'the truth' but ( due to developmental phases) he cares more now about 'being right' than the actual truth.
     
    • Agree Agree x 4
  7. Hevach

    Hevach Senior Member

    Several have also had "debunked" taken off, and have not always gotten it back.
     
  8. Gundersen

    Gundersen Active Member

    If you don't want something to be dunked, some people can't accept the proof, apparently. Fair enough, but I have a hard time accepting it in cases where they basically tell people whom have lost love ones to stop acting and being fake. So insensitive. Boston bombing, Sandy Hook, it really grind my gears.
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
  9. NoParty

    NoParty Senior Member

    I sincerely like how you used the gentler term "insensitive" there,
    instead of "sociopathic"...which I'm probably not nice enough to have been able to avoid using.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  10. Gundersen

    Gundersen Active Member

    I could use a lot of bad words, including (but not limited to) psychopath, sociopath, etc., but I think I will stick with the symptoms instead of a diagnosis. A clear lack of empathy, sympathy and knowledge of common social behavior.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  11. Bruno D.

    Bruno D. Senior Member

    Sandra Bullock in gravity ( I was watching that yesterday, and it caught my attention for pure debunking reasons :p )

    Femurs lines are actually diverging instead of converging. As pointed here several times, the femur and the pelvis are an "U" and not a "V".

    upload_2014-11-21_11-25-49.
     

    Attached Files:

    • Like Like x 2
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
    • Useful Useful x 1
  12. Gundersen

    Gundersen Active Member

    That's my excuse to watch dirty movies! I am merely investigating the properties of the point where the femurs intercept! Brilliant. Screenshots will follow soon...
     
    • Funny Funny x 4
    • Like Like x 1
  13. NoParty

    NoParty Senior Member

    Yeah...I kept thinking "THIS is what I paid extra for the 3D for!!"

    Femur alignment research.
     
    • Funny Funny x 3
  14. Efftup

    Efftup Senior Member

    I hope they haven't made 3D versions of GUNDERSON's movies!!!
     
    • Like Like x 1
  15. Trailspotter

    Trailspotter Senior Member

    The pose looks very familiar. It fondly reminded me of swimming with Lara some fifteen years ago:rolleyes:
    Screen shot 2014-11-23 at 16.47.12.
     
    • Like Like x 3
    • Funny Funny x 1
    • Useful Useful x 1