Debunked: Anatomical impossibility of Jeff Bauman photos

[Tobes]

[mod note]
Warning: This thread contains scenes of the aftermath of the Boston Marathon Bombing.

@Trailblazer made this image which clearly debunks the claim that one of the bombing victims had "anatomically impossible" leg positions.
[compare]

[/compare]

Original thread-opener below.
--------------------------------------
http://www.amazon.com/review/R19C4N...OI5BK9FZW1R&store=digital-text#wasThisHelpful

This guy claims Bauman is a fraud and bases his claims on Bauman being in a position "that it's anatomically impossible to be in" and the actions of Christian Williams.

There's a lot of information here, a lot of detail. I'm not good with details. All I know is that if Bauman lost his legs before the bombings or if it were another actor claiming to be Bauman, somebody would have come forward and said so.
The guy called my claim a "red herring."
How so?

 

[deirdre]

here, I archived it for you as Amazon may decide it isn't a review of the book at all and delete it. http://archive.today/9xKgr

 

[Mick West]

To be honest, I would not bother with it, unless it's a theory that is getting traction somewhere.

If you do want to get into it, you need to pick some very specific claim of evidence he's making, and quote it. Link to photos, etc.

 

[ColtCabana]

I hope I never get to a stage in my life where I say "I saw pictures, so I know exactly what happened that day..."

 

[Strawman]

I think commenting on nonsensical Amazon reviews should be left to http://leasthelpful.com/

 

[JonB]

http://www.amazon.com/review/R19C4N...OI5BK9FZW1R&store=digital-text#wasThisHelpful

This guy claims Bauman is a fraud and bases his claims on Bauman being in a position "that it's anatomically impossible to be in" and the actions of Christian Williams.

There's a lot of information here, a lot of detail. I'm not good with details. All I know is that if Bauman lost his legs before the bombings or if it were another actor claiming to be Bauman, somebody would have come forward and said so.
The guy called my claim a "red herring."
How so?

The reviewer's name is CitizenCSI and I found a video he made (len= 2:41) that demonstrates his point about Jeff's apparent anatomical anomaly. I have to admit, it leaves me scratching my head!

At 0:56 a sequence of (Thorndyke) images depicts Christian Williams (gray hoodie guy) taking some kind of strap from his neck and attempting to put it around Jeff's right leg.

At about 1:29 we get to the point.
Jeff's thighs at the crotch should be much closer together. They should form a "V" shape, not the "U" shape that we see. Pause at 1:43 and try to imagine where his right leg attaches to his body. It certainly can't be near his left leg, can it ?

At 1:56, a transparent 3D human model is superimposed onto Jeff showing where his right thigh should be.

The model helps to visualize the anomaly, but all you need do is to spread your own knees a foot apart and look at the relative position of your thighs near your crotch. Can you simulate the anomaly we see in the photos ?

The implication here is that what initially appears to be Jeff's right leg is actually a fake gore prosthetic.

Can you guys think of any plausible alternative explanations for this anatomical anomaly ?

Here's the link to the video.

 

[JRBids]

I don't see anything anatomically incorrect there.

 

[Redwood]

Maybe the reviewer should have researched the perspective effect of shooting from a long distance with a telephoto lense.

 

[JonB]

I don't see anything anatomically incorrect there.

Do you see a big discrepancy between the position of Jeff's right leg and the model's right leg ?

If so, are you saying Jeff's right leg looks anatomically correct, but the model does not ?

 

[JonB]

Maybe the reviewer should have researched the perspective effect of shooting from a long distance with a telephoto lense.

What perspective effect would that be ? How could some telephoto effect make his right thigh "move over" several inches ? I know a telephoto lense can distort the perspective between near and far objects, but 2 objects close to each other will be affected equally. Therefore, a lense would not explain the unnatural distance between his thighs at the crotch.

How would you explain the discrepancy between Jeff's position and the model ?

 

[NoParty]

I think there's only an "apparent anatomical anomaly" there if someone is motivated to see one.

The later entirely arbitrary placement of "...a transparent 3D human model..." means nothing,
if the phantasm could have been overlaid very differently and entirely plausibly...
as anyone knows who has seen the contortions real bodies make in stressful situations.

I think Mick's right: unless a bunch of people start imagining that this means something,
no reason to give it any undeserved attention. And I'll take my own advice and let this
first word from me also be my last on this...there's just no "there" there.

 

[JonB]

I think there's only an "apparent anatomical anomaly" there if someone is motivated to see one.

The later entirely arbitrary placement of "...a transparent 3D human model..." means nothing,
if the phantasm could have been overlaid very differently and entirely plausibly...
as anyone knows who has seen the contortions real bodies make in stressful situations.

I think Mick's right: unless a bunch of people start imagining that this means something,
no reason to give it any undeserved attention. And I'll take my own advice and let this
first word from me also be my last on this...there's just no "there" there.

Do "contortions real bodies make in stressful situations" include widening your crotch by several inches ?
Look at Jeff's left leg and estimate from that where (laterally) his crotch would be.
Then do the same with the right.
Then kindly explain how you arrive at the conclusion the crotch would be in the same location for both legs.

Let's use the frame at 1:29 where it says "Look" as an example.
If you draw a line along Jeff's inner LEFT thigh to where his crotch would be, it would be about the middle of Jeff's hair. (Give or take.)
If you draw a line along Jeff's inner RIGHT leg, you won't get to anywhere near the same location for the crotch.


The model is just an aide. It's very clear from Jeff's position alone that something is very wrong with this picture.
If you can get a friend to pose in about the same position as Jeff and take a photo that shows the same anomaly, (impossibly wide crotch) I would be very grateful.

 

[Pete Tar]

What does a misplaced crotch imply? Circus freaks?

 

[JonB]

What does a misplaced crotch imply? Circus freaks?

I didn't say 'misplaced'. I said his crotch looks impossibly wide, implying that the right leg cannot be his real leg.

Imagine sitting in a chair with your knees apart. Get someone to take a picture looking straight down on you.
That is similar to the viewpoint we're seeing in the video.

Take a few pics, with knees wider, with one leg raised higher than the other, etc. Then, in all those pics, do a line test like in the illustration below.
I think you'll find that in every case, the lines will intersect roughly where your crotch should be.

In Jeff's case, as shown below, the lines don't intersect anywhere near where his crotch would be.

 

[JonB]

Here's the line test with the 3D model.

 

[Trailspotter]

The apparent flaw in this using the superposition of "a transparent 3D human model" onto the actual human body image is that the model is viewed from a quite short distance, whereas the actual body image is taken from a very long distance. In the former, the upper body (head and shoulders) are disproportionally larger that the lower body, with the shoulders being about twice wider than the hips. In the latter, their proportion is close to 1:1.

 

[Pete Tar]

Okay, so he doesn't even have residual amputated limbs? He has a detachable thighbone and is actually amputated at the pelvis?
Or maybe those overlays are not a scientifically established reference point that can be used to judge whether his limbs are detached from his body at the pelvis.

Those lines don't indicate where his crotch would be at all. Why are they being used as an accurate reference point? They're not.
His right leg is angled back more than the other one, but the line doesn't seem to take that into account.

 

[JonB]

The apparent flaw in this using the superposition of "a transparent 3D human model" onto the actual human body image is that the model is viewed from a quite short distance, whereas the actual body image is taken from a very long distance. In the former, the upper body (head and shoulders) are disproportionally larger that the lower body, with the shoulders being about twice wider than the hips. In the latter, their proportion is close to 1:1.

OK, but how does that affect the issue of the angle of his thighs ? An angle looks the same whether it's near or far, big or small. I think the model fits Jeff pretty well. It's to scale and the head and left leg match in size and position pretty well.
But, even given that your comment is true, I don't see how it's relevant.
Am I missing something ?

 

[Trailspotter]

OK, but how does that affect the issue of the angle of his thighs ? An angle looks the same whether it's near or far, big or small. I think the model fits Jeff pretty well. It's to scale and the head and left leg match in size and position pretty well.
But, even given that your comment is true, I don't see how it's relevant.
Am I missing something ?

As I have already pointed out, the model is not anatomically correct: if it is perceived from the same distance as the actual body, the hips look too narrow. Therefore a good fit of one (left) leg means only that the other (right) leg cannot be fitted at all. In contrast, the actual body image has normal proportions of the upper and lower parts. Also, its torso, obscured by the head and shoulders, is probably tilted more than the model torso.

As for the issue of the angle of the thighs, it does not seem relevant. The thighs are attached to pelvis at the hip joints, not in the crotch, and their fleshy contours are not necessarily straight.

 

[JonB]

Okay, so he doesn't even have residual amputated limbs? He has a detachable thighbone and is actually amputated at the pelvis?
Or maybe those overlays are not a scientifically established reference point that can be used to judge whether his limbs are detached from his body at the pelvis.

Those lines don't indicate where his crotch would be at all. Why are they being used as an accurate reference point? They're not.
His right leg is angled back more than the other one, but the line doesn't seem to take that into account.

That one leg is angled back more doesn't matter. You'd get the same result. Your thighs are a "V", your crotch is the bottom of the "V". No matter how wide or narrow, or if one half is leaning forward or back, the lines always meet in the same place.

The 3D model is just for reference and reasonably close. It doesn't have to be exact to illustrate the point.
But you can discount it if you like. It's just meant to approximate what a normal body would look like in that position.

I said "roughly" where the crotch would be. The lines don't need to be accurate. You can move them around a little. But that won't begin to account for the discrepancy.
In both illustrations the left line crosses Jeff's head. In the model the right line does too, but the line on Jeff's right thigh doesn't come close. You'd have to put it on a grossly different angle to cross the head.
If you just look at the picture, is it not obvious that his crotch is somewhere below his head ? Do we have to know the exact spot within a millimeter ?

No one's suggesting his leg detaches at the pelvis. What is being suggested is that what we're seeing is a fake gore prosthetic that hasn't been attached to Jeff's real stump. The 3D overlay shows where the stump should be, and indeed, we see what could be his stump. Its in exactly the right place.

But, for this discussion, it doesn't matter whether that's his real stump or not.
The single issue at hand is the angle and position of his right leg being clearly anatomically incorrect.

 

[JonB]

As I have already pointed out, the model is not anatomically correct: if it is perceived from the same distance as the actual body, the hips look too narrow. Therefore a good fit of one (left) leg means only that the other (right) leg cannot be fitted at all. In contrast, the actual body image has normal proportions of the upper and lower parts. Also, its torso, obscured by the head and shoulders, is probably tilted more than the model torso.

As for the issue of the angle of the thighs, it does not seem relevant. The thighs are attached to pelvis at the hip joints, not in the crotch, and their fleshy contours are not necessarily straight.

We're talking about a relatively small area where the inner thighs meet in normally built people.
I've said you can move the lines around to account for the fleshy parts.
Again, if you object to the model, lets leave it out of the equation.
Respectfully, if you think the angle of the thighs is irrelevant, then you're missing the point of the evidence.

On both Jeff's legs, we see all but the last few inches of thigh. How, in those last few inches, does the top of the right leg get anywhere near the top of the left leg ?

 

[Ray Von Geezer]

We're talking about a relatively small area where the inner thighs meet in normally built people.

What about if, say, the hip joint was dislocated?

Ray Von

 

[Trailblazer]

We're talking about a relatively small area where the inner thighs meet in normally built people.
I've said you can move the lines around to account for the fleshy parts.
Again, if you object to the model, lets leave it out of the equation.
Respectfully, if you think the angle of the thighs is irrelevant, then you're missing the point of the evidence.

On both Jeff's legs, we see all but the last few inches of thigh. How, in those last few inches, does the top of the right leg get anywhere near the top of the left leg ?

I suggest you enlist the help of a friend and take some photos yourself to help you understand.

And furthermore, if "they" were using a prosthetic, why would they not attach it to a real stump? How would you attach it half a leg-width too far right? It makes no sense even from a conspiracy point of view.

 

[Trailspotter]

We're talking about a relatively small area where the inner thighs meet in normally built people.
I've said you can move the lines around to account for the fleshy parts.
Again, if you object to the model, lets leave it out of the equation.
Respectfully, if you think the angle of the thighs is irrelevant, then you're missing the point of the evidence.

On both Jeff's legs, we see all but the last few inches of thigh. How, in those last few inches, does the top of the right leg get anywhere near the top of the left leg ?

OK, here is a picture of a man lying on a beach in a similar position:

(a crop from a larger photograph: https://www.flickr.com/photos/thomashawk/6820184045/)

I am returning you your question: "does the top of the right leg get anywhere near the top of the left leg?"

 

[Ray Von Geezer]

I didn't say 'misplaced'. I said his crotch looks impossibly wide, implying that the right leg cannot be his real leg.

Imagine sitting in a chair with your knees apart. Get someone to take a picture looking straight down on you.
That is similar to the viewpoint we're seeing in the video.

Take a few pics, with knees wider, with one leg raised higher than the other, etc. Then, in all those pics, do a line test like in the illustration below.
I think you'll find that in every case, the lines will intersect roughly where your crotch should be.

Do you mean the lines will "intersect with the crotch", not with each other?

There's no way the lines can intersect at the crotch, unless the distance between the top of the thighs is zero, like say in a stick man drawing. For example, standing with my feet approximately 2ft apart the distance between the top of my thighs is about 2.5in, lines drawn from my knees along my thigh would intersect just below my navel.

Ray Von

 

[Trailblazer]

Do you want to try the "line test" on this photo?



(Honestly, the things I do for truth... )

 

[GregMc]

Sorry JohB, but the video makes no sense. (As a bit of background I'm a Digital VFX supervisor and animatronics prosthetics professional. I match 3D characters to filmed environments as part of my profession as well as work with prosthetic effects.)

The 3D character simply has a different amount of outwards leg splay , ie , the KNEES have not been adjusted to match the injured person and so the angle of the inner thighs are not aligned and are not comparable. I see no evidence the pelvis has been aligned with the position of the victim. Also there is no evidence the 3D character is an accurate body proportion match and the camera lens doesn't appear to have been matched. There is no evidence that there has been any attempt to accurately match the perspective of the ground plane in the 3D environment to the ground in the photographed environment so that the 3D character is lying at the correct angle. That's VFX 101 and there is no muscle sim in the model and so the thigh muscles are not modelled and the distorting effect of the woman lying against his thigh muscles is not taken into account, nor simply the weight of his muscles under the effect of gravity. Using that model is like trying to use a store mannequin to prove a point in anatomy
Sorry , but totally unconvincing.

 

[Trailblazer]

Do you want to try the "line test" on this photo?

View attachment 9683

(Honestly, the things I do for truth... )

So, below I have put lines on that photo. Notice how they intersect even below the floor level.





I took this photo myself, holding my phone right in front of my face. But imagine if the photo had been taken from further away, with my head visible in front of my stomach. The intersection of the lines would have been well below my head. Rough and ready approximation using Bauman's head from the video screengrab:




Incidentally I don't really agree with the line placement for the right leg on the Bauman photo. On this version I have outlined the outside edge of the thigh. Notice how on the left leg, the yellow line on the inner edge forms an angle as you would expect, with the upper end of the thing being wider. But on the right leg, the yellow line had been drawn more or less parallel with the outside edge of the thigh. Applying a similar perspective as the left leg would yield a line more like the blue one I have added here. But the video quality is so poor, and the damage to the leg so extensive, that trying to draw accurate conclusions is pretty pointless.



Also the person in the video mentions a "black device" between Bauman's legs, which anybody can see is simply his black trousers which were shredded and bundled up around his upper legs. That can be verified in photos from the other angle.

Remember, these photos are from Ben Thorndike's series taken in "burst mode". Look at the chaotic activity and speed at which things are happening. Does this really look like somebody "attaching prosthetics"?

(Source: http://wideshut.co.uk/review-of-jef...ton-bombing-conspiracy-theory-graphic-images/)

 

[JonB]

What about if, say, the hip joint was dislocated?

Ray Von

That might explain it, but I've seen zero evidence for that either in photos or interviews I've seen and read.
If you find any, then you've solved the conundrum.

 

[Trailblazer]

That might explain it, but I've seen zero evidence for that either in photos or interviews I've seen and read.
If you find any, then you've solved the conundrum.

I don't think there is any conundrum. I can assure you that my hip isn't dislocated.

 

[JonB]

I suggest you enlist the help of a friend and take some photos yourself to help you understand.

And furthermore, if "they" were using a prosthetic, why would they not attach it to a real stump? How would you attach it half a leg-width too far right? It makes no sense even from a conspiracy point of view.

Thanks, but I already understand, and hope we all will after I address the other comments.

All I'll say now in answer to your question is that the prosthetic was being prepared to be placed on Jeff's real stump, which is to the left of the prosthetic. Lets stick to the issue of the angle and position of the leg.

 

[JonB]

Sorry JohB, but the video makes no sense. (As a bit of background I'm a Digital VFX supervisor and animatronics prosthetics professional. I match 3D characters to filmed environments as part of my profession as well as work with prosthetic effects.)

The 3D character simply has a different amount of outwards leg splay , ie , the KNEES have not been adjusted to match the injured person and so the angle of the inner thighs are not aligned and are not comparable. I see no evidence the pelvis has been aligned with the position of the victim. Also there is no evidence the 3D character is an accurate body proportion match and the camera lens doesn't appear to have been matched. There is no evidence that there has been any attempt to accurately match the perspective of the ground plane in the 3D environment to the ground in the photographed environment so that the 3D character is lying at the correct angle. That's VFX 101 and there is no muscle sim in the model and so the thigh muscles are not modelled and the distorting effect of the woman lying against his thigh muscles is not taken into account, nor simply the weight of his muscles under the effect of gravity. Using that model is like trying to use a store mannequin to prove a point in anatomy
Sorry , but totally unconvincing.

Thanks for your thoughtful reply. You're right about the knees. Now imagine the model's right knee is moved so its over Jeff's knee. Can you see that at the crotch, the top of the thighs would still be in close proximity, unlike the image of Jeff.

I'll say again... The model was meant only as a visual aid, and is totally unnecessary to prove my point.
Apparently, the model is only confusing the situation here, so lets leave it out of the equation.

 

[Mick West]

Lets stick to the issue of the angle and position of the leg.

Does my leg look wrong here?

 

[JonB]

Trailblazer, thanks for your pics. That's more the type of response I was hoping for here.

The views of Jeff are more or less along his centre vertical axis. He's hunched over a bit but that's OK...we have a bit of wiggle room here - we don't have to be accurate to the millimeter.

The view of the guy on the beach is too far to the right to be comparable to the view of Jeff.

Hold the phone...Mick just sent some good pics that are much closer the correct viewpoint, so I'll address those.

 

[Ray Von Geezer]

That might explain it, but I've seen zero evidence for that either in photos or interviews I've seen and read.
If you find any, then you've solved the conundrum.

If the photo showed the leg as being out of position (personally I don't think it does, that seems to be based on obviously incorrect assumptions about the lines crossing in the crotch), then that could be evidence of the joint being dislocated, couldn't it?

I don't think it'd be too odd for it not to be mentioned in an interview. Given that the rest of the leg was blown off, bringing up a hip dislocation might seem a little redundant.

Ray Von

 

[Trailspotter]

The view of the guy on the beach is too far to the right to be comparable to the view of Jeff.

This view is sufficient to debunk both your arguments. One, it shows the actual proportions of a male human body when it is viewed from the top from a long distance. Two, it show that there is nothing wrong with the thighs' positions and orientations in both images:

 

[ColtCabana]

I don't understand the point that JonB nor the video creator are trying to make. What is the importance?

 

[Mick West]

I don't understand the point that JonB nor the video creator are trying to make. What is the importance?

They think it proves the legs in the image were prosthetics, and hence proof that the Boston Bombings were "staged".

Subsequent analysis proves them wrong. And of course it was a pretty weak argument anyway, with the vast amount of other evidence that things happened as we were told (and saw). I hesitated to even address it, but maybe it will make people such as JonB think again before falling for such specious claims.

 

[Pete Tar]

The only way the lines of the bones can intersect at the crotch is in an extreme lotus position. Though you seem to be concentrating on the hang of the inner thigh, this at least demonstrates how far apart the actual bone structure from which the thighs hang are from each other.
The meat of the thigh is not a solid and will hang and move according to position and gravity, it's just not an adequate indicator to suggest what is being suggested here.

 

[ColtCabana]

They think it proves the legs in the image were prosthetics, and hence proof that the Boston Bombings were "staged".

Subsequent analysis proves them wrong. And of course it was a pretty weak argument anyway, with the vast amount of other evidence that things happened as we were told (and saw). I hesitated to even address it, but maybe it will make people such as JonB think again before falling for such specious claims.

The evidence to prove the point, at least in this thread, is at best, reaching. If Jeff Bauman was wearing prosthetics, surely a simple picture could be found of Mr. Bauman showing evidence of prosthetics before the Marathon happened.