Debunked: Anatomical impossibility of Jeff Bauman photos

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
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.
Sure, but this discussion is about this particular claim of evidence. Many "truther" types are suspicious of old photos (or lack thereof), feeling like everything is staged anyway.
 

David Fraser

Senior Member
It all seems a very complex and resource intensive set up, not to mention the expense. If it were me I would be tempted to approach Jeff Bauman with an offer of a million dollars and a new leg in any colour he wants for me to blow his leg off with nanothermite in a controlled explosion. That would seem simpler.
 

JonB

New Member
Mick, thanks for the pics. Your leg looks fine and the camera viewpoint is close to Jeff's. The distance doesn't come into play as some have suggested. The angle of the hands of a clock will show the same time no matter the size of the clock, or the distance. Even the angle of the clock doesn't matter within reason. The hands will always meet in the middle.

Pete, I'm not saying the lines of the bones - we're only concerned with the inner thighs. The meat is not relevant either here, as we're allowing for a fairly wide margin of error between what we see and what we should see.

Colt, all we're concerned with here is the angle and position of the legs. I'll cover other aspects if and when I can get you guys to see that the images of Jeff are anatomically incorrect.

I've tried to match your pic to Jeff as close as I could in the link below. I tried to match the head size and position, while also aligning the inner left thigh. Its a Flash animation - use your left and right arrow keys to change the transparency. Your right thigh shows very different from Jeff's.
We can take more pics till the cows come home but you'll never be able to come close to replicating Jeff's leg position. You will never get your right thigh to match Jeff's.

I could not debunk this issue, so I came here thinking you guys were near the top of the debunking food chain.
Your pics are a good attempt, but if anything, they go to prove my point.
Yet you try to dismiss this evidence.

"The evidence to prove the point, at least in this thread, is at best, reaching."
"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)."

What analysis has proved this wrong ? The "vast amount of evidence" you speak of does not address this specific issue of Jeff's leg position. Can we just stay focused on that ?

I've demonstrated in a few ways that the images are anatomically incorrect.
Its as if I'm showing you a picture of a camel, and you guys are saying, "No, that's a giraffe. Move along now, nothing to see here."

Below is the link. You may have to click on the image before the arrow keys work.
All I'm trying to show here is that even though Mick's posture is close to Jeff's, the right leg isn't anywhere close to matching.

If you guys/gals just want to sweep this under the rug, I'm very disappointed.

http://www.afgm.ca/MetaBunk/Mick_Jeff_Test.swf
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
That swf file dies not run for me.

But you've been repeatedly shown there's nothing odd about the leg position. Especially considering his left leg has a huge flap of skin and flesh hanging over the inner thigh, so you can't even see that line anyway.



You claimed that the lines in the inner thigh should meet at the crotch. I, and others, showed this is not the case. I'm sorry you can't see it. But the evidence for it is now here in this thread, and that's all that is needed.
 

Efftup

Senior Member
considering how long it actually takes a make up artist to apply properly decent looking gore make up ( just for screen, never mind people seeing it up close) anyone who was just using common sense can see the whole idea is ridiculous. It's far too expensive, convoluted and liable to go wrong. Surely it would just be easier to set off a real bomb and blame a patsy you could then shoot before the trial.

and no, there is NO difference between Jeff's legs and those of Mick or Trailblazer. Or my own if I lie down and look at them sensibly. with my thighs apart, they do NOT meet in the middle. I have these things called genitalia for a start.
With my legs a shoulder width apart there is a gap of about 4.5 cm between the tops of my thighs. With the legs as wide as in the picture, the gap is more like 8cm.
 

Trailspotter

Senior Member
I've tried to match your [Mick's] pic to Jeff as close as I could in the link below. I tried to match the head size and position, while also aligning the inner left thigh. Its a Flash animation - use your left and right arrow keys to change the transparency. Your right thigh shows very different from Jeff's.
We can take more pics till the cows come home but you'll never be able to come close to replicating Jeff's leg position. You will never get your right thigh to match Jeff's.
Yet again you apply the same flawed method as was applied to the original 3D model. As the body shape and orientation in the Mick's photo are not exactly the same as they are in the Jeff's image, their best alignment of one side will inevitably produce a poor fit of the other side. If you want to compare the thighs' positions, you should begin with their alignment and then to see if and what adjustments of the upper body are needed. The human spine is sufficiently flexible for making such adjustments.

For example, the Jeff's thighs align well with those of the beach guy:
Thighs comparison.png
To fit the men's torsos afterwards would require only small bends and twists of the spine, that is, nothing anatomically impossible.
 
Last edited:

Efftup

Senior Member
I have noticed some more "anomalies" with this video.
At the beginning, I assume Jeff is the guy we see in side profile with his head exactly above the word Jeff.
This being the case, he is clearly STANDING UP.
Therefore, he still has his own legs, OR he is ALREADY wearing a prosthetic limb.

SO, if Christian is attaching the gorey prosthetic, using the person with the red and white top (another shill) as the cover so no REAL bystander can see the action, WHAT HAS HE DONE WITH THE OTHER PROSTHETIC?

Has it been magically collapsed into the Black Device like in Stargate: ? If not, where does that go?

So somehow Christian has been walking around with a gory prosthetic limb tucked under his coat waiting for the "bomb" to go off?
Would it not be easier to have Jeff just WEAR the gory prosthetic limb, and then just use a squib to blow his trousers to bits, thus revealing the already gory limb underneath? Much easier and less likely to go wrong. Someone might spot a gory limb under someone's arm but they won't pull Jeff's trousers down, will they?

People are always too quick to search for anything they can call an anomaly in order to claim something sinister without thinking through what the implications of that anomaly claim are.

As we have already shown that there is no anatomical impossibility, I really don;t think we are trying to sweep anything under the carpet.
 

JRBids

Senior Member
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 ?
I'm saying that based on the angle you're viewing him from, while his leg may "look" like it is not anatomically correct, it doesn't mean it is. I can't find a link right now, but you've seen the photos that appear like something else. Like a group of people, and someones arm is posed in a way that it appears to be someone else's penis. That kind of thing.
 

JRBids

Senior Member
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.

I think that no matter what anyone says, your mind is made up and you're going to keep insisting yours is the only viable explanation.

If you guys/gals just want to sweep this under the rug, I'm very disappointed.
I think you're the one sweeping under the rug everything that does not agree with you.
 

Pete Tar

Senior Member
If you guys/gals just want to sweep this under the rug, I'm very disappointed.
No-one is trying to sweep it under the rug, we genuinely just do not see the anatomically impossible anomaly you do, and are trying some elementary things to demonstrate that.
I bet that's the strangest debunking experiment Mick has ever done. I don't understand your objection to it.

You say everyone's thighs should intersect at the crotch. Well that depends on the thighs in question, Baumann was an athlete and would have had relatively muscular wiry legs so would be set further apart than perhaps you think. Also the bulky part of the thigh is under the leg normally but squishes to the side when you sit down.
Perhaps you first need to demonstrate the assertion about thigh lines first.
 

JonB

New Member
Did anyone else have trouble running the Flash (.swf) file I linked to ?

OK, let me chew on some crow and get back to the model for a minute. I'll address this mainly to GregMc since this is exactly his field of expertise.

GregMc, would you agree or disagree with these 2 statements ?
(Anyone is welcome to chime in, but since GregMc is an expert I'd like to hear from him.)

1. The model in the video is (reasonably) anatomically correct within itself as a generic human figure. (Its most likely a standard library object that came with the 3D software.)
2. In the video, the 2 right legs (model and Jeff) are close to parallel, within a few degrees.

We're talking ball park here, not micron accuracy.
If anyone disagrees in any way with either of these statements, please explain why.
 

JonB

New Member
Did anyone else have trouble running the Flash (.swf) file I linked to ?

1. The model in the video is (reasonably) anatomically correct within itself as a generic human figure. (Its most likely a standard library object that came with the 3D software.)
2. In the video, the 2 right legs (model and Jeff) are close to parallel, within a few degrees.
If you disagree...
Rather than explain why, maybe it's easier to reword them to your liking.
Maybe together we can hammer out some wording on which there's some general agreement.
 

JonB

New Member
I think that no matter what anyone says, your mind is made up and you're going to keep insisting yours is the only viable explanation.
I think you're the one sweeping under the rug everything that does not agree with you.
Before I came here, I tried to debunk this myself.
I ruled out lense effects because the thighs are more or less the same distance from the camera.
Therefore, the shoulders looking too big, or other perspective distortions of the body aren't a factor.
Even if one knee is a few inches closer to the camera, the effect would be negligible.
So, we're only interested in the legs and determining whether or not what we see is anatomically possible.

I ruled out view angle because we're looking at Jeff almost straight on. That is if you drew a straight line from the camera to Jeff it would cut through his head and crotch, bisecting him laterally. The camera is elevated but the angle down to Jeff is also negligible. But the important thing is that the left to right angle doesn't favour either leg to any significant degree. I see Jeff as if he was sitting in chair, and I was hovering over his head. A sort of 'clinical' view angle.

I tried to imagine how Jeff's right leg would move if he were to put his knees together and it just didn't look right.
Look at Jeff and imagine where the pivot point for his right leg would have to be in order for him to bring his knees together. I can't do it. If I follow his right leg straight down to where his hip might be, then when he brought his knees together, there would be a huge gap at his crotch. Like 8 or 10 inches.
If I try to imagine a pivot point that would bring his knees and thighs together normally that point is way out of line with the right thigh. Its like an M.C. Esher painting.

The model was really just icing on the cake.

If anyone out there can suggest where the right pivot point would be, maybe we can solve this.
Pete, now we're talkin' bones here. Where's Jeff's right hip joint ?
Anyone want to post a pic with a dot over Jeff's right hip joint ?
 
Last edited:

GregMc

Senior Member
I'll address this mainly to GregMc since this is exactly his field of expertise.

GregMc, would you agree or disagree with these 2 statements ?
(Anyone is welcome to chime in, but since GregMc is an expert I'd like to hear from him.)

1. The model in the video is (reasonably) anatomically correct within itself as a generic human figure. (Its most likely a standard library object that came with the 3D software.)
2. In the video, the 2 right legs (model and Jeff) are close to parallel, within a few degrees.

Well frankly I think the model and photograph are poorly aligned.
I'm also concerned at the idea of a "generic human figure".
Ergonomics reveals that human forms vary wildly. Unless you have a body proportion match and an exact pose match then it's not informative. Also we don't know how the model is rigged.(skeletal animation setup)
I come across rigged characters where the rigger has simply not bothered to study anatomy, with jaw pivots placed at the corners of the mouth. Don't get me started on "backwards knees" on quadrupeds' hind legs... (those are actually heels)
Do these hips/thigh bones have the correct joint pivot spacing?

I sometimes have to fit 3D digital human models to live footage (and other species too) I see clearly that there has been little attempt to match them accurately here. Certainly the pose doesn't match. If the major joints are not EXACTLY aligned then the exercise is pointless.
Even if someone had managed to find a 3Dmodel human that was an exact proportion match to Jeff in every way, it would still likely not align accurately if the digital camera was not an exact match . ie, match filmback, format , lens etc. There is software that can solve for camera to interpret footage and produce a virtual camera that is THEN used to "film" the 3D model inside the virtual environment. Obviously a wide angle lens imaging a character close to camera will give completely different alignments to a long lens further away, even when viewing the same character in the same exact pose.
Looking at the skin/meat outline of the leg , particularly one just flayed by a bomb is inappropriate as a guide to the orientation of the bones underneath . Have a look at the footage of the fellow munched by a Bull shark on the calf. Skin and muscle hangs like a stretched pullover on a coat hanger if the integrity of the elastic skin covering is compromised and there is ligament/tendon trauma.
Have a look at a vid of someone having their thighs massaged (you know you want to!) and notice how without the bones changing position, the outline and bulk can move considerably.

Also as the guys have already stated, this is a totally POINTLESS exercise if you WANTED to fake it.
No one would try to attach prosthetics in the field!!! It takes hours usually and can be brought down to minutes but the suggestion that such perfectly typical and accurate injuries would be prosthetics applied in situ surrounded by the public in fractions of seconds is totally nonsensical.
What is possible as others have already mentioned is to have preprepared prosthetics already applied that are activated with squibs etc. Some of my Colleagues did the gory amputation effects on saving Private Ryan. No one in their right mind would try to apply anything in the MIDDLE of an action scene as is being suggested here.
You can claim these were already attached prosthetics hidden under clothing that is then shredded by hidden squibs but why bother when there was ALREADY a decent bomb present.
Bomb effects close to actors are achieved with air-cannons powered by large tanks of compressed nitrogen, with a lot of ground disturbance required to dig in conical tubs full of soft debris and fullers earth, etc Not easily hidden in a paved or concrete roadside setting, If you did accidentally have hard debris in an air cannon setup you risk doing things like... shredding actors legs to the bone....
As other have already said, why on earth would you employ often emotionally fragile makeup artists and actors and risk them having public tell-all pangs of remorse and mental breakdowns. Know any hair-dressors that are taciturn and glum and can keep a secret for decades? Me neither. Makeup artists are the same. Do they show the Boston Bombings in their CV/portfolio to get their next job?

So much easier and cheaper and fool proof to just blow up real people with a real bomb !!! Or do you think the gov't isn't evil enough to do such a thing?
 
Last edited:

Trailspotter

Senior Member
Before I came here, I tried to debunk this myself.
I ruled out lense effects because the thighs are more or less the same distance from the camera.
Therefore, the shoulders looking too big, or other perspective distortions of the body aren't a factor.
Even if one knee is a few inches closer to the camera, the effect would be negligible.
So, we're only interested in the legs and determining whether or not what we see is anatomically possible.
And you were shown photos confirming it is anatomically possible.

Here is a superposition of the Jeff and Mick body images based on the positions of their thighs, that fit very well up to the knees:
Mick&Jeff pelvis fit.png
I do not know how to make swf files, but you can readily reproduce this fitting using the yellow lines in both images as guides.

Note that the Mick's upper body looks slightly bigger than the Jeff's one. It could be explained by perspective distortions: Mick probably was much closer to the camera than Jeff was, so his head and shoulders look bigger. Or, possibly, Mick is simply bigger than Jeff (I do not know whether this is true or not), or by both factors.

The Jeff's right hip joints is probably at the same place there the Mick's joint is (marked with red dot), behind the Jeff's right elbow.

I ruled out view angle because we're looking at Jeff almost straight on. That is if you drew a straight line from the camera to Jeff it would cut through his head and crotch, bisecting him laterally. The camera is elevated but the angle down to Jeff is also negligible. But the important thing is that the left to right angle doesn't favour either leg to any significant degree. I see Jeff as if he was sitting in chair, and I was hovering over his head. A sort of 'clinical' view angle.
The above analysis shows that the Jeff's body is not aligned perfectly with the camera view, his hips are slightly to the right compared to his shoulders. Also, he is not sitting in chair but lying on his back with his spine being bent and probably twisted a bit.
 
Last edited:

JonB

New Member
GregMc, thanks for the detailed reply.

If I get enough response to the questions I posed above, might be able to demonstrate that perfect accuracy is not needed and the model is more than accurate enough.

Meantime, the best way to illustrate the anomaly is for debunkers to figure out where in the photo the hip joint would be. Put a dot there. Maybe draw a line (representing the thigh bone) from the dot to where you think the knee is.

As for the 'who, what when and why's' - we'd be getting off topic.
 

Trailblazer

Moderator
Staff member
GregMc, thanks for the detailed reply.

If I get enough response to the questions I posed above, might be able to demonstrate that perfect accuracy is not needed and the model is more than accurate enough.

Meantime, the best way to illustrate the anomaly is for debunkers to figure out where in the photo the hip joint would be. Put a dot there. Maybe draw a line (representing the thigh bone) from the dot to where you think the knee is.

As for the 'who, what when and why's' - we'd be getting off topic.
Thigh bones don't go in a straight line from the hip joint to the knee. The ball of the hip is offset by some distance from the centre line of the thigh bone: in fact the entire thigh bone is "outboard" of the hip joint. Look at a skeleton:


The hip joint isn't "on the end" of the thighbone - it is offset at an angle (the caput-collum-diaphyseal angle). This angle is about 126 degrees in a normal adult.

upload_2014-10-21_11-53-13.png
 
Last edited:

Pete Tar

Senior Member
Pete, now we're talkin' bones here. Where's Jeff's right hip joint ?
Well my input is not as valuable as Trailblazer's, Mick's or Greg's is going to be, and I'm not real crafty with image manipulation, but seeing as you asked I had a go. This is a rough estimation of where I think it is, it's a bit hard to be very accurate from this angle though as there's a lot of foreshortening going on.
Everytime I try and click and drag to refine the position I end up drawing even more circles everywhere, so this'll do seeing as you asked.

Anyway, kind of here I guess?
JeffsLegs.jpg

And it's actually probably *slightly* further back than that.
 

occams rusty scissor

Senior Member
1. The model in the video is (reasonably) anatomically correct within itself as a generic human figure. (Its most likely a standard library object that came with the 3D software.)
2. In the video, the 2 right legs (model and Jeff) are close to parallel, within a few degrees.

We're talking ball park here, not micron accuracy.
If anyone disagrees in any way with either of these statements, please explain why.
1. The model may be "reasonably anatomically correct" for a "generic human figure" but therein appears the problem as it doesn't account for a human figure subjected to the intense trauma of having both legs blasted away. If u google other pictures of Bauman post blast you can see quite a lot of flesh blown away on the right thigh. Without that supporting mass to hold the shape of the leg, without knowing what further injuries may be higher up around his crotch/pelvis and so forth, how can you adequately compare to a "reasonable anatomically correct" model?
Just because it seems odd to you, does that become fact of an impossibility? How much anatomy have you studied and can you provide comparison to any similar trauma to show that it's anatomically incorrect for that situation?
2. Sure the legs look close to alignment, but refer to point 1.
 

ColtCabana

Senior Member
considering how long it actually takes a make up artist to apply properly decent looking gore make up ( just for screen, never mind people seeing it up close) anyone who was just using common sense can see the whole idea is ridiculous. It's far too expensive, convoluted and liable to go wrong. Surely it would just be easier to set off a real bomb and blame a patsy you could then shoot before the trial.
Agreed. I saw instant injuries after the bombs. There was no time to apply prosthetics or take things off in order to "conceal" anything.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I think this has been gone over quite enough. JonB has failed to demonstrate any anomaly, and it seems just a wishful misunderstanding of the varieties of human anatomy. The claim has been debunked, and there's really no need to morbidly go over it again and again.
 

Trailblazer

Moderator
Staff member
@Trailblazer, what did you use for the skeleton? Can you do a side rendering?
I used the free online web app at www.kineman.com.

I didn't save the skeleton position (I'm not sure that is even possible in the free version) so I'm afraid I only have that view, and I've spent more than enough time on this issue. It's reasonably easy, if a little time-consuming, to do if someone else wants to have a stab though.
 

Rusky

New Member
Nicely debunked. I haven't ventured much in this part of the site, I'm shocked that people believe all those injuries were faked. Completely implausible, and actually it's quite sickening that people are so desperate to believe a conspiracy theory, they're willing to doubt the hell that the victims clearly went through that day.

Keep up the good work.
 

JonB

New Member
Before we continue, do you guys want to try to reach a consensus on which direction the knees are pointing in relation to the camera?
WhichLegAngle.jpg
 

Trailblazer

Moderator
Staff member
Before we continue, do you guys want to try to reach a consensus on which direction the knees are pointing in relation to the camera?
View attachment 9944
How does that affect the width of the pelvis in any way? Please, Jon, this issue has been just about as thoroughly debunked as it is possible to be. It doesn't matter which way your legs are pointing, your hips are never going to be less than two head widths apart, barring a serious case of macrocephaly.
 

JonB

New Member
[mod note]
@Trailblazer made this image which clearly debunks the claim -


Here's a sampling of comments made about the 3D model in CitizenCSI's video.

NoParty said, "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."

Trailspotter said,"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."

GregMc said, "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."
"Well frankly I think the model and photograph are poorly aligned.
I'm also concerned at the idea of a "generic human figure".
Ergonomics reveals that human forms vary wildly. Unless you have a body proportion match and an exact pose match then it's not informative.
"

Why wouldn't the same apply to the skeleton model ?
 

Efftup

Senior Member
Well it could, but what does that do? It simply shows that if either model could be accurate, then the FIRST model is not CLEAR PROOF of anything, it is not necessarily a real "anomaly" and the CSI person has tried so very hard to find such anomalies and this is the best they could come up with.
So one photo looks a little "off" and suddenly that is "BUSTED FALSE FLAG!! " etc?
You'd have to be REALLY wanting to be convinced of something to buy that. As has already been shown elsewhere in this thread, say this is correct. what then?
a false flag attack that involves what? a fake bomb? so in real time we have to create ALL the "damage" that was shown and somehow in real time all the gore effects need to be added, and in THIS case involves someone swapping over from one prosthetic limb to another. Just like most of these stupid CT's, doesn't that sound RIDICULOUSLY convoluted to you? how would YOU have done it? wouldn't you just plant a REAL bomb and blame a patsy?
 

Ray Von Geezer

Senior Member
Here's a sampling of comments made about the 3D model in CitizenCSI's video.

Why wouldn't the same apply to the skeleton model ?
Because the Kineman tool doesn't have a dog in the hunt? ;)

On one hand there's an independent tool designed to show an actual human body, which can be placed in the position of the original event images, and reinforces the demonstrations from the contributors in this thread that the positioning is possible.

On the other there's CitizenCSI's 3D model, which conflicts both with the Kineman tool and with actual demonstrations, has apparently arbitrary placement of the legs, and is used to make a declaration of "PROOF!!! BUSTED!!!" etc.

Ray Von
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Why wouldn't the same apply to the skeleton model ?
Because:
1) The skeleton model actually is anatomically accurate.
2) It uses a parallel projection which is very close to the long focal length in the actual photos.

The model fits the photo, it proves that the pose is not at all impossible. It really should not even have been necessary, as multiple posts in this thread (and in the private conversation) explained the same thing.

Can you really not see this? Or are you simply being argumentative?
 

occams rusty scissor

Senior Member
JonB, like I said in our discussion, instead of asking "surely there's a better explanation?" Perhaps postulate an actual theory and make a point as to what this apparently means. There's been plenty of info put forward to show that prosthetics are out of the equation, there is no evidence and no time to do it in. As far as I can see, the whole argument to this point is "crotch gap, 'nuff said, fake!" Is there anything else you can bring to the debate?
 

JonB

New Member
Of course it goes without saying that you MUST declare everything as "debunked" because failure to do so undermines your whole reason for being.
Thanks for clearing up any doubts I might have had regarding your sincerity.
My experience here has convinced me to give Chemtrails and Morgellon's a closer look.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Of course it goes without saying that you MUST declare everything as "debunked" because failure to do so undermines your whole reason for being.
There are plenty of threads here not marked as "Debunked". However this claim is very clearly debunked by the posed skeleton. Hence it's marked as such.
 

deirdre

Moderator
Staff member
Of course it goes without saying that you MUST declare everything as "debunked" because failure to do so undermines your whole reason for being.
that makes no sense. if everything in the world was bunk there would be no bunk, there would just be everything in the world.
 
Top