Debunked: Boston bombing recovery photo makes no sense from medical point of view

[JRBids]

May I ask (politely) what it was you were trying to prove in your initial post? What did "making no sense" mean?

 

[Cotran]

This is referred to as "moving the goalposts".

May I ask (politely) what it was you were trying to prove in your initial post? What did "making no sense" mean?

What is your point? I simply presented something that could point to a conspiracy in regards to photographs from the Boston Bombing, I believe it was successfully debunked and there were good posts that would make any CP rethink this particular piece of evidence- so what is your beef? Have I somehow broken the rules? I enjoyed it. Mick should I go away?

 

[Sausalito]

What is your point? I simply presented something that could point to a conspiracy in regards to photographs from the Boston Bombing, I believe it was successfully debunked and there were good posts that would make any CP rethink this particular piece of evidence- so what is your beef? Have I somehow broken the rules? I enjoyed it. Mick should I go away?

You're fine. You've demonstrated a healthy attitude, IMO. Conceding that the foam pad was not gangrene but continuing to investigate your original suspicions could be seen as "moving the goalposts," as it is a common maneuver. It could also be seen as being thorough, and possibly playing devil's advocate, which I think would ultimately be constructive when would-be CTs read Metabunkers explanations of any remaining questions that you might pose.

 

[Mick West]

I simply presented something that could point to a conspiracy in regards to photographs from the Boston Bombing, I believe it was successfully debunked and there were good posts that would make any CP rethink this particular piece of evidence- so what is your beef? Have I somehow broken the rules? I enjoyed it. Mick should I go away?

We try to focus here, and your initial post in this thread was a bit of a ramble, with multiple claims of evidence. I would probably have moved it into the "Rambles" forum if the discussion had not so quickly advanced. Threads like this often get dragged out into interminable nit-picking, especially if the basic claim is just "this seems wrong". The argument from "something is not right" is rarely productive, and so I (and others here) will try to nail it down in a firm (but hopefully polite manner).

The majority of the claims regarding False Flag theories are like this. For a good example, see:
https://www.metabunk.org/debunked-anatomical-impossibility-of-jeff-bauman-photos.t3478/

Note how JonB gives what seems like a simple claim of something looking wrong, but then after being shown the claim is incorrect, he continues to argue against the inarguable.

While it's interesting, it's also generally a waste of time with such obscure theories. It's particularly a waste of time if it's a theory you've basically just invented (which seems the case here). The idea is to remove bunk, not invent it. You could have figured this out for yourself.

So when someone posts like you did, I (and probably others) question where the thread is heading, and why, based on our past experience. So your motive in starting the thread is of interest in understanding both what just happened here, and how best to approach similar threads in the future.

 

[Mick West]

Yes you already asked that, I don't believe that is something that can be gleaned from the internet from my search for that answer. So your point is he may have had a recent operation that created a new wound requiring vac when he was transferred to rehab. And the exact dates photos were taken are not available as far as I can tell from the Boston Globe- but clearly if you read the captions and believe the piece, the top photo I posted was definitely from Spaulding and the bottom from Mass General. Thus you can see my point. But I'm willing to let it rest, and admit I have been debunked- for now ;-) It was interesting.

Just for completeness: his last surgery that he posted about was May 5th, 2015. Over two years after the bombing (April 15th 2013).
https://www.facebook.com/MarcFucari...5356880250087/721588677960237/?type=3&theater

If you look at his page in May-July 2013 you will see numerous photos that detail the numerous surgeries, and the various states of his injuries, and the the use of NPWT/VAC and physiotherapy. For example:

https://www.facebook.com/MarcFucari...5356880250087/379891672129941/?type=3&theater

 

[Ray Von Geezer]

But the picture of him in the hospital I posted shows that he did not have an open wound and it was almost healed, therefore no need for VAC therapy. Can you find me a link that shows there is a role for VAC in a closed healed wound as the picture clearly shows before he went to rehab?

Sorry, I should have been clearer, especially given the number of different claims you made in the OP. Although obviously I wasn't referring to your new claim about him being too well for VAC treatment, since you only made it after I'd posted, and after you were shown he was undergoing VAC treatment rather than suffering from a gangrenous wound.

I was referring specifically to your initial claim (quoted below) about how well healed a patient needs to be before starting rehabilitation, your inference being that he wasn't well enough, and hadn't had enough time to recuperate. Since the definition of "well healed" could be subjective, I offered the case studies of amputees who have started rehabilitation early, and whilst still undergoing VAC treatment, to help put your claim in context.

Notice his stump in the bottom pic, despite some discoloration it looks like it's healing nicely and probably pretty far along in his stay. Which is great because in order to get transferred to rehab you need to be well healed.

Ray Von

 

[Mick West]

I was referring specifically to your initial claim (quoted below) about how well healed a patient needs to be before starting rehabilitation, your inference being that he wasn't well enough, and hadn't had enough time to recuperate. Since the definition of "well healed" could be subjective, I offered the case studies of amputees who have started rehabilitation early, and whilst still undergoing VAC treatment, to help put your claim in context.

There's a more general description of post-amputation rehabilitation here:
http://cirrie.buffalo.edu/encyclopedia/en/article/251/

Rehabilitation Following Lower Limb Amputation
Successful rehabilitation following amputation is complex and requires multiple medical, surgical, and rehabilitation specialties. Rehabilitation is important for enhancing the mobility of affected individuals and improving their health and vocational prospects (Pezzin, et al.2000.

Rehabilitation can occur at several times, places, and consists of many interventions. The Time, Place, Type (TPT) Framework classifies the rehabilitation processes by their timing, place, and types of service (Stineman et al. 2008). "Time" of rehabilitation relates the initiation of rehabilitation to the onset of the disability and/or to the receipt of fundamental non-rehabilitative health care services, such as surgery in the case of amputation. Rehabilitation can begin before the onset of disability (for example in anticipation of disabling procedures such as surgical amputation), immediately after, or at some point in time distant to the onset of disability. For patients with amputation, rehabilitation may start preoperatively, with clinicians preparing patients psychologically for limb loss, supporting them, and explaining future services that can potentially benefit them. Immediate postoperative inpatient rehabilitation occurs directly after the surgical amputation while patients are still hospitalized. Rehabilitation, when applied early, can help avoid issues such as deconditioning or joint contractures.

 

[JRBids]

What is your point? I simply presented something that could point to a conspiracy in regards to photographs from the Boston Bombing, I believe it was successfully debunked and there were good posts that would make any CP rethink this particular piece of evidence- so what is your beef? Have I somehow broken the rules? I enjoyed it. Mick should I go away?

Because this site is a debunking site, I was asking what YOUR point was in posting your op. It looked to me that you were posting evidence that it WAS a conspiracy, not debunking someone else's claim. It appears I was correct.

In answer to your question, I do not think the Boston Bombing was a conspiracy/false flag, whatever. I am sorry you think I have a beef with you.