Debunked: Boston Marathon victims: "crisis actors"

[Mick West]

Like with Sandy Hook, there are people coming out of the woodwork to suggest that the entire Boston Marathon Bombing was simply staged for TV, and that some or all of the victims were "crisis actors" - people trained to accurately portray victims of a disaster.

Crisis actors are real - they are used to train first responders how to deal with a disaster. But it should be very obvious to everyone that that is not what is going on here. The incredibly large amount of photos and videos make it horribly clear that these were real bombs, and these are real injuries.

Example from Facebook:

This follows a long tradition of conspiracy theorists finding people who look vaguely similar, and then claiming they are the same person. Often the people are so dissimilar that we can only conclude the poster has some kind of face blindness.

But anyway, the man in the top left is not Nick Vigt, he is Jeff Bauman Jr, and was identified by his father:
http://www.lowellsun.com/todaysheadlines/ci_23034567/pray-my-son-father-says-chelmsford-man

"Can everyone pray for my son Jeff Jr.?'' Jeff Bauman Sr. wrote in an emotional plea on his Facebook page hours after the bombings at the Boston Marathon.

The elder Bauman, of Chelmsford, posted that message under a news photo of his critically injured son being rushed from the scene, after two explosions near the finish line killed three and injured more than 140.
Bauman, who could not be reached for comment, wrote that his son was at the finish line when he was injured by one of the blasts. His son was transported to a hospital where he was undergoing surgery on his legs.

 

[Agav8r]

I figured this was going to be one of the first conspiracies out of the 'chute. The thing with this vs Sandy Hook, as you pointed out Mick, is the overwhelming amount of video and still photo evidence. More coming in every day too. That famous cropped photo of Mr. Bauman being rushed to medical help in the wheelchair is very mild when compared to the photos with him and other victims on the sidewalk in the immediate moments after the explosion. Absolutely devastating. I doubt any of these people claiming that this a crisis actor event would have the courage to make these accusations to the victims or their families. Given the overwhelming evidence, I expect this one to be quashed quickly.

 

[Joe]

Heres the latest Video calling it a false flag . This is what happens when people collect unemployment benefits for too long
​

 

[Pete Tar]

Really? You have to equate this with your anti-'any sort of government help' agenda? You're as bad as the politicians you're so quick to denounce as ideologically profiting from a disaster.


Edit... Ah never mind, not worth picking a fight over a throwaway comment. Pardon me.

IMO it's a result of listening to right wing propaganda. (just kidding. it's the result of an internet culture that rewards stupidity.)

 

[Joe]

Really? You have to equate this with your anti-'any sort of government help' agenda? You're as bad as the politicians you're so quick to denounce as ideologically profiting from a disaster.

no not me . read before you speak . Im saying they have nothing better to do then make shit up . Im not a truther . never have been . Actually find it quite disturbing . As much as a dislike my government I would never believe they stage a event like this . I was simply point out where this is headed . I suggest next time you read my post first . Or read my comment left on YT ?

 

[Joe]

Really? You have to equate this with your anti-'any sort of government help' agenda? You're as bad as the politicians you're so quick to denounce as ideologically profiting from a disaster.


Edit... Ah never mind, not worth picking a fight over a throwaway comment. Pardon me.

IMO it's a result of listening to right wing propaganda. (just kidding. it's the result of an internet culture that rewards stupidity.)

The right wing propaganda I listen to and read denounces all truthers FYI . I believe you owe me an apology ?

 

[Pete Tar]

ok.

(I SAID just kidding).

 

[Joe]

ok.

(I SAID just kidding).

heres an example http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...acy-theories-surrounding-the-boston-bombings/ I also spammed the Blaze with a link to metabunk and this post .

 

[Pete Tar]

Rightyo. Good to know. Backing away from the keyboard now.

 

[Cairenn]

A quick glance at the comments there and it seems That a sizable percentage of posters, prefer a conspiracy theory. That is disturbing, of course that just reflect the ones that post, not read it.

 

[Joe]

A quick glance at the comments there and it seems That a sizable percentage of posters, prefer a conspiracy theory. That is disturbing, of course that just reflect the ones that post, not read it.

Did you see my post spamming metabunk over there with a link ? That site has millions daily .

 

[Cairenn]

I did, and I hope it helps.

But here goes Beck

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=joYnT_yiVKE

 

[Joe]

I did, and I hope it helps.

But here goes Beck

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=joYnT_yiVKE

I understand what he is saying . I dont want to blame anyone or any group until more info is out . He being defensive of course . They only say Muslim because the bomb is similar to ones used in Afganistan .that doesnt mean its Radical Islam . clearly is terrorism . The targeting of innocent civilians also is a red flag . We will see and I will not speculate until more info is available . I want facts no bull . Beck sometimes jumps to conclusions but usually corrects himself after the fact . I dont always agree wih him either , Or as you can tell I hardly agree with anybody

 

[Ess T]

Does anybody have the patience to debunk the finer points of this article please? It is astonishing in its assumptions but some of the quasi-medical expertise seems to have people convinced:

[WARNING: GORE]
http://www.chrisspivey.co.uk/?p=11184

 

[Mick West]

Does anybody have the patience to debunk the finer points of this article please? It is astonishing in its assumptions but some of the quasi-medical expertise seems to have people convinced:

[WARNING: GORE]
http://www.chrisspivey.co.uk/?p=11184

That already came up here:
https://www.metabunk.org/posts/38014

With the key being:

Its obvious nonsense, but from a purely factual basis:

[bunk]If you loose both your legs from explosive trauma half your blood is gone in one minute via the femoral arteries, youre dead after two. Bleeding out is worse with blunt force trauma (like shrapnel) because flesh is torn rather than cut, exposing more arterial and vascular tissue.[/bunk]

That's bunk, because people get both their legs blown off all the time, and survive. Even in places that don't have helpers and emergency services seconds away.
https://www.google.com/search?q=lost+both+legs+to+land+mine&tbm=isch

http://members.iinet.net.au/~pictim/mines/victims/victim.html

 

[Ess T]

Thank you! I've been trying to put out the flames of paranoid unreason where i find them but it's been tiresome to say the least. This site is a welcome safe haven from the battle! Thanks again.

 

[Pete Tar]

A valiant effort from a veteran who now is an emergency response worker is here...
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread941791/pg1

Some interesting points - veins will retract into the body in response to severed body parts, also

Additionally the comment that his blood pressure would drop causing him to pass out is incorrect. BP (blood pressure) is the relationship of how much space available blood has to fill. Shock is the body pulling blood into the major organs. This man has lost blood from the tissue amputated, but with a tourniquet the size of the container the blood has to fill is decreased (body minus space of legs). The patients BP can maintain but saline is recommended to increase volume of blood.

Unfortunately reading some of the responses may induce homicidal despair.

 

[Edgukator]

Sorry to be slightly off topic here, but the following video has been making the rounds. Because it is about the idea of "actors" and it isn't big enough to get it's own thread, I thought I would post it here:

[video=youtube_share;FYXmhBNz5D0]http://youtu.be/FYXmhBNz5D0[/video]

I know this should go without saying, but the debunk.

The word actor has more than one meaning. In fact the definition "a person that acts" - to act as in 'to do' - is the first definition in link I gave.

In fact, the idea of a terrorist actor (or at least Violent non-state actor) even has its own Wikipedia page.

So why did he correct himself? Probably because he knew how it would be misinterpreted.

 

[JRBids]

It's so clear from the context. In other words, "these were the two people who committed this act". The actors.

 

[Jay Reynolds]

Kusnir has gone completely mad over this meme:

​

 

[TWCobra]

Kusznir got 200 times the hits on this subject compared to what his drivel normally gets. The guy is a part time actor so my guess is that any attention is good attention.

 

[Jay Reynolds]

The guy is a part time actor so my guess is that any attention is good attention.

Bad enough that meme got started with Sandy Hook speakng about children who died, now they are accusing the living
of being fakes.

One day, the amputees or their families will address those who say they are actors. It won't be pretty.

I wonder how Kusznir would react if confronted by the stumps of a man or woman who is now forced to cope without a limb(s)?

Would he dare ask them how much they were paid to have their leg/arm cut off surgically to perpetuate a false flag?

Sometimes going too far might kill such a conspiracy theory. I can only hope.

 

[JRBids]

Those people commenting are so disgusting.

 

[Rilokilee]

there is nothing wrong with questioning the facts outside of our own personal experience. After watching the vast amounts of footage there is a compelling argument that aspects of the event were staged. Appealing to morality or appropriateness to censor debate is unreasonable and assuming anything also unreasonable and futile to any meaningful conversation, We can merely speculate. Eye witness accounts don;t seem to fully corroborate the live footage...the "Boston Hero" as he was dubbed by the press stated the flags had been blown out by shrapnel, that he had carried Jeff by himself, that he had immediately gone to help him ect. Of course witness accounts can be wrong in the heat of the moment it is weird that no journalist picked up on this and that such simple observations could be so wrong. We have many reasons not to trust the media as they have made an industry and profit out of illusion and breaking from reality you shouldn't belittle people simply because they are contributing an alternative perspective to the mainstream homogeneity, the greater control over our perceptions the greater manipulation over our actions and motivations. The truth is subjective but by having variation in opinion a reflection of it may become clearer.

 

[Pete Tar]

After watching the vast amounts of footage there is a compelling argument that aspects of the event were staged.

What compelling argument? What aspects exactly?
All the 'issues' have been proven baseless. To continue to cling to them as evidence of staging is immoral and truly an awful kick in the face of the people affected by this.

 

[ColtCabana]

After watching the vast amounts of footage there is a compelling argument that aspects of the event were staged.

I'd be interested in which aspects you think were staged. Perhaps start a thread(s) for one or two of your biggest "smoking guns" and we can go from there. I'm willing to provide as much eyewitness account as you wish. I can promise you that the carnage I saw, as well as the fallout that my friend who works at an area hospital and dealt with multiple victims, was real. There's nothing wrong with questioning things, but when I see people disregard evidence and/or imply things that I know for a fact are not true, it's a little frustrating.

 

[MikeC]

Certainly the start and finish lines were staged.

 

[Rilokilee]

What compelling argument? What aspects exactly?
All the 'issues' have been proven baseless. To continue to cling to them as evidence of staging is immoral and truly an awful kick in the face of the people affected by this.

What compelling argument? What aspects exactly?
All the 'issues' have been proven baseless. To continue to cling to them as evidence of staging is immoral and truly an awful kick in the face of the people affected by this.

Firstly no not all issues have been proven baseless because I wasn't there so to me the only things I know are what I see the facts are things that cannot be proven from my position experientially i mean. I'm making an epistemological argument not a factual one that assuming either way is pointless. When did I cling to any evidence at all?I said there is a compelling argument you should read critically rather than emotionally. I'm talking about the subjectivity of truth and how we come to understand it. There is evidence I have seen such as witness statements of Jeff and this Boston hero guy that do not align with the footage now that could mean shoddy journalism or crisis actors or whatever but it is not a kick in the face to anyone because if I had my limbs blown off I wouldn't be worrying about a small minority of people who didn't believe me or questioned aspects of the event. Evidence is also subjective and to me a guy standing up and adjusting his trousers and putting on glasses during a bombing is strange as well as a lot of things that i really don't have the time to go through ...I'm not saying it didn't happen just saying that we should all be critical of the news because it can be so easily manipulated. The discussion is more important than the conclusion. Blind acceptance of anything is irrational.

 

[Rilokilee]

I'd be interested in which aspects you think were staged. Perhaps start a thread(s) for one or two of your biggest "smoking guns" and we can go from there. I'm willing to provide as much eyewitness account as you wish. I can promise you that the carnage I saw, as well as the fallout that my friend who works at an area hospital and dealt with multiple victims, was real. There's nothing wrong with questioning things, but when I see people disregard evidence and/or imply things that I know for a fact are not true, it's a little frustrating.

I'm not going to because many people out there have already shown inconsistencies that may be explained away but they are out there for anyone to check out. I understand that you may have been there and it may be frustrating but how am I supposed to fully believe a random and quite anonymous person on the internets experiences. I really wonder why people are so against any discussion. It would be interesting to know where you where standing during the bombing and what you saw? but it seems that even those right in the action can't seem to get their stories straight so yes I am skeptical but not convinced either way.

 

[Pete Tar]

You said there is a compelling argument that the bombing aftermath was 'staged' , but you didn't say what it actually was.
What's the 'subjective truth' about injuries from a bomb blast?
What exactly do you want to criticise about the news in this case?
This isn't a a philosophical matter, the truth is verifiable.
You seem to be proclaiming all truth is subjective so nothing can be proven ever, therefore all questions are valid and all answers are invalid.
This thread is about crisis actors. What is your position on it and how did you arrive at it?

 

[Trailblazer]

What's the 'subjective truth' about injuries from a bomb blast?
What exactly do you want to criticise about the news in this case?
This isn't a a philosophical matter, the truth is verifiable.
You seem to be proclaiming all truth is subjective so nothing can be proven ever, therefore all questions are valid and all answers are invalid.

This seems to be an increasingly common view in today's world. It's as if moral relativism has transferred itself to the area of fact. The media's obsession with "balance" is part of the problem: as if every correct viewpoint needs to be balanced by a counterpoint, however wrong.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, yes. But if two people have opposing opinions of a fact, then one of them is quite simply wrong.

 

[Rilokilee]

You said there is a compelling argument that the bombing aftermath was 'staged' , but you didn't say what it actually was.
What's the 'subjective truth' about injuries from a bomb blast?
What exactly do you want to criticise about the news in this case?
This isn't a a philosophical matter, the truth is verifiable.
You seem to be proclaiming all truth is subjective so nothing can be proven ever, therefore all questions are valid and all answers are invalid.
This thread is about crisis actors. What is your position on it and how did you arrive at it?

There are many compelling arguments that have been made by others analyzing footage there are also compelling arguments against these too. I am not going to go over them BUT in holistic fashion it is a likely occurence and has been proven over and over again that aspects of news coverage are staged or manipulated take for example the pulling down of the Saddam statue or the story of Jessica Lynch (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/may/15/iraq.usa2) I am simply arguing of the potential for an event to be staged and so I would rather take a skeptical position if I wasn't a witness of the event. There is no subjectivity in injuries of a bomb blast there is subjectivity in how we perceive footage /evidence of these injuries. One person who has expertise in medicine might have one opinion another with expertise in prosthetics another Unless you were the doctor or paramedic of the victims that there is no way to verify or falsify the claims we are all basing our judgements on secondary data and so there is a level of subjectivity. My personal criticism of the news is that with all these events they have focused on the emotional at the expense of more critical analysis, how victimhood has become about celebrity, how people take it as a form of information when it is produced as entertainment and how alternative views are ridiculed and all lumped together under the contested and umbrella term "conspiracy theories". All truth is subjective because we use language to convey it and language is essentially metaphor (look into cognitive linguistics). The event happened but our perceptions are what is subjective so yes all questions of our perceptions are valid and all our conclusions can only be theoretical because we weren't there. The event could have been staged, it could have really happened or the reality might lie somewhere in the middle i don't know and neither do you. Also the epistemological argument is so important to the veracity of truth because it concerns knowledge and how we arrive at it.
I believe crisis actors are used to stage events because they have been used in the past (eg. Nariyah Testimony- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nayirah_(testimony)) I know that for some time there has been a marriage between hollywood and the military and historically it is quite clear that those in power use whatever resources are available to them to control the masses before it was more physical force now a much subtler psychological brainwashing.

 

[Trailblazer]

Rilokilee, the examples you give (eg Nayirah) were not events that were witnessed in person by hundreds of people in the very country in which they were later reported. The analogy doesn't stand up.

 

[Rilokilee]

You

This seems to be an increasingly common view in today's world. It's as if moral relativism has transferred itself to the area of fact. The media's obsession with "balance" is part of the problem: as if every correct viewpoint needs to be balanced by a counterpoint, however wrong.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, yes. But if two people have opposing opinions of a fact, then one of them is quite simply wrong.

You think the news is balanced? Every viewpoint should be countered that is hegelian dialect thesis antithesis synthesis , what is wrong with the news is that they focus on polemics it is not moral relativism to accept that there might be more than one answer you can believe in subjectivity of thought and concepts without adhering to the notion that all thoughts and concepts are equal in how they convey reality or represent it.

 

[Rilokilee]

Rilokilee, the examples you give (eg Nayirah) were not events that were witnessed in person by hundreds of people in the very country in which they were later reported. The analogy doesn't stand up.

Its not intended as an analogy its an example of a crisis actor being used to fool the public and governing bodies.

 

[Rilokilee]

Rilokilee, the examples you give (eg Nayirah) were not events that were witnessed in person by hundreds of people in the very country in which they were later reported. The analogy doesn't stand up.

Also how many people actually witnessed the event or just witnessed the blast (which can be easily faked) ? From the pictures it doesn't look like that many people could have been close enough to see whether it was theatrics or real carnage especially with the fence covering most of the scene and most people instinctually running away from it

 

[Trailblazer]

Also how many people actually witnessed the event or just witnessed the blast (which can be easily faked) ? From the pictures it doesn't look like that many people could have been close enough to see whether it was theatrics or real carnage especially with the fence covering most of the scene

There were plenty of people standing in the direct area of the blast.

 

[ColtCabana]

I'm not going to because many people out there have already shown inconsistencies that may be explained away but they are out there for anyone to check out. I understand that you may have been there and it may be frustrating but how am I supposed to fully believe a random and quite anonymous person on the internets experiences. I really wonder why people are so against any discussion. It would be interesting to know where you where standing during the bombing and what you saw? but it seems that even those right in the action can't seem to get their stories straight so yes I am skeptical but not convinced either way.

Rilokilee, the burden of proof isn't on me in regards to this. If you make a claim, you must provide evidence and not expect other people to go out, find said evidence, and then counter it blindly. That's unfair. You also don't have to believe me. I know what I saw and one of the main reasons I joined this forum was to provide eyewitness accounts and try to debunk a good amount of garbage information regarding the Boston Marathon bombing that was circulating. As stated, I saw injuries that were real. My friend also works at one of the Boston-area hospitals and helped treat many of those affected by the blast. Heck, he didn't even get home until Tuesday morning because of the severity of some of the injuries. If you have a question for me, please feel free to start a thread in this subforum about a particular point and I will do my absolute best to answer them as candidly as possible.

I encourage asking questions regarding the matter, but I encourage more the accepting of fact as truth.

Also how many people actually witnessed the event or just witnessed the blast (which can be easily faked) ? From the pictures it doesn't look like that many people could have been close enough to see whether it was theatrics or real carnage especially with the fence covering most of the scene and most people instinctually running away from it

For starters, I will answer this. I witnessed the carnage after the blast. I was standing on the corner of Exeter and Boylston when the first bomb went off. After that, we ran west on Boylston and witnessed the second blast from afar. After that, we ran east, not knowing what the heck to do, and saw the end result of the bombing. Real blood. Real injuries. That I can promise you.

 

[Rilokilee]

Rilokilee, the burden of proof isn't on me in regards to this. If you make a claim, you must provide evidence and not expect other people to go out, find said evidence, and then counter it blindly. That's unfair. You also don't have to believe me. I know what I saw and one of the main reasons I joined this forum was to provide eyewitness accounts and try to debunk a good amount of garbage information regarding the Boston Marathon bombing that was circulating. As stated, I saw injuries that were real. My friend also works at one of the Boston-area hospitals and helped treat many of those affected by the blast. Heck, he didn't even get home until Tuesday morning because of the severity of some of the injuries. If you have a question for me, please feel free to start a thread in this subforum about a particular point and I will do my absolute best to answer them as candidly as possible.

I encourage asking questions regarding the matter, but I encourage more the accepting of fact as truth.



For starters, I will answer this. I witnessed the carnage after the blast. I was standing on the corner of Exeter and Boylston when the first bomb went off. After that, we ran west on Boylston and witnessed the second blast from afar. After that, we ran east, not knowing what the heck to do, and saw the end result of the bombing. Real blood. Real injuries. That I can promise you.

Yes I am interested in finding out for sure what happened I am just taking a skeptical position I'm not gonna just change my opinion because someone on the internet told me they were there but Can you tell me exactly what you saw description of the victims and what injuries they had, how far away you were, what side of the street, if police were stopping people from getting any closer if you want to convince people of your story you need to be detailed where you near ring road at any point? Thanks for the information though

 

[Rilokilee]

Yes I am interested in finding out for sure what happened I am just taking a skeptical position I'm not gonna just change my opinion because someone on the internet told me they were there but Can you tell me exactly what you saw description of the victims and what injuries they had, how far away you were, what side of the street, if police were stopping people from getting any closer if you want to convince people of your story you need to be detailed where you near ring road at any point? Thanks for the information though

also the burden of proof is on you I have made no claims to anything simply speculation of the official story you have made a claim that you were there and that should be backed up thanks for your responses though