The Wrong Colored Backpack

Engonoceras

New Member
I ran across this when I tried to use Google's "Wayback Machine" to find HQ crime scene photos in new reports and story comments about 2 weeks after the bombing. What I discovered was that for about 14 major news sites all the Google caches had stopped prior to or day of the bombing. For the 4 websites that a ctually had a cache for that day the cache was ONLY of the morning version of the website before the bombing. There were literally NO caches of the websites recorded AFTER the bombing for about 14 of the largest news websites.

Here is the list I made at the time about 2 weeks after the bombing and when the last cache date was:

Reuters.com - April 15 archived but before bombing
CNN.com - April 15 archived but before bombing
CBS.com - April 11
NBC.com - April 13
ABC.com - April 14
AP.com - April 14
AP.org - April 11
BostonGlobe.com - April 7
news.bbc.co.uk/ - April 11th
msnbc.com - April 11
Foxnews.com - April 11
guardian.co.uk/ - April 15 is listed but when I clicked it routed to 11th
newyorktimes.com - April 15 is archived but only before the bombing
independent.co.uk/ - April 15 is archived but only before the bombing
 

AluminumTheory

Senior Member.
How can you be certain that this photo was not altered to add a white smear? Why are looking at a photo of a photo? Why not show us the actual image? How do we know whetger or not that smear is just a reflection or flaw in the glass surface?
 

Engonoceras

New Member
How can you be certain that this photo was not altered to add a white smear? Why are looking at a photo of a photo? Why not show us the actual image? How do we know if that smear is just reflection or flaw in the glass surface?

You can (or could) find the original yourself (3504 x 2327) in a Google image search. It was taken for an interview by a news source. I forgot the source, may have been local news where he was from, not sure.
 

Engonoceras

New Member
The white spots in the alternative photo are all in the same place as the white spots in the HQ FBI version EXCEPT the backpack. People have already noticed independently that the FBI photo looks like it was Photoshopped where his backpack should be. I've used Photoshop for 12 years and to my eyes it looks like they erased something behind him and retouched the brick wall.

It's quite a coincidence there's also a white spot where his gray/white trimmed backpack would be if he was running away which was to his right rear like in the surveillance video photos.

The smears are oily fingerprints. The alternative photo is first generation evidence regardless of the quality, the FBI released version is not.
 
Last edited:

hemi

Senior Member.
I ran across this when I tried to use Google's "Wayback Machine" to find HQ crime scene photos in new reports and story comments about 2 weeks after the bombing. What I discovered was that for about 14 major news sites all the Google caches had stopped prior to or day of the bombing.

Do you mean Google's cache, or the Wayback Machine? They're different things. The Wayback Machine is run by the Internet Archive. As far as I'm aware, Google have nothing to do with it.
 

hemi

Senior Member.
The white spots in the photo are all in the same place as the white spots in the HQ FBI version. It's quite a coincidence there's also a white spot where his gray/white trimmed backpack would be if he was running away which was to his right rear like in the surveillance video photos.

Yep. And coincidence's happen. There's lot of white specks that appear in the 'dirty' photo-of-a-photo that don't appear in the hi-res digital version.

As I say, it seems a stretch to think that not only have the FBI doctored the photo to remove the backpack from their copy of the photo, but that Green has done the same when providing the same image to media outlets.

It might be the case, but the simplest answer would seem to be that it's just a speck of dirt on a very dirty phone.

specks.jpg
 

Engonoceras

New Member
This is technically off-thread but I think this whole thing was a multiple "terrorist" setup. At least 3 groups may have thought they were there to setup (sting) another group in some way. The Tsarniev brothers (one already had CIA connections via Uncle Ruslan) just didn't realize they were the actual "patsies". This is why you have all these obviously out-of-place characters milling around carrying bloated dark backpacks.
 

Engonoceras

New Member
Do you mean Google's cache, or the Wayback Machine? They're different things. The Wayback Machine is run by the Internet Archive. As far as I'm aware, Google have nothing to do with it.

"Wayback Machine" where you find old copies of websites. I assumed Google was behind both, I don't know.
 

Engonoceras

New Member
Here is the cache for CNN almost two weeks after the bombing. This is basically the same thing I saw for the other websites in my list although not all had daily caches. I doubt the caching process took two weeks.
 

Attachments

  • CNN-cache.jpg
    CNN-cache.jpg
    124.8 KB · Views: 356

AluminumTheory

Senior Member.
This is technically off-thread but I think this whole thing was a multiple "terrorist" setup. At least 3 groups may have thought they were there to setup (sting) another group in some way. The Tsarniev brothers (one already had CIA connections via Uncle Ruslan) just didn't realize they were the actual "patsies". This is why you have all these obviously out-of-place characters milling around carrying bloated dark backpacks.


That discussion is over here.

Debunked: Ruslan Tsarni CIA/Terror Connections

At Metabunk we try to limit our discussion threads to individual claims of evidence to stay on topic.
 

hemi

Senior Member.
Here is the cache for CNN almost two weeks after the bombing. This is basically the same thing I saw for the other websites in my list although not all had daily caches. I doubt the caching process took two weeks.

There is sometimes a lag between when the wayback machine archives a site, and when it appears. They say that it can sometimes take 6-14 months for archived pages to appear. A delay of a couple weeks is hardly unusual. And the archives exist now, so what's the problem, and how is it relevant to this thread?
 

Engonoceras

New Member
OK, thanks, yes probably best to keep things strictly on topic. I'm new here and just eager to present things I've discovered on my own. I've done lots of genealogical research and document local paleontology/geology so I try to look at things from actual evidence and independant cross-evidence. I may float a theory though just to see what others think. Criminal and financial investigators HAVE to be "conspiracy theorists" somewhat to figure stuff out when evidence is limited..
 

Engonoceras

New Member
There is sometimes a lag between when the wayback machine archives a site, and when it appears. They say that it can sometimes take 6-14 months for archived pages to appear. A delay of a couple weeks is hardly unusual. And the archives exist now, so what's the problem, and how is it relevant to this thread?

Not directly relevant. I was just amazed to see the caches of 14 major news sites stopped on or before the day of the bombing. because I was looking for original photos.
 

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
Is Green himself saying his photo differs or did someone see that photo and decide it was evidence of something? Why doesn't he simply upload it so we can see? A photo of the photo on his i-phone is almost a joke, and nothing to base reasonable speculation on.
Why is there a photo of him holding up the photo in the first place?
 

Engonoceras

New Member
Is Green himself saying his photo differs or did someone see that photo and decide it was evidence of something? Why doesn't he simply upload it so we can see? A photo of the photo on his i-phone is almost a joke, and nothing to base reasonable speculation on.
Why is there a photo of him holding up the photo in the first place?

He did an interview because he was the guy that photographed one of the alleged suspects escape the crime scene. That's why he is showing his phone.

I'm saying the photos don't match for obvious reasons. I found this evidence independently (others have noted it also) and the image on his iPhone is congruent with independent observations that the FBI version was doctored (poorly) to remove the backpack.

This is also why I sent the information (the photo and where to find it online) to the Tsarniev defense team who is lead by a woman I forget her name off hand.
 
Last edited:

AluminumTheory

Senior Member.
The white spots in the alternative photo are all in the same place as the white spots in the HQ FBI version EXCEPT the backpack. People have already noticed independently that the FBI photo looks like it was Photoshopped where his backpack should be. I've used Photoshop for 12 years and to my eyes it looks like they erased something behind him and retouched the brick wall.

It's quite a coincidence there's also a white spot where his gray/white trimmed backpack would be if he was running away which was to his right rear like in the surveillance video photos.

The smears are oily fingerprints. The alternative photo is first generation evidence regardless of the quality, the FBI released version is not.


Then where is the High Quality FBI version? How can you know what the FBI has if you have not seen it? Picture of a picture on a dirty screen isn't evidence. What makes you so certain that the backpack was photoshopped out?

As far as I can tell this seems to be the raw photo with EXIF data.
Raw Photo
EXIF Data


Worth pointing out that EXIF data is most likely spoofable, but it is here for reference.
 

JRBids

Senior Member.
The white spots in the alternative photo are all in the same place as the white spots in the HQ FBI version EXCEPT the backpack. People have already noticed independently that the FBI photo looks like it was Photoshopped where his backpack should be. I've used Photoshop for 12 years and to my eyes it looks like they erased something behind him and retouched the brick wall.

It's quite a coincidence there's also a white spot where his gray/white trimmed backpack would be if he was running away which was to his right rear like in the surveillance video photos.

The smears are oily fingerprints. The alternative photo is first generation evidence regardless of the quality, the FBI released version is not.

I think the white spot on the photo of him with the phone is much too far behind to be a backpack. JFTR, I've also used Photoshop, since it came out, and it doesn't look retouched to me. HOw do you know it's the FBI that erased it, if something was erased?
 

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
I'm saying the photos don't match for obvious reasons. ....
You mean because one is a photo of the photo on his iphone? Yes, but so what?
This is in no way sufficient - it can be justified as something that makes you follow it up and ask for the original photo from the author, but to leave it at this and say this is compelling evidence is rather weak.
 

hemi

Senior Member.
He did an interview because he was the guy that photographed one of the alleged suspects escape the crime scene. That's why he is showing his phone.

I'm saying the photos don't match for obvious reasons. I found this evidence independently (others have noted it also) and the image on his iPhone is congruent with independent observations that the FBI version was doctored (poorly) to remove the backpack.

This is also why I sent the information (the photo and where to find it online) to the Tsarniev defense team who is lead by a woman I forget her name off hand.

But, as pointed out earlier, Green's own copy of the photo, supplied to the NY Times, is also missing the backpack. It wasn't the FBI who erased it in this case -- it was either Green or the NY Times. In either case ... why?
 

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
Actually it's a more accurate record of what's actually on the phone. It is more prima facie than what the FBI released.
There's no way that is better evidence.

prima facie - It is used in modern legal English to signify that on first examination, a matter appears to be evident from the facts. In common law jurisdictions, prima facie denotes evidence that – unless rebutted – would be sufficient to prove a particular proposition or fact.
Content from External Source
It is evident it is a poor resolution photo OF THE PHOTO ON HIS PHONE. That is all.
 

Engonoceras

New Member
I think the white spot on the photo of him with the phone is much too far behind to be a backpack. JFTR, I've also used Photoshop, since it came out, and it doesn't look retouched to me. HOw do you know it's the FBI that erased it, if something was erased?

The gray-trimmed backpack was already to his back right as he was walking around as seen in the other pictures. It would certainly be thrown back a little if he was running away.
 

Engonoceras

New Member
How is a blurry, dirty and somewhat distorted pic a more accurate record?

It shows what is ACTUALLY on the phone. What is lifted off the phone and filtered through authorities is less trustable. The picture quality has nothing to do with it. It's good enough to see there was something behind him. That's all the jury needs to see.

The prosecution can't say "Here he is missing his backpack as he ran away" and then have another version that shows he did have it. What about the OTHER backpack found in his room?
 

hemi

Senior Member.
The actual photo, from the actual phone has been reviewed by AP:

David Green’s cell-phone photo of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev appearing to move away from the scene of last Monday’s bombing almost seemed too good to be true, Associated Press Director of Photography Santiago Lyon said in a phone call Friday evening.

“When the picture began to circulate, we were suspicious of it because when we looked at it closely it seemed to have been a composite picture,” Lyon said. “But what happens often with digital imagery is when you’re looking closely at low-resolution files you see things that are misleading, because of the way the pic is compressed or the size of the file.”

So the AP asked Green, a Florida businessman who’d completed the marathon and was watching other runners finish when the bombs went off, for a high-resolution version of his pic. The time stamp and the resolution convinced the photo department it was real.

Again, this is Green supplying his own copy of the photo to a press organisation, who are satisfied that it's kosher. 'Nuff said?

http://www.poynter.org/latest-news/...hoto-of-boston-bombing-suspect-leaving-scene/
 

Engonoceras

New Member
“When the picture began to circulate, we were suspicious of it because when we looked at it closely it seemed to have been a composite picture,” Lyon said. “But what happens often with digital imagery is when you’re looking closely at low-resolution files you see things that are misleading, because of the way the pic is compressed or the size of the file.”

So they saw a small version thought it was something he stitched together? OK.

So the AP asked Green, a Florida businessman who’d completed the marathon and was watching other runners finish when the bombs went off, for a high-resolution version of his pic. The time stamp and the resolution convinced the photo department it was real.

This is saying they then realized the photo was not a "composite". It's not proof the photo was not altered. Time stamps are irrelevant because you can copy that over to any daughter image. It's a real photo alright except for that tiny mismatch in one area that is crucial to the government's case.
 

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
It shows what is ACTUALLY on the phone. What is lifted off the phone and filtered through authorities is less trustable. The picture quality has nothing to do with it. It's good enough to see there was something behind him.
You aren't even considering that their may be reflections or artifacts that aren't in the original full photo. You have to as it's reasonable to think that, so you have to eliminate that possibility.
How is it not possible to be reflections?
The prosecution can't say "Here he is missing his backpack as he ran away" and then have another version that shows he did have it.

That is not 'another version'. It is a photo of him holding up the photo on his phone.
If you think there is a clean unaltered version, then ask him to send you the original - that is the least you need to do, this as it is is not enough.
What about the OTHER backpack found in his room?
The one his friends tried to dispose of when they found it filled with fireworks?
What about it?
 

hemi

Senior Member.
So they saw a small version thought it was something he stitched together? OK.



This is saying they then realized the photo was not a "composite". It's not proof the photo was not altered. Time stamps are irrelevant because you can copy that over to any daughter image. It's a real photo alright except for that tiny mismatch in one area that is crucial to the government's case.

But why would Green photoshop the p
So they saw a small version thought it was something he stitched together? OK.



This is saying they then realized the photo was not a "composite". It's not proof the photo was not altered. Time stamps are irrelevant because you can copy that over to any daughter image. It's a real photo alright except for that tiny mismatch in one area that is crucial to the government's case.

And all the other mismatches I pointed out earlier, which you are ignoring.
 

Engonoceras

New Member
Which looks like a lot of grime and dust. Is it even conceivable to you that that's all it is?

Yes, TONS of dirt and fingerprints. But only things that are white in the base photo are repeating into the open air copy. The white-trimmed backpack is overloading the CCD in the camera and producing a white spike just like the white road stripes, the patch of the left guy's shirt, the white paper on the ground in the background, and the suspect's hat. A speck of dirt or grime is not going to cause the CCD to spike like that.
 

AluminumTheory

Senior Member.
It shows what is ACTUALLY on the phone. What is lifted off the phone and filtered through authorities is less trustable.
But how can you be certain that it was filtered by the authorities? Have you seen the "unaltered FBI version" in high quality?[/quote]
The picture quality has nothing to do with it. It's good enough to see there was something behind him. That's all the jury needs to see.
Picture quality has everything to do with it; when you're looking at a picture of a picture, you have no idea if what you're seeing in in the image or on the screen showing the image. What about all of the other white specs that Hemi pointed out? Why is the white spec behind Dzhokar a backpack and the others, not a backpack?
https://www.metabunk.org/attachments/specks-jpg.5235/

The jury needs to see both photos and make a decision for themselves.
The prosecution can't say "Here he is missing his backpack as he ran away" and then have another version that shows he did have it. What about the OTHER backpack found in his room?
He attended school at the time, maybe he had more than one backpack? I haven't seen it, but I'd be happy to look at it.

But as I stated a while back in this thread, we don't have a clear enough image of the seemingly exploded backpack, and it is torn to shreds. We don't know if we're looking at the inside or outside of the backpack or if it was even the one used to hold the bomb as nobody has confirmed that to be the case.
 

Landru

Moderator
Staff member
Actually it's a more accurate record of what's actually on the phone. It is more prima facie than what the FBI released.
It shows what is ACTUALLY on the phone. What is lifted off the phone and filtered through authorities is less trustable. The picture quality has nothing to do with it. It's good enough to see there was something behind him. That's all the jury needs to see.

The prosecution can't say "Here he is missing his backpack as he ran away" and then have another version that shows he did have it. What about the OTHER backpack found in his room?

I guessing that the prosecution is not hinging their case on this one photo. Why are you?
 

hemi

Senior Member.
And all the white specks, which don't appear in the hi-res version. Again...

specks.jpg
I count nine or ten specks in the actual photo that don't appear in the hi-res version. There's four other similar looking specks OUTSIDE of the photo area which MUST just be specks of dust or soot.

Is it conceivable, just maybe, that the white speck you're referring to is just another speck of dust like the one that appears at the bottom left of the iPhone casing?
 

JRBids

Senior Member.
It shows what is ACTUALLY on the phone. What is lifted off the phone and filtered through authorities is less trustable. The picture quality has nothing to do with it. It's good enough to see there was something behind him. That's all the jury needs to see.

The prosecution can't say "Here he is missing his backpack as he ran away" and then have another version that shows he did have it. What about the OTHER backpack found in his room?

Has the person who TOOK the photo said it was altered after he sent it to the paper?
 

Engonoceras

New Member
I don't know the timing regarding when Green first produced the photo and who he showed it to first. He could have handed the phone to the FBI first and probably like any investigation was told he couldn't do anything with the original file until it was "cleared" or could only email the approved version. We will never know how much of the chain of evidence here is true or not.
 
Last edited:

Engonoceras

New Member
Hemi, I'm sorry but none of your smaller specks cause the tell-tale CCD overload the suspect one has. To me it's caused by the white-gray trim (and top) on his backpack. We will have to agree to disagree.
 
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
A Why 9/11 Truthers Are Wrong About The Facts | (Part 1 w/ Mick West) 9/11 1
Mick West Why Michio Kaku is wrong about the UFO Burden of Proof & Navy Videos UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 38
MikeG Everything wrong with Hillary Clinton/Medical Conspiracies Conspiracy Theories 8
Efftup I might be wrong on this......... for once. General Discussion 10
Asylumkid Conrad Michael's $10,000 reward to prove him wrong about contrails. Contrails and Chemtrails 53
Mick West Debunked: The latest ISIS video of two Japanese men is a fake, shadows wrong [Perspective] Conspiracy Theories 109
cmnit Debunked: Tankerenemy - Contrails at 13,000 feet? [Wrong Plane] Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 15
CaptainBeefheart Debunked: Ottawa Shooting Hoax/Shadow's Prove Wrong Times Conspiracy Theories 13
derwoodii Debunked: Claim MH 17 wreckage engine fan is wrong size Flight MH17 2
vooke Was Inmarsat Wrong? Flight MH370 5
Cube Radio Debunked: The "Fat" Bin Laden Video. [Wrong aspect ratio] 9/11 74
AluminumTheory Conspiracists and Skeptics: (in your opinion) What is Wrong with the World Today? General Discussion 4
Cairenn Waco, TX, Fertilizer Explosion: Illustration of how the wrong information gets posted General Discussion 13
HappyMonday Leading Environmental Activist’s Confession: I Was Completely Wrong To Oppose GMO's Conspiracy Theories 44
Leifer TED Talk: When a "memory expert" get it wrong.... General Discussion 12
J Colored lights from airplane flight deck Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 70
TEEJ Virgin Atlantic Airbus - Different coloured contrails, Kernersville, North Carolina 16th March 2016 Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 13
Trailblazer Explained: Bands of colored "particles" in sky photos [digital camera artifact] Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 21
Mick West White, Grey, and Rainbow Colored CRJ-700 Contrail [Likely Intermixed Engine Configuration] Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 43
Alchemist Outstanding Suspicious Backpack / Craft PMC question Boston Marathon Bombings 5
B Backpack conspiracies Boston Marathon Bombings 1
Related Articles





















Related Articles

Top