The Wrong Colored Backpack

Soulfly

Banned
Banned
It doesn't seem likely that he would squeeze his way to the rail place the bag over it and then be able to get away fast enough. The complaint says he stands at the bag until the first explosion then walks away. Being caught near the rail doesn't make for a speedy get away.
 

deirdre

Senior Member
not that it matters but my niece found these. she says the strap design is seen on a 2009 "motocross" bag and the color like Eco back then was "sand". which works for me, my Kirby Eco was a bit too deep. she couldn't find pic of the Kirby style from back then though.

sand.JPG moto 1950.JPG
 

qed

Senior Member
While I shall be siding with the defense until after the trial, as a true skeptic, I shall highlight evidence for the prosecution when I see it.

As I see it, two questions have been raised in this thread.
  1. The backpack in the FBI image does not match the backpack we see on Dzhorkar's back?
  2. The image showing Dzhorkar without his backpack has been photo-shopped?
With respect to the first question, @deirdre has proved, to my satisfaction, that the backpack in the FBI image could indeed be the same as the one we see on Dzhorkar earlier.

Regarding the second, the image on the hand held cellphone tells us absolutely nothing, and the original image shows no signs of having been doctored.
  • So the evidence does show
  • Dzhorkar walking to the crime scene with a backpack,
  • Dzhorkar walking away without that backpack,
  • and further, there does appear on the road an exploded backpack that could be that of Dzhorkar.
 

qed

Senior Member
If you're siding with the defense, then you think he is innocent? Why?
I do not know he is innocent and I do not know if he is guilty. That is what the trial is for. I want to see him proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt or found innocent.

Do you have proof beyond reasonable doubt that he is guilty? Or are you siding with no one? If you are siding with no one, then so will I.

[edit: I think I am being unreasonable. The appropriate question would be do you think he is guilty? And if so why?]
 
Last edited:

Soulfly

Banned
Banned
As I see it, two questions have been raised in this thread.
  1. The backpack in the FBI image does not match the backpack we see on Dzhorkar's back?
The picture you're talking about is not an officially released FBI photo, I repeat NOT AN OFFICIALLY RELEASED FBI PHOTO. It is a leaked photo and no official has said this is the backpack that contained a bomb.
 

qed

Senior Member
The picture you're talking about is not an officially released FBI photo, I repeat NOT AN OFFICIALLY RELEASED FBI PHOTO. It is a leaked photo and no official has said this is the backpack that contained a bomb.
Well it is not inconsistent with the backpack we see on Dzhorkar.
 

Soulfly

Banned
Banned
Well it is not inconsistent with the backpack we see on Dzhorkar.
Or the number of backpacks that were other peoples backs at the time. We just don't know and it's all speculation. It's something to latch onto for some.
 

deirdre

Senior Member
the question of if he's guilty is irrelevant and off topic. I don't think, qed, its about proving dzorkah guilty, this thread is about proving the police aren't purposefully or unreasonably lying (doctoring photos etc) about this particular issue.
 

qed

Senior Member
This thread is about proving the police aren't purposefully or unreasonably lying (doctoring photos etc) about this particular issue.
And I agree that they are not "purposefully or unreasonably lying (doctoring photos etc) about this particular issue".
 

ColtCabana

Senior Member
While I shall be siding with the defense until after the trial, as a true skeptic, I shall highlight evidence for the prosecution when I see it.

As I see it, two questions have been raised in this thread.
  1. The backpack in the FBI image does not match the backpack we see on Dzhorkar's back?
  2. The image showing Dzhorkar without his backpack has been photo-shopped?
With respect to the first question, @deirdre has proved, to my satisfaction, that the backpack in the FBI image could indeed be the same as the one we see on Dzhorkar earlier.

Regarding the second, the image on the hand held cellphone tells us absolutely nothing, and the original image shows no signs of having been doctored.
  • So the evidence does show
  • Dzhorkar walking to the crime scene with a backpack,
  • Dzhorkar walking away without that backpack,
  • and further, there does appear on the road an exploded backpack that could be that of Dzhorkar.
You're writing this as if you've seen and are privy to all of the information that has been released. Do you really think what we see is all the evidence that they really have?
 

Pete Tar

Senior Member
I was wrong. I am siding with no one. I will interrogate all arguments.
Okay, I was confused by the 'true skeptic' comment that implied you were making an ideological decision to defend him as innocent despite the evidence to the contrary. Didn't seem to have anything to do with skepticism.
 

deirdre

Senior Member
You're writing this as if you've seen and are privy to all of the information that has been released. Do you really think what we see is all the evidence that they really have?
we need at least 18 unbiased people so we can fill out a jury and convict him. qed is a great candidate for the jury.
 
View attachment 5283
Here is a image of him with what appears to be his backpack on the ground.

Adding.. I didn't put the circles. The blue circle is Martin Richard. I believe Krystle Cambell is three over to the right in the image, the red circle is going over her face.

Crystal Cambell pretends to die at the first bombing. This picture you show is at the 2nd bombing. The young woman in blue shorts and blue sweatshirt is also seen here running along side the 19 yr old after the bombing. She is an alphabet agent.
FakeMomb.jpg
 
no one in soulflys pic is wearing that sweatshirt.
Yes they are. Same Sun glasses, Same shoes, Same Socks, Same Shorts, Same Shirt. Both her arms are infront of her chest and the writing is not visible. Its the exact same woman. Standing next to the "dead" kid and later running alongside the patsy. CIA all the way. They knew exactly where the patsy was before during and after the bombing. He never left their sight.
 

deirdre

Senior Member
Yes they are. Same Sun glasses, Same shoes, Same Socks, Same Shorts, Same Shirt. Both her arms are infront of her chest and the writing is not visible. Its the exact same woman. Standing next to the "dead" kid and later running alongside the patsy. CIA all the way. They knew exactly where the patsy was before during and after the bombing. He never left their sight.
ok I see who you mean. yea I guess its possible she tied her hair up just after the standing by the fence pic and then left her friends in the dust when the first bomb went off. but how does that equate to shes cia?


edit PS this is (cia theory) off topic. I know youre responding to another poster but you should put it in another thread. just for ease of finding information
 
Last edited:

NoParty

Senior Member
Okay, I'm literally months late to this thread, but I had a couple of observations:

A) Yes, I think the description of both backpacks being "black" is odd. Deidre has some interesting opinions
re. Dzhokhar's pack color...and the conspiracy people routinely insist it's "white," but it looks mostly grey to me.
In the big picture, though, I'm guessing it won't be a big deal. Maybe someone making notes just assumed that Dzhokhar's
pack matched Tamerlan's...maybe it looks darker when the part that rides against the back is exposed...who knows?

B) Bigger issue for me--while getting caught up on 6 pages of posts--was that Engonoceras was dogmatic that
the FBI must have photoshopped the backpack off of the David Green pic of Dzhokhar they released,
while never answering the multiple debunkers' questions about why the backpack isn't in the pic
Green sent to the media. Engonoceras never claimed that Green himself dishonestly altered the pic,
nor could he (with a straight face) claim that Green gave the original hi-res pic to the FBI,
they manipulated it, then sent it back to Green, who sent the Associated Press the the 'faked' version
to be authenticated, rather than the original...and the professionals at AP couldn't spot the alteration. Whew!

My point is that I think Engonoceras, while well-intentioned, had already made his mind up
(he did say that he'd previously e-mailed the bespeckled picture of a cell phone screen to Tsarnaev's defense team)
and eventually realized that answering the
"Why did David Green's pic to the AP also show Dzhokhar with no pack?"
question was not going to help his position. Still, the lack of an answer to that question is significant.
 

ColtCabana

Senior Member
If the backpack really is an issue with the crime, then it'll be brought up in court, I imagine. I think it's kind of funny how people think they're better suited at gathering evidence than lawyers are...
 
1.) My question remains; how do you know this isn't Tamerlan's bag? The location of Dzhokhar's doesn't matter.

2.) In regards to your bolded part, if you hear this out of the mouth of anybody who believes Boston was a false flag, it proves that they lack critical thinking skills and have no idea how the justice system works. There is video evidence of them planting the bomb. Why haven't they released it? Because they're building a case. Ever gone to jury duty? They basically tell you that the only evidence you can consider is the evidence presented to you IN court. You cannot go on the internet and research it for yourself. They're not releasing the tape because they don't want to compromise the jury. If they release it, then they won't be able to use it in court to effectively sway the jury their way; and that is the most damning piece of evidence! It makes perfect sense!

@ColtCabana

Fair enough. What about after the case is over and one with and there are no appeals left? Then what excuse do you provide for why thats not cause for concern? What about when its sevarl years or even a decade later and the response from the police or other law enforcement agency is that they can't release the footage?
 

Bruno D.

Senior Member
@ColtCabana

Fair enough. What about after the case is over and one with and there are no appeals left? Then what excuse do you provide for why thats not cause for concern? What about when its sevarl years or even a decade later and the response from the police or other law enforcement agency is that they can't release the footage?
And if they indeed release the footage and it's exactly like they told? Would you say you would believe them or would you say that they edited the video to make it show exactly what they told, and you still don't believe them?
 

ColtCabana

Senior Member
@ColtCabana

Fair enough. What about after the case is over and one with and there are no appeals left? Then what excuse do you provide for why thats not cause for concern? What about when its sevarl years or even a decade later and the response from the police or other law enforcement agency is that they can't release the footage?
As Pete Tar stated, you're asking for a response to something that hasn't accrued yet. Thus, I am unable to answer due to that.
 

Engonoceras

New Member
My point is that I think Engonoceras, while well-intentioned, had already made his mind up
(he did say that he'd previously e-mailed the bespeckled picture of a cell phone screen to Tsarnaev's defense team)
and eventually realized that answering the
"Why did David Green's pic to the AP also show Dzhokhar with no pack?"
question was not going to help his position. Still, the lack of an answer to that question is significant.
There is loose filth on the screen AND there are white spots burned into the image on the interviewer's camera image caused by overloading the imaging device because bright reflective objects often do that in digital photos. That's what I see and that's what I recognized right away. Dzhokhar has an overload flare behind him in the exact spot his white backpack would be if he was running and consistent with where he was carrying it in the other photos. The flare is consistent with the flares caused by white objects on other people's clothing AND white trash on the ground in the original. The flare behind him is just as much an overload flare as the other overload flares and not a piece of dirt on the outside of the camera like has been already pointed out. Anything originally white in the image on the held up iphone has been flared on the image the interviewer took.

That's my honest opinion of the image I am seeing. If you people can't see the difference then I can't help you. I left the discussion because I saw it (expectedly) go else where as a diversion from the actual image. I'm not gonna be rolled off into the weeds. NoParty, you don't see the flare as a flare so your assumption is meaningless. I can't give the answer you want and I sure as hell don't feel as though I have been "foiled" or "debunked". Dirt and fingerprints is NOT camera CCD flaring and vice-versa. Maybe y'all need glasses or a better monitor.

This tiny topic is only one of many obvious discrepancies and debunked official stories around this event.

Have a nice day, nothing to see move along people!
 
Last edited by a moderator:

NoParty

Senior Member
There is loose filth on the screen AND there are white spots burned into the image on the interviewer's camera image caused by overloading the imaging device because bright reflective objects often do that in digital photos. That's what I see and that's what I recognized right away. Dzhokhar has an overload flare behind him in the exact spot his white backpack would be if he was running and consistent with where he was carrying it in the other photos. The flare is consistent with the flares caused by white objects on other people's clothing AND white trash on the ground in the original. The flare behind him is just as much an overload flare as the other overload flares and not a piece of dirt on the outside of the camera like has been already pointed out. Anything originally white in the image on the held up iphone has been flared on the image the interviewer took.

That's my honest opinion of the image I am seeing. If you people can't see the difference then I can't help you. I left the discussion because I saw it (expectedly) go else where as a diversion from the actual image. I'm not gonna be rolled off into the weeds. NoParty, you don't see the flare as a flare so your assumption is meaningless. I can't give the answer you want and I sure as hell don't feel as though I have been "foiled" or "debunked". Dirt and fingerprints is NOT camera CCD flaring and vice-versa. Maybe y'all need glasses or a better monitor.

This tiny topic is only one of many obvious discrepancies and debunked official stories around this event.

Have a nice day, nothing to see move along people!
Ummm...okay...state your position then say "Case closed, I'm outta here!" Smoooooooooth :rolleyes:

Anyway, Colt is right: if there's anything at all to your opinion, Dzhok's lawyers will exploit
it when he gets his day in court. :)
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Trigger Hippie

Senior Member
The flare behind him is just as much an overload flare as the other overload flares and not a piece of dirt on the outside of the camera like has been already pointed out. Anything originally white in the image on the held up iphone has been flared on the image the interviewer took.
Surface dirt can absolutely cause bright white spots in an image. It is more than likely the explanation for the "flare" behind Dzhokhar.

I uploaded the original high definition image to my iPad and took the following photograph. Every speck, smear and splotch on the iPad's surface shows up in amazing brilliant detail. When you take a photo of a photo like this, you simply can't draw conclusions about which of the white specks are part of the original image, and which are surface dirt.

keep_sml.jpg

How would you explain the huge white speck in the middle of this photograph? Is it surface dirt... or is it part of the the original image?

IMG_1125.png


Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. So if you are going to claim some kind of grand conspiracy, you'll need more than high definition images of blurry bright white smears.
 
Last edited:

NoParty

Senior Member
Surface dirt can absolutely cause bright white spots in an image. It is more than likely the explanation for the "flare" behind Dzhokhar.

I uploaded the original high definition image to my iPad and took the following photograph. Every speck, smear and splotch on the iPad's surface shows up in amazing brilliant detail. When you take a photo of a photo like this, you simply can't draw conclusions about which of the white specks are part of the original image, and which are surface dirt.

View attachment 9305

How would you explain the huge white speck in the middle of this photograph? Is it surface dirt... or is it part of the the original image?

View attachment 9307


Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. So if you are going to claim some kind of grand conspiracy, you'll need more than high definition images of blurry bright white smears.
Probably also a good idea not to regularly eat your cottage cheese right off the tablet, Trigger... :p
 

Trigger Hippie

Senior Member
Probably also a good idea not to regularly eat your cottage cheese right off the tablet, Trigger... :p
Ya... looks gross, I know. That's what is so surprising. The ipad looked relatively clean. I wasn't even sure this little test would work.

The lighting brings out every little piece of cottage cheese, I guess. If the ISO is set to a high value, then more noise is introduced into the image.
 

ColtCabana

Senior Member
Anyway, Colt is right: if there's anything at all to your opinion, Dzhok's lawyers will exploit
it when he gets his day in court. :)
Thank you. I still maintain that if any evidence was so damning against the government setting this up, then why hasn't Tsarnaev's lawyers said anything like that to the public? Why aren't they arguing that he's entirely innocent?
 

Efftup

Senior Member
Sometimes I can see why visitors here think that regulars are all just sheeple defenders of "The Official Story".
I am surprised by how many regular debunkers did indeed try and call a white ish backpack black.

HOWEVER, finding out why someone officially called the backpacks black when they weren't is far more useful than saying "This thing is wrong, therefore the whole thing is a fake false flag attack" which is a HUGE stretch from that one point.
People often seem to post in here with CTs talking about "compelling evidence" and then never post it. I certainly know it is impossible to put fake injury makeup on someone in a matter of minutes. So unless all the "victims" had identical twin doubles, then I guess it was real.
 
Top