Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Boston bombing: How internet detectives got it very wrong

page: 1
11
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 19 2013 @ 03:41 PM
link   

Boston bombing: How internet detectives got it very wrong


www.bbc.co.uk

For the past 48 hours, internet users have been working with each other to piece together clues about the culprits of the Boston bombings. The result? They got it wrong - and left innocent people fearing for their safety. Many are now asking: should "crowd-sourced investigations" be stopped?

Thousands have been tirelessly picking through the evidence - every piece of video footage, every photo, every eyewitness account they can get their hands on....

(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Apr, 19 2013 @ 03:41 PM
link   
So now the BBC is asking (calling) for internet detectives to be banned (not sure how this is possible.)

So except from a few people who were pictured and speculated about being the culprit, mostly people working on this from home have been correct. The police in Boston even had to accept that the two brothers they have now recently been in a shoot out with were in fact the suspects they were looking for.

This is of course completely ignoring the more important facts such as the drills, people mentioning 'controlled demolitions' just before the bombs went off or the suspicious Black Ops type guys who both had backpacks and wires.

So the BBC is now asking the question, probably on behalf of the authorities, whether you and I should have the ability to discuss these stories out in the open and come up with possibilities.

www.bbc.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Apr, 19 2013 @ 03:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by CyningSaeward


So now the BBC is asking (calling) for internet detectives to be banned (not sure how this is possible.)

So except from a few people who were pictured and speculated about being the culprit, mostly people working on this from home have been correct. The police in Boston even had to accept that the two brothers they have now recently been in a shoot out with were in fact the suspects they were looking for.

This is of course completely ignoring the more important facts such as the drills, people mentioning 'controlled demolitions' just before the bombs went off or the suspicious Black Ops type guys who both had backpacks and wires.

So the BBC is now asking the question, probably on behalf of the authorities, whether you and I should have the ability to discuss these stories out in the open and come up with possibilities.

www.bbc.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)



well we're the ones that search the "conspiracy" side of things...

guess thats just not in the topic for the agenda today



posted on Apr, 19 2013 @ 03:47 PM
link   
This criticism seems patently unfair, mainly because the authorities had way more information than the general public had. They were also withholding info and images from "internet detectives". How would anyone be able to reasonably expect the public find the suspects knowing the above fact? This report was just pointless and spiteful.
edit on 19-4-2013 by ForwardDrift because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 19 2013 @ 03:51 PM
link   
I think the dude they have in a photo of "the track coach" standing on the exact spot that the bomb went off is enough evidence for me. Even more damage to the story is the photo without his backpack, arms folded in front that seemed to get erased from the internet which I grabbed before it did.





posted on Apr, 19 2013 @ 03:54 PM
link   
www.abovetopsecret.com...
this really looks like
drill baby drill

pics showing drill


thanks to MYKAH
looks like the ones wrong arn't the ones you might think

thanks Mykah


Originally posted by Mykah
Hello ATS community.

This is the stuff they don't want us to see. Please share this information with everyone you know.
(Warning, some of these pictures are gruesome at first glance. I assure you though that the blood and gore is all fake, I can prove it simply by informed medical observation.)

I've studied and graduated EMT-B certification with the state of Oregon. I've been on calls with heavy arterial bleeds, internal bleeding, fatalities, doa's. I am speaking from direct personal experience with severe trauma.

Here is a telling photograph of the amputee actor. I encourage readers to view the photo side by side with my analysis.


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. The human body holds 5 to 6 LITERS of blood. If that really happened you would see blood EVERYWHERE, the guy would be drenched in it. You would also see what's called arterial spurtting from the injury. Most likely he would vomit after turning ghost white from shock, then turning delirious or passing out. As for the "tourniquet"...

Its not even tied off, its suspended via gravity, which would literally do nothing to an arterial sever. There's no pressure applied. There's no knott with a turn stick for leverage. You can clearly see a gap in the nonexistent wrap job on his left inner thigh (left anterior proximal for you experts) His hands have no blood on them. There's no blood on the ground. The color in his hands and lips shows good circulation.

This is an actor. This is staged. How did they pull it off though? I can show you.

Here in frame six on the left we see the the man with a hood setting up the fake leg wound prosthetics. His attention and hands are right there. The woman is acting as a shield covering what's happening.
Frame 6


Here in frame eight the prosthetics are in place. Amidst all this chaos seconds after the explosion the hooded man takes the time to put on his sunglasses which is a signal.
Frame 8


Here in frame nine with sunglasses now on the hooded man and the woman make eye contact, signal received.
Frame 9


In frame eleven after recieving the go signal the woman makes an open hand gesture the direction both of them are looking, signaling the staged injuries are in place for cameras. The prone amputee raises his left prosthetic injury into the air over the woman's shoulder. No blood is present. The bone is dry, no blood on his leg above the knee, no blood on the woman, no arterial spurt, nothing.
Frame 11


Here in frame fourteen the woman turns her head right but is still holding up that open palm signal with her left hand. The hooded man again busies himself pouring fake blood on the pavement behind the woman. The amputee has both fake injuries in the air now. There is still no blood on his legs, his skin above the injury is clean and dry.
Frame 14


Frame twenty, the fake blood and prosthetics are in place. The amputee gives an open hand gesture along with the woman to bring the cameras in. We're now twenty frames in and still not a drop of fresh blood from a double leg amputation. His legs are dry, the woman is dry and unscathed. Both are making the same hand gesture.
Frame 20


These are actors. This is staged. It was flash powder. There was no crock pot nail bomb. There are no bombers, only patsy. If your looking for a gunman look at the Army in the streets of Boston. Share this knowledge with everyone.
edit on 19-4-2013 by Mykah because: formatting
edit on 19-4-2013 by Danbones because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 19 2013 @ 03:56 PM
link   
and what morons are taking what internet investigators that hold no badges or training seriously as fact.. Since when is everything on the internet true...

Who cares what people talk about online, just because someone says something may have done something doesn't mean everyone should track down and kill that person with no proofs..

Get a job. ban the internet then it wont happen anymore.. lets just ban everything, everyone should be slaves, go to work go home and just sit and stare at the idiotbox and watch gov programming and get your daily dose of mind control.



posted on Apr, 19 2013 @ 03:57 PM
link   
reply to post by CyningSaeward
 




Boston bombing: How internet detectives got it very wrong


Not sure any internet citizens got anything wrongs except maybe in personal opinion and, to date, there's still a lot of elbow room.

The time? The 21st centuiry in the wonderful age of 'hope'.
The crime? Using their heads to examine the evidence available.
The punishment? Maybe more laws restricting more freedoms.
The sin? Daring to even talk about this openly...

Richard Nixon, you turd... I actually miss you now.



posted on Apr, 19 2013 @ 04:02 PM
link   
Why should we be surprised?

Remember when Hillary Clinton said this????




posted on Apr, 19 2013 @ 04:03 PM
link   
Very, very interesting find sir. I'd like to see more.



posted on Apr, 19 2013 @ 04:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Danbones

Here is a telling photograph of the amputee actor. I encourage readers to view the photo side by side with my analysis.


There's no blood on the ground. The color in his hands and lips shows good circulation.

This is an actor. This is staged. How did they pull it off though? I can show you.

Here in frame six on the left we see the the man with a hood setting up the fake leg wound prosthetics. His attention and hands are right there. The woman is acting as a shield covering what's happening.
Frame 6


Here in frame eight the prosthetics are in place. Amidst all this chaos seconds after the explosion the hooded man takes the time to put on his sunglasses which is a signal.
Frame 8


Here in frame nine with sunglasses now on the hooded man and the woman make eye contact, signal received.
Frame 9


Frame twenty, the fake blood and prosthetics are in place. The amputee gives an open hand gesture along with the woman to bring the cameras in. We're now twenty frames in and still not a drop of fresh blood from a double leg amputation. His legs are dry, the woman is dry and unscathed. Both are making the same hand gesture.
Frame 20


These are actors. This is staged. It was flash powder. There was no crock pot nail bomb. There are no bombers, only patsy. If your looking for a gunman look at the Army in the streets of Boston. Share this knowledge with everyone.


Awesome revelations, frames, and implication. US is under attack and theres no shortage of "crisis actors" to partake in these live/controlled "drills" that turn into terror, manhunts, manufactured foreign crises.



posted on Apr, 19 2013 @ 04:04 PM
link   
Seeing as how this forms a part of what has made me question my own degree of time and commitment to blogging in general in recent days, I'd like to offer an opinion.

I believe there is a very critical point and even necessary role for citizen journalists and amateur investigators. First, amateurs aren't constrained by the same 'don't ya know it can't be done??' thinking that professional training can pigeon hole people into. Second, professionals have deadlines, priorities and political concerns among just a few reasons they cannot or do not look as hard, long and close as amateurs are able to.

Having said that....

I think the benefits and necessity of the citizen journalist efforts turn almost criminally negligent when it passes from the examination of public imagery in general ways for what happened or may have happened in an event ...to specifically naming and singling out individual people to loudly proclaim and outright declare as 'Suspects' or worse. When the specific people have not been named or even suggested by media or other more established sources? It's where people can be hurt or killed in the real world by mis-identification on a thing they had absolutely nothing to do with.

.....With Boston in particular, a 17 year old boy was singled out and targeted in large part, by social media and citizen journalists for his likeness to be spread internationally as an implied suspect or more. News stories have recorded the extreme stress and emotional pain the boy and his family have understandably endured from that declaration by people who have no training or authority to make such a claim to an individual person.

It's only a question of time before crossing the line from investigating events (a good thing) crosses the line to fingering suspects (This isn't a Scooby Doo cartoon and we ain't Sherlock Holmes out here
) where other citizens who believe that, find them first and kill them in the sincere belief they were doing the right thing ...based on what never had more than pure guesswork and "harmless" speculation to feed it.

That's my two cents ...and by no means is it just one site or even several. It's all over. Although I do wish some sites would stand a cut above and apart in seeing such action is never tolerated for the real life harm it can bring.

*After the BBC reported the city-wide evacuation of Isfahan, Iran recently ...which never happened, and helped carry a story about US planes hitting an Iranian refinery on the border last year (Which DID happen but years before it was being presented as such), they have housecleaning of their own to do in journalist ethics and accuracy to reporting, IMO.



posted on Apr, 19 2013 @ 04:06 PM
link   
though i saw this general thing and got blasted for suggesting it wendsday
please all credit to MYKAH



posted on Apr, 19 2013 @ 04:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


look up



posted on Apr, 19 2013 @ 04:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Danbones
 


Yes, I know the 17yr old I'm talking about is in one of the pics on this thread. I'm not pointing it out more than you have there for the same reason I think it borders on the criminally negligent to have ever highlighted the kid on speculation to start with.

I absolutely don't mean any specific person in my comments either...despite our energetic disagreements this week on threads. Good folks can disagree, indeed. I lost my temper once here in a thread and I got my paw slapped hard for it. I deserved it and fed the problem rather than 'Alert'ing the problem as we're all supposed to do. We all have moments of bad judgement, no doubt. Of course, when bad judgement includes branding an innocent person? Our bad moment could someday lead to their last days ...without ever even meaning to have caused that outcome.
edit on 19-4-2013 by Wrabbit2000 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 19 2013 @ 04:17 PM
link   
The internet is a powerful thing, and conspiracy tards spreading mis info for their own personal gain is just wrong!

When it gets to the point that innocent people are fearing for their life i think something has to be done to stop it, imagine if it was you or a member of your family. There are plenty of sick twisted nutters on the internet willing to do anything to prove a point or gain fame and notoriety. Its only a matter of time before someone is killed or seriously injured because of someones internet claims.

If you spread lies about someone (deformation of character) you should be punished as it can effect their lives profoundly. If someone takes their life because of a lie attached to their name online the people spreading it should be held accountable.



posted on Apr, 19 2013 @ 04:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
Seeing as how this forms a part of what has made me question my own degree of time and commitment to blogging in general in recent days, I'd like to offer an opinion.

I believe there is a very critical point and even necessary role for citizen journalists and amateur investigators. First, amateurs aren't constrained by the same 'don't ya know it can't be done??' thinking that professional training can pigeon hole people into. Second, professionals have deadlines, priorities and political concerns among just a few reasons they cannot or do not look as hard, long and close as amateurs are able to.

Having said that....

I think the benefits and necessity of the citizen journalist efforts turn almost criminally negligent when it passes from the examination of public imagery in general ways for what happened or may have happened in an event ...to specifically naming and singling out individual people to loudly proclaim and outright declare as 'Suspects' or worse. When the specific people have not been named or even suggested by media or other more established sources? It's where people can be hurt or killed in the real world by mis-identification on a thing they had absolutely nothing to do with.

.....With Boston in particular, a 17 year old boy was singled out and targeted in large part, by social media and citizen journalists for his likeness to be spread internationally as an implied suspect or more. News stories have recorded the extreme stress and emotional pain the boy and his family have understandably endured from that declaration by people who have no training or authority to make such a claim to an individual person.

It's only a question of time before crossing the line from investigating events (a good thing) crosses the line to fingering suspects (This isn't a Scooby Doo cartoon and we ain't Sherlock Holmes out here
) where other citizens who believe that, find them first and kill them in the sincere belief they were doing the right thing ...based on what never had more than pure guesswork and "harmless" speculation to feed it.

That's my two cents ...and by no means is it just one site or even several. It's all over. Although I do wish some sites would stand a cut above and apart in seeing such action is never tolerated for the real life harm it can bring.

*After the BBC reported the city-wide evacuation of Isfahan, Iran recently ...which never happened, and helped carry a story about US planes hitting an Iranian refinery on the border last year (Which DID happen but years before it was being presented as such), they have housecleaning of their own to do in journalist ethics and accuracy to reporting, IMO.


I know some people were wrongly singled out, however 4Chan and others have apologised for this. I know its not ideal, but what are the alternatives? For us to have the internet restricted to a shopping platform and to have us dribbling watching the mainstream news?

The Boston 'investigators' may have got that wrong, but they have repeatedly highlighted discrepancies with the official story which I'm sure most of us would not have picked up on had we simply watched the 10'o'clock news, I am however somewhat concerned though that this small victory for the internet will ultimately lead to some sort of restriction of internet free-speech. Again.



posted on Apr, 19 2013 @ 04:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


I enjoy our debates wrabbit very much you are a challenging dude
just what we all need around here


i just ment check the emt analysis of photos above your second last post



posted on Apr, 19 2013 @ 04:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by AmberLeaf
The internet is a powerful thing, and conspiracy tards spreading mis info for their own personal gain is just wrong!

When it gets to the point that innocent people are fearing for their life i think something has to be done to stop it, imagine if it was you or a member of your family. There are plenty of sick twisted nutters on the internet willing to do anything to prove a point or gain fame and notoriety. Its only a matter of time before someone is killed or seriously injured because of someones internet claims.

If you spread lies about someone (deformation of character) you should be punished as it can effect their lives profoundly. If someone takes their life because of a lie attached to their name online the people spreading it should be held accountable.



Yes, if an individual goes on some vendetta to get someone named and shamed when they are innocent then yes they should be tried for libel. However, this is not what the BBC is discussing, its discussing internet restrictions for all.



posted on Apr, 19 2013 @ 04:31 PM
link   
reply to post by CyningSaeward
 


I agree with you in my fear of overreaction to a serious issue bringing regulation into a situation that regulation cannot fix. It's not a lack of rules or laws. Libel and Defamation laws already exist and can crush someone in civil court for being on the wrong side. Even media can be slammed by that, if malice in reporting can be shown over pure negligence pr lack of due diligence.

No....I see no place for formal laws or regulations into an area that, by definition, is above and beyond most forms of enforcement on the best day and can just adjust a bit to bypass new attempts. I think it comes to a basic matter of self control and personal judgement.

4chan is an Image Board, for others who don't know, among other things. Like ATS with an image rather than text content focus and of course, much different topic focus. I think they're far more busy fighting with what I first heard of 4chan being known for, Child Pornography, in their limited staff for policing their site. Something I credit them with fighting far harder than many similar sites ...but blaming them would be suggesting they personally had liability. Does ATS management have personal liability for what is posted here? I don't know in court...but it's absurd on the face to suggest, right?

Now how do we roll back even months, let alone years to times when personal judgement would have stayed the hand of an internet sleuth before putting up highly detailed imagery of 'who knows who that is?' because a theory pursued in just such a way and looked at in just the right light may suggest they could have ..... you know? I DO hope no one tries passing laws tho. Nothing but worse problems lay down that path.





new topics

top topics



 
11
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join