Were There Three Bombers in Boston?

Originally posted by whatzshaken

I see the dark line you're talking about now. That's the suspect's shadows being cast by the headlights of the SUV.

the black line I am referring to runs in the opposite direction from the shadow being cast by the suspect in front of the SUV.

The black line runs from the asphalt to the curb up on the grass towards the house.

The suspects shadow or lack there of that you may be referring to runs towards the tree.

edit on 26-4-2013 by whatzshaken because: wording

Those two sideways V's?? That's the headlight. Here's a reference picture for you, obviously at a different angle but would look the same if viewed from the same angle.



There you have it.

Here is what I believe happened.

One radical islamist started hating this country which gave him asylum from the hard life his family had. He somehow turned into an extremists (maybe because of his friend Misha, an Armenian). (subjective at this point)

He started reading a radical Islam site, which taught him the specifics about bomb making (Evidence: Obtained by an IP address his computer went to).

He then convinced his brother to participate in the act (subjective).

They targeted the boston marathon for its target rich environment (observation based off terrorist tactics)

They packed the bombs into backpacks and went to the boston marathon (evidence: bombs being placed, bombs found in car,)

They set the bombs off (evidence: they came with backpacks and left without, they had more bombs later as seen in the picture above in watertown)

They went into hiding, and were roused by the release of the FBI photos

Once their pictures were released they believed they didn't have much time, they hijacked a vehicle to drive to NYC to go to times square based on its also a densely packed population (FBI released)

The car hijacked needed gas, the man escaped, and they were flustered, new the hammer was coming down.

They tried to hide again

Got caught up in a watertown firefight (fact, with evidence supported. Also supports the fact they were in fact the boston bombers due to the fact they had explosives and firepower, they mentioned it to the man they hijacked (an asian man), You can clearly see the brothers with guns above this is evidence you provided.)

Brother one dies, and brother two escapes in the above photos (picture evidence above)

Suspect 1 dies in the firefight, Suspect 2 goes into hiding.

Suspect 2 evades capture, shelter in place is enforced

Area appears clear, or its a clever rouse, you decide, Man sees the covering of his boat is opened. THinks its weird and reports it.

Suspect 2 is found, and kept alive.

BTW the OP bailed because he knew this thread was an epic fail. He'll probs start another one. Dont worry, Ill disprove that one too. I stand against the propagation of disinformation

reply to post by Ender58


As do I. If he starts another one I'll probably be drawn in to disprove it as well...as for now, I'm done responding about light sources, shadows and reflections.

There has been a lot of derailment in this thread..

Not everyone arguing against my points has been unreasonable, but some have. For those at this stage who might not know what the original points were, here is a synopsis plus some additional thoughts.

Despite persistent opposition, I am more convinced than ever that a third bomber was involved with the bombings in Boston.

In threads on 9/11 heavy shill activity has been suspected when all kinds of inane comments and derailment have been present in the threads. The presence of such things in this thread makes me begin to wonder if the third bomber is someone the government does not want the public to know about, but perhaps that is just standard ATS style vigilance.

The rush to pre-judge Dzhokhar Tsarnaev and the effort being made by American officials to conduct his trial in the media does however lend support to this notion.

I think the government wants people to focus on Dzhokhar and his Chechen relatives and their backstory, to focus on the victims of the bombing and to forget about inquiring too deeply into the details of the events, particularly the logistics of how it happened.

Unfortunately, inquiring into the details is what we do on ATS, when we are allowed to do it.

Here is a recap of the main points, plus some things that were not said in the thread.

Originally posted by ipsedixit:

The following are some screen grabs from the surveillance video footage released by the FBI, showing the Tsarnaev brothers on the day of the Boston Marathon bombing. They are all from the same scenes showing Dzhokhar Tsarnaev following his brother along the sidewalk, carrying his backpack slung over his right shoulder.



The first shot from the back is there to show the strap that goes over the right shoulder of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev clearly. The rest of the shots are various views from the left side showing how Dzhokhar's right shoulder appears to someone looking at him from his left side.

In every shot we know that he is carrying the backpack, because this is a video sequence in which the backpack is clearly visible most of the time, although, in one or two of the shots a casual viewer might not think he had the backpack with him because it is hidden behind his body as he walks.

However, it is possible if one looks carefully, in every shot, to see an indication that the backpack strap is there, even in the center shot at the bottom of the set.

Here is a section cut out of the David Green photograph of Dzhokhar leaving the scene of the bombing along with many others who left the scene in the aftermath. Dzhokhar is in a very small portion of the original photo taken by Mr. Green, which was a panorama street scene of people fleeing from the bombings.

www.usatoday.com...

Note the highlights indicating signs of what I believe is the strap of the backpack over his shoulder.



Some people see this, others do not, or explain it other ways. I have no problem with that. I'm just putting my point of view forward.

I have a scenario which might be what actually happened the day of the bombing.

I think that there were three bombers. I think that Tamerlan may have left his bomb, but I think that Dzhokhar had second thoughts and left the scene of the bombings with his backpack containing his bomb.

I believe this bomb was the one they then used in the shootout in Watertown.

Currently, the government in public statements, is trying to tell people that the brothers intended to drive to New York and use the bomb there. I think these statements are either examples of inept government credulity or an attempt to conceal the involvement of a third bomber in Boston.


The idea of a third bomber is also reinforced by photos of a suspicious bag in front of the barricades at the site of the explosion of the second bomb that went off that day. The photos also show a woman lowering a purse onto that bag, outside the barricade and leaving it on top of the bag.

(The photos have been text edited to show the bomb location and to remove an irrelevant comment by the uploader of the photo, who also has other comments on the photos which are descriptive but in a comical style. (Apologies for that.)

These photos were added to the thread by one of the serious participants in it, thesmokingman. He did not put the comments on the photos and neither did I. Here is his source citation:i.imgur.com...)



The bag and the purse were in the exact location thought to be the spot where the second bomb was detonated. This is the bomb that the government has charged Dzhokhar Tsarnaev with planting.

For Dzhokhar Tsarnaev to have planted the bomb in that location he would have had to take it out of his backpack, assuming that's where it was, and at least to have placed it first on the ground inside the barricade, as shown in the photos. This might have happened but it was not the procedure used with the other bomb, which was left in its backpack.

Whoever left this bomb undoubtedly intended for it to go off inside the barricade, but was thwarted to some extent, probably by someone in the crowd who decided, innocently, to move it outside the barricade, out of people's way.

What I have presented supports the idea of the involvement of a third person who either assisted the Tsarnaev brothers or who was operating completely independent of them.

This is a serious theory that is backed up by strong circumstantial evidence.

If anyone who has been paying attention, with the evidence, thinking outside the box, we should so thankfully be in possession that Cabalis has provided us with, please chime in, other wise I will use these photos against him, showing corruption.

reply to post by whatzshaken

This is an off topic post, like most of your other posts. Mods should be deleting posts that have nothing to do with the topic of whether there was a third bomber in Boston.

You should start your own thread on the topic that you have brought into this thread.

Dude, you seem like a nice guy, but you need to start your own thread. Please.

reply to post by ipsedixit


My friend,

I apologize if the issue at hand seems to digress for you, but I thought the topic of hand was proving there were more than two(2) bomber in the attack on Boston?

If this is the case, then the more holes we can point out in the story, the more information we can share, sharing is caring, which will help the cause.

Originally posted by whatzshaken
If this is the case, then the more holes we can point out in the story, the more information we can share, sharing is caring, which will help the cause.

We have different threads for that purpose. We can focus on different aspects of the story in different threads.

I apologize if I have misunderstood you. Are you saying that there was a person who accompanied the Tsarnaev brothers and was present at the Watertown shootout? That is the only way I would be able to connect your posts to the topic.

reply to post by ipsedixit



The only remotely interesting thing in this thread is the picture of that woman dropping her purse on top of that trash bag next to the mail box, and the accompanying picture of the explosion appearing to emanate from that exact location. Very strange indeed as that appears to be quite some distance from where suspect 2 supposedly placed the bag. The fallen guard rails in the wrong direction can be explained in many ways though. Wounded people could have grabbed on to them tipping them in the wrong direction.

The picture of suspect 2 walking away shows zero evidence of him carrying a bag other then MAYBE his right shoulder being slouched, but that can be explained by him trying to get around the person in front of him (maybe trying to dodge to his left?) and the angle of the photo, Your MS Paint job pointing something out doesn't actually point out anything. I've read the entire thread and all you do when somebody refutes you is say "agree to disagree".

The shadow argument that broke out was asinine. I mean, really? not only was that off topic to the thread, it ignored basic principles of how light works and tried to draw conclusions from it (still not sure what conclusions though).

The evidence of a second bag on suspect 2 isn't clear either. I see what the OP is looking at and see how he is coming to that conclusion but the picture is really bad. So bad that one can't tell if that is a second bag or just the side of the backpack jetting out from behind his body. He was carrying the bag in a way that could lead to this. In no way shape or form can anyone claim here that they are 100% certain of these facts because the "evidence" is just too distorted.

The 'color differential' between suspect 2's bag in the better photos of him walking and the color of the bag dropped in the crowd similarly can't be claimed. The crowd picture is terrible and it is possible/likely that there was not enough light within the feet of the crowd reaching the aperture of the camera to properly reflect the true color of the bag in the crowd. It is entirely possible for the bag to appear darker than it actually is. You mean to tell me that you have NEVER taken a picture with a camera that has made objects appear to be colored differently? To me, they are the same bag but the evidence presented neither confirms nor refutes this.

I suppose you will just 'agree to disagree' though.

Before you wildly speculate and wildly draw conclusions about something, you have to consider that we are working with evidence that is either spoon-fed to us by the media (surveillance footage given to the media by the authorities) or spread by amateurs mostly by camera phones (EXTREMELY poor image sources). We don't have access to even 1/100th of the real evidence. Furthermore, it is extremely hard to draw conclusions from still photographs. There are so many things that can play tricks on your eyes that can lead you to false conclusions. The only real evidence that I would trust is video showing exactly what happened and we don't have access to that. And lets be honest, even that can be faked.

reply to post by ipsedixit


Yes. It is the only way to explain two(2) vehicles being present at Laurel street when the "official" reporting has both brother hijacking a Mercedes SUV near the MIT campus and there being a green HONDA and a MERCEDES SUV, two (2) vehicles, in the moment in question.

As well as the police stating explosives and gun fire while in pursuit of the stolen vehicle.

evidence removed from the scene of the crime.





I don't know what this picture is proving or disproving?

Unless, compare the tree in both photos.

If this is still up for discussion

Originally posted by Deluge1
reply to post by ipsedixit

 

The only remotely interesting thing in this thread is the picture of that woman dropping her purse on top of that trash bag next to the mail box, and the accompanying picture of the explosion appearing to emanate from that exact location. Very strange indeed as that appears to be quite some distance from where suspect 2 supposedly placed the bag.

There ya go.

The picture of suspect 2 walking away shows zero evidence of him carrying a bag other then MAYBE his right shoulder being slouched, but that can be explained by him trying to get around the person in front of him (maybe trying to dodge to his left?) and the angle of the photo, Your MS Paint job pointing something out doesn't actually point out anything. I've read the entire thread and all you do when somebody refutes you is say "agree to disagree".

Which is what I'm doing.

The shadow argument that broke out was asinine. I mean, really? not only was that off topic to the thread, it ignored basic principles of how light works and tried to draw conclusions from it (still not sure what conclusions though).

Mods might have been on a lunch break for all of that.

The evidence of a second bag on suspect 2 isn't clear either. I see what the OP is looking at and see how he is coming to that conclusion but the picture is really bad. So bad that one can't tell if that is a second bag or just the side of the backpack jetting out from behind his body. He was carrying the bag in a way that could lead to this. In no way shape or form can anyone claim here that they are 100% certain of these facts because the "evidence" is just too distorted.

A careful examination of the strap in the very first screen grab refutes this and proves conclusively that he was carrying two bags.

The 'color differential' between suspect 2's bag in the better photos of him walking and the color of the bag dropped in the crowd similarly can't be claimed. The crowd picture is terrible and it is possible/likely that there was not enough light within the feet of the crowd reaching the aperture of the camera to properly reflect the true color of the bag in the crowd. It is entirely possible for the bag to appear darker than it actually is. You mean to tell me that you have NEVER taken a picture with a camera that has made objects appear to be colored differently? To me, they are the same bag but the evidence presented neither confirms nor refutes this.

Why do you conclude that they are the same bag then? Even if the bag looked exactly like Dzhokhar's bag in every detail, there would be no reason to conclude that the bag was Dzhokhar's bag, unless the company issued that bag in an edition of one.

Before you wildly speculate and wildly draw conclusions about something, you have to consider that we are working with evidence that is either spoon-fed to us by the media (surveillance footage given to the media by the authorities) or spread by amateurs mostly by camera phones (EXTREMELY poor image sources). We don't have access to even 1/100th of the real evidence. Furthermore, it is extremely hard to draw conclusions from still photographs. There are so many things that can play tricks on your eyes that can lead you to false conclusions.

I agree with most of this but you have to understand that this website is devoted to discussion and speculation. I'm not speculating wildly. I'm giving reasons for what I believe. If you don't accept my reasoning that's fine. I don't accept your dismissal of the evidence I've presented. I think it has enough validity to open the possibility that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev did only a fraction of what he is being accused of.

The only real evidence that I would trust is video showing exactly what happened and we don't have access to that. And lets be honest, even that can be faked.

What we have now is "early" evidence. Imperfect as it is, it does suggest that the government authorized version of events related to the Boston bombings is not accurate. In court, in a country with a fair legal system, I think a competent defense attorney could get significant reductions in charges against Dzhokhar Tsarnaev.

evidently I am a huge supporter of this conspiracy theory so here is my two cents.







The blue elongated object protruding from behind the barricade in the first photo seems out of place. The one that looks like an arm behind the purse.

While the plastic bag is behind the gate.

Not to mention the lady holding said purse looks like her arms is disproportionate to her body. Her hand appears to be at her knee or just above.

When all four(4) photos are together, the photo in the top right where the lady appears to be holding the purse, seems photo shopped

it almost appears that the lady in question with the brown purse is also holding a green purse as well

reply to post by whatzshaken

I think she's wearing something green under her beige sweater.

2nd.

reply to post by ipsedixit


What is the white object at the feet of the guy in sunglasses and the feet of woman next to him ?
Not part of the pavement or side walk.
What ever it is it looks very out of place to me.
It seems to graze the side of the women's foot.
Looks incerted into pic.
Big hunk of trash that she lets lay across the side of her foot?

Oh yah other pic shows same white object between the guys feet, or rather over feet and legs.

Maybe I am looking at it wrong. Just looks like it should not be part of the scene.

Camera issue ? Refelection ?

A shadow is an area where direct light from a light source cannot reach due to obstruction by an object.

It occupies all of the space behind an opaque object with light in front of it. The cross section of a shadow is a two-dimensional silhouette, or reverse projection of the object blocking the light.

The sun causes many objects to have shadows and at certain times of the day, when the sun is at certain heights, the lengths of shadows change.



Okay go ahead, use evidence to disclaim the evidence I have presented without resulting to insults to discredit any theories/results/conclusions.

Originally posted by whatzshaken
reply to post by Cabalis

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Then do it.
Otherwise you are just being dismissive.
and choosing to ignore the information being presented for you.
You keep telling me to do my research/homework.
I am presenting to you my research.
The only thing you have used to discredit my theories/evidence is your opinion.
What is your opinion based on?


I have done it. I've explained it to you multiple times. It's not my fault you don't understand it or decide to not see what is clearly in front of you.

I'm not sure whether you're being intentionally obtuse or you're just a troll. I have a feeling it's a bit of both. The truth is I have far more evidence than you do. All you have are pictures and your opinion that they are photoshopped when they clearly are not. Anyone with common sense and even a cursory knowledge of shadows, reflections and light sources can easily dismiss your wild claims. Being an artist/graphic designer I have knowledge of multiple light sources, shadows and reflections.

Again, you have no research other than photos and your opinion that you think they are shopped because the shadows look funny. I hate to be the one to break it to you, but that's not research.

Here's another link to a game using sun, light and shadows. Perhaps it will help you better understand how shadows work. Shadows - The Game.

I've tried to patiently discuss this with you but I'm done now.

You lost the game, and the proof you provided with the new images, proves even more corruption. Thank you for your help.

All I have doe is taken the "evidence" they gave us, and have used it against them, including yourself.

My point still remains that there is absolutely nothing to gain by shopping these photos. If they did shop these photos and that's a BIG if, what do you think they shopped out??

If you firmly believe there is nothing to gain from this, then, you are the exact slave they wish to control.

reply to post by azureskys

Something there looks like the toe of somebody's sneaker. Is that what you mean?

Do we know at what point in time these photos were taken? I don't recognize any crowd members as victims. I think this happened long before.

Stop, and I repeat, stop using the lol picture. It's horrendous that a human can write "lol" on a picture like this.

Originally posted by Ender58
Do we know at what point in time these photos were taken? I don't recognize any crowd members as victims. I think this happened long before.

That's a legit question to which I don't have an answer.

You seem to be very familiar with the victims faces. Are you really that knowledgeable?

Stop, and I repeat, stop using the lol picture. It's horrendous that a human can write "lol" on a picture like this.

The photo is serviceable, despite the comments written on it. I think we're stuck with it, for the moment at least.