It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Yet another video showing inexplicable behavior at Boston Bombing

page: 9
<< 6  7  8   >>

log in


posted on Apr, 29 2013 @ 11:23 PM

Originally posted by FlyInTheOintment
Good Lord, what on Earth is coming to the world when something clearly out-of-place and weird (breaking a bag to cause dust to settle over victims of an atrocity..) is being explained away in ridiculously unbelievable terms of it having been a 'hospital blanket' being unfurled.

Here's a few points to mull over:

a) Why 'hospital blanket'..? Why not simply 'blanket'..? Is it in order to appeal to the subconscious emotions of those you are trying to convince?

b) Who on earth believes that you open a blanket by hitting it very hard, as though you were, I dunno, trying to burst a bag which is hermetically sealed, containing powder that proceeds to explode outwards due to the laws of physics in operation - when a pressurised bag is burst (think of an inflated paper bag exploding when hit between the palms of your hands) the release of pressure would cause a scattergun dispersion of any particulate in the bag.

If you believe that a blanket, hospital or otherwise, can be unfurled by hitting a big red panic button on the side of it, causing it to unfurl itself as though it were one of those auto-inflating rubber dinghies, then you are flawed in your capacity to think properly. Either that, or you want to pretend that the bag - which contains a beige-colored dust and which is being burst over the victims - is in fact not a bag, but rather a 'hit in an emergency' blanket with technical wizardry way beyond the needs of a blanket, hospital or otherwise, for nefarious reasons (in order to further dupe the world that there was nothing suspicious about the Boston bombings..)

c) Why have the debunkers devolved to the point of calling persons who question a very suspicious incident as 'evil', IE the person who said that conspiracy theorists have 'evil imaginations'..? Is this the last-ditch emergency debunking tool in the handbook? Anyone who doesn't buy the half-baked and feeble explanations covering for those perpetrating an (actually evil) false flag terror incident, somehow has an 'evil imagination' for refusing to buy the BS..? Seriously? You guys are from another planet, I swear. I thought people on this forum had a sense of common decency & humanity. I must have been wrong.

So remember guys - in an emergency, hit the big red panic button on your readily available hospital blanket. Be warned though, that you are likely to cover yourselves in Bull&%@t in the process. If you don't believe me, you have an evil imagination..!!!

you sir are delusional. the guy in the video is helping as fast as he can an tossed what is very likely to be a tablecloth from the restaurant that is right there, and he immediately leaves to quickly get more. you are so sad and pathetic- you want so badly to believe that this is a conspiracy that you make yourself look and sound like an incredible moron in the process of unsuccessfully trying to prove it. maybe it is a conspiracy, but this in NO WAY shows that. go find something definitive.
edit on 29-4-2013 by Hendrick99 because: fixed spelling

posted on Apr, 30 2013 @ 04:05 AM
reply to post by FlyInTheOintment

I'm sorry if I appeared to be rude but that wasn't the intention.

I however do think you are being overly delusional about this, you actually rubbish what I said but offered almost no reason apart from calling it BS.

Immensely childish.

Sorry that you think my claim of 95% that it was digitally over zoomed was BS but at least I bothered to be logical about it. The video is from afar, it never zooms in more and there IS digital artifacts in it. I'm sorry if that does not fit in with your powder claim but at least its factual.

He throws a solid object and the video cuts off almost instantly.

Its almost impossible to to make jack poop out of it let alone your dust theory...

Every thing I said was as you see it in the video, and that's where we differ, you think you see dust but you have no proof, the video is poor quality, yes you can see faces but not in the detail you say.

You are too busy trying to justify your idea that you are adding stuff that isn't in the video.

Where is the dust in the scene on that rather GOOD picture in the thread, surely such an amount of dust would be clear?

And what does this magic dust do?

Rot limbs. create blood with water?

Almost every FX house I know and I do have very good experience in this field make up their blood solution pre gig, yes powdered blood is available but those places that use it (the smaller fx houses) mix as I said pre gig, there's to much risk of poor mixing, lumps and unmixed powder to do it real time.

If this was a hoax event which it might be the people in charge of doing the sim would NEVER be that unprofessional to use a non made up creation and hope it sets. Its far far easier to supply the actors with blood bags or rigged clothing.

posted on Apr, 30 2013 @ 11:24 AM
So twice called delusional, and yet nobody is trying to be rude. Also called the village idiot, yet nobody is trying to be rude.

I'm satisfied that what I can see is clear indication of 'weird behaviour', IE breaking a bag of dust over victims of a terrorist bomb blast.

Still, nobody has explained how the man's actions (his hand/ arm movements & positioning, etc) could have led to a blanket being unfurled. I'm hazarding a guess that the reason is that the whole thing is totally inexplicable (unless he's bursting a bag of dust..)

You guys are desperately now using repetitive 'ad hominem' insults, and derogatory statements which will make the reader think I'm somewhat dimwitted (I am not - my IQ is around the 150 mark..) and appeals to pseudo-authorities (yourselves) instead of addressing the question of why a man would smash his hands together, from having them spread wide apart in a 'crucifix pose', bringing them together in front of his sternum with force, in order to unfurl a 'hospital blanket/ space blanket/ towel/ towels'.

As pointed out clearly, such physical action would cause any sheet-like object in his hand/s to fall loosely to the floor at his feet. On his feet, to be precise. To suggest that such actions would unfurl a sheet-like object over the body of a victim on the ground in front of him, is ludicrous. You obviously didn't look at the gif animations which clearly show what actions would be required to unfurl a sheet.

However, if he were bursting a bag of dust in his hands, then precisely what we saw happen, would happen - a shower of dust in a starburst spread before him. It could vaguely resemble a sheet being unfurled, if you don't look closely. However, the actions leading up to the event are clearly not those necessitated if one is to unfurl a sheet - yet are clearly those necessitated by the intention to burst a sealed bag. The actions, and the results we observe, clearly support the fact of a bag of dust being burst, not an unfurling blanket.


The only evidence you have to support your claim of a blanket being unfurled, or in support of your repetitive ad hominem attacks (that I must be delusional) is the context. Your rationale, every facet of your appeal, is that the context forbids anything so 'out-of-the-ordinary' as a man bursting a bag of dust over victims & first responders.

However - if the incident was being deliberately 'theatrically upscaled', with aspects of the aftermath being specifically emphasised by a complicit party/parties, to maximise the devastating visuals of the incident and cause a greater subconscious/conscious fear response in the American public's collective mind, then the addition of dust is logical, and the argument based in context is thrown out the window.

I am now satisfied that you cannot answer my criticisms of your explanations, and so you are simply attempting to 'forum slide' my responses into oblivion by stating repeatedly that I am 'delusional', or by appealing to our primitive emotional psyche, with specific focus on empathy & moral courage, etc, as regards how wonderfully brave the man was to be helping out.

How about addressing the obvious issues clearly raised in my previous comments, requiring response, in which I have pointed out that your 'explanation' defies the laws of physics, specifically relating to thrust, inertia & momentum, not to mention gravity.

Please, enlighten my 'delusional' mind. I mean, obviously, anyone who doesn't 100% trust the what the TV tells them via mainstream media must be delusional right?

And anyone who believes that causative actions which apparently (according to the magic of television) lead to response effects which defy the laws of physics must be delusional, right?

Or is it rather that anyone who believes that, events which defy the known laws of the universe are liable to happen randomly on television, with such nature-defiant miracles happening spontaneously & repeatedly in the same series of news reports covering one incident, conveniently explaining away suspicious elements of what is being portrayed, elements which could even suggest complicity, or worse, intentional design, that is delusional?

Please, I would love to hear your non-delusional rationale for the way in which the man in the video defied the laws of physics. Namely, and I'll keep it brief, the following areas of concern:


I'm fairly confident we could slip a few more in there, but stick to those for the time being, saves you a bit more time to brush up on your own 'show of many wonders'.

edit on 30-4-2013 by FlyInTheOintment because: removed final comment to decrease the ad hominem rate

posted on Apr, 30 2013 @ 12:02 PM
reply to post by Mclaneinc

I however do think you are being overly delusional about this, you actually rubbish what I said but offered almost no reason apart from calling it BS.

Immensely childish.

Sorry that you think my claim of 95% that it was digitally over zoomed was BS but at least I bothered to be logical about it. The video is from afar, it never zooms in more and there IS digital artifacts in it. I'm sorry if that does not fit in with your powder claim but at least its factual.

Just needed to point out that nowhere have I 'rubbished' what you said. No, I simply pointed out the logical fallacy of your argument. If that proves that your argument is flawed, or indeed that it in itself is 'rubbish', or 'BS', then fine. I didn't attack your argument from a standpoint of illogic, which is what you are attempting to insinuate - I attempted to demonstrate, with reference to ordinary cause/effect actions in 4D spacetime, that your argument was flawed.

Plus, nowhere have I been 'immensely childish. No, that actually describes you, though as I'm not trying to assassinate your character, or to imply that your argument is illogical by deference to a use of inflammatory rhetoric, I would have been more genteel in my choice of phrase.

To recap: Calling me the village idiot? Fairly childish. Saying you're sorry but persisting with insults? Fairly childish. Saying that I am 'overly delusional'..? Fairly childish... You are therefore fairly childish + fairly childish + fairly childish = fairly damn childish.

It's okay.. I understand that when logic fails, you have to resort to other methods by which to raise your own position, and simultaneously lower mine.

In addition, what is the meaning of the term 'overly delusional'..? Is there an acceptable measure of delusion within which it's safe to operate? Like believing the TV all the time? Like believing that the laws of physics can be broken several times in the coverage of the same news item, with such things as the incredible bi-location of a single person, the bizarre spontaneously relocating explosive package, the amazing 'crush between fists in an emergency' self-propelling blankets and so forth. From what I understand, you are operating at the correct measure of delusion. You believe that nothing out of the ordinary has occurred in Boston. You trust the people who tell you this.

Finally, you stated that you were attempting to be logical, by stating that the zoom was around 95% on that camera. Despite the fact that the observation is irrelevant based on what can be seen in the footage, you were not being anything close to 'logical'. In fact, you were pulling a statistic out from a magical top hat. Such efforts are commendable in politics & in the protection of an agenda ('95% of fish surveyed said they didn't mind the toxic waste pouring into the river'...)

However, when discussing the actual physical dynamics of something that has occurred, which mysteriously breaks the laws of the cosmos, a random made-up statistic is uttery irrelevant, and is in NO WAY logical.

******* ******* *******

That's enough for now, I would like to have your response on the man's bizarre powers to propel flimsy sheet-like objects away from his centre-mass with nothing more than a clap of his hands.

I suppose I'm slightly lowering the punches in this comment, but I'm owed a bit of comeback, having been consistently insulted by you and your tag-team compadre since joining the thread - you've been using ad-hominems and appeals to pseudo-authorities consistently, and to be honest, all it does is further expose the weakness of your argument (by which I mean you claim your personal opinion is more valid in the assessment of this matter than the fundamental laws of physics, noted in the above comment if you need to refresh on the specifics...)

Awaiting your paradigm-shattering thesis.

edit on 30-4-2013 by FlyInTheOintment because: clarification.

posted on Apr, 30 2013 @ 12:26 PM
I concur that it is a white blanket or table cloth. you see the man carrying two of them, and then one of them is being quickly spread out. It was fairly obvious to me, and to be clear, I watched the video before I read of the comments on this thread.

new topics

top topics
<< 6  7  8   >>

log in