Advocates of 'actors' at the Boston bombings tend to use a highly subjective approach to analysis of the evidence, similar to the way Rorschach inkblot tests are used to analyze a person's personality and emotional functioning.

Advocates of ‘actors’ at the Boston bombings tend to use a highly subjective approach to analysis of the evidence, similar to the way Rorschach inkblot tests are used to analyze a person’s personality and emotional functioning.

I recently wrote an article explaining the reasons why I think there were no ‘actors’ used in place of victims at the Boston Marathon bombings. In that article I made reference to other websites and researchers who had taken up the ‘actors’ meme and run with it. In this article I’ll be looking more closely at the ‘evidence’ that has been presented in support of the ‘actors’ theory. Before I begin though, I should explain how and why my approach differs from the approach that the ‘actors’ advocates have taken.

When trying to decide whether a particular conspiracy theory, or particular angle on a conspiracy theory, is likely to be true or false, my approach is to first look at the plausibility of the theory in question. In terms of the Boston bombings, the idea that ‘actors’ took the place of real victims is the theory. When I first was forced to consider this theory, it took me about 3 minutes of rumination before it began to make no logical sense whatsoever. I more or less spelled out the lack of logic in my previous article, but it can be summed up as: why would a U.S. intel agency chose to use actor victims at a bombing that is designed to terrify the US population into believing that evil terrorists are out to kill them when they could very easily just plant a bomb and let the bomb do what bombs do best, kill and maim people? Read More →

The Boston Bombings: Made in America

The Boston Bombings: Made in America

The idea that many ‘terrorist’ attacks are in fact carried out by government intelligence agencies is not a new concept (I’ve spent the last ten years attempting to highlight the evidence for government complicity in ‘Islamic terrorism’ for one example). What is new is the idea that these government-inspired or perpetrated terrorist attacks are somehow doubly “fake” in the sense that some or all of the details of the attack didn’t actually happen in any real sense. The idea is that, not only was the attack fake in the sense that government, not ‘Muslim terrorists’ or ‘homegrown terrorists’, were responsible, but that the apparent victims were fake also, their roles, where necessary, being portrayed by ‘actors’, presumably working for the government. The claim that ‘crisis actors’ were used in place of real victims has been made about the December 2012 Sandy Hook shootings, the more recent Boston marathon bombings and even the May 22nd knife attack on a British soldier in London. Read More →