Why there were no “actors” at the Boston Marathon Bombings

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.

To clarify, the idea of ‘actors’ as it is being used in this context is not the same as ‘media plants’. Media plants are people placed at the scene of a government false-flag terror attack who pose as ‘eyewitnesses’ to establish an official narrative for the media and public. ‘Actors’, on the other hand, are people who are supposedly part of the false-flag attack itself and who pose as victims of the attack but who are not really injured at all.

The Sandy Hook massacre last December seems to have been the the first major event where the ‘actors’ idea gained traction. Within a month of the massacre, there were literally hundreds of Youtube videos and articles supposedly providing proof that the parents and neighbors of the victims were actually crisis actors and, therefore, the entire event was probably staged and no one was killed. The ‘hoax’ was, it is claimed, a crass and obvious attempt by the government to impose ‘gun control’ on America.

Many of the Sandy Hook hoax videos have received tens, and sometimes hundreds of thousands of views. I wrote about the implausibility of that particular ‘actors’ theory here and tried to compile the best evidence for Sandy Hook being a U.S. intel ‘black’ operation here and here. Despite my efforts, (not that I ever expect them to make much difference) the ‘terror attack actors’ idea continued to gain pace and made a serious reappearance at the Boston Marathon bombings.

The main ‘evidence’ for ‘actors’ at the Boston marathon bombings centered around one of the victims, Jeff Bauman. Bauman is the guy whose picture was sensationally splashed across media newspapers and websites as he was taken from the scene of the bombing in a wheelchair with the bone of one of his severed legs protruding.

I’m pretty sure half the planet saw that particular image.

Proponents of the ‘actors’ theory seized on this image as hard evidence that ‘fakery’ was afoot. After all, where was all the blood that surely should have been spurting from his leg? Even in the immediate aftermath of the bomb, it is claimed, pictures of the scene are devoid of any significant amounts of blood and certainly no spurting from Bauman’s leg(s).

Disbelievers also pointed to the color of what blood there was on the ground, citing it as evidence that obviously fake or ‘stage’ blood because it was just too bright to be real. Some pundits even pointed out that there were different colors of blood from one image to the next!

And what about those people around Bauman? One guy seems to be putting on his sunglasses just seconds after the bombing!

Surely all of these details constitute ‘slam dunk’ evidence that the Boston bombings were faked in the sense that ‘crisis actors’ were used, at least as part of the operation?

The problem with this theory is that it has no legs, so to speak. It seems that not one of the advocates of the ‘actors’ theory bothered to think about the implications of their claims. If they had, they would have been quickly confronted with some rather implausible conclusions.

For example, if Jeff Bauman was, as is claimed, an ‘actor’ who was already an amputee and was fitted with the bony prosthetics immediately after the bombing, how do we explain that none of his family or friends have spoken up and pointed out that Jeff couldn’t have lost his legs in the bombing because he lost them several months or years ago?

Jeff has been widely feted in the media in the months since the bombing, and made a surprise appearance before the Boston Bruins ice hockey game in early May. A few days ago Jeff threw the first pitch at Red Sox game.

bauman-redsox

Surely someone who knew him as a prior double amputee would have said something? Then again, maybe his entire family and friends are intelligence operatives too and in on the plot? Maybe Jeff was a ‘deep cover’ intelligence operative with no public history before the bombings and all of the google images of him (many with legs I would add) that appear to go back several years were planted on google in the run up to his prime time exposure in Boston? Or maybe all of his family and friends were somehow silenced or ‘paid off’?

Bauman seems to have been associated with ‘Team Stork‘ which appears to be a marathon running team made up of members of the Brigham and Women’s hospital, a teaching hospital of Harvard Medical School that is located in Boston.

Here’s an image of him with some Team Stork members:
Boston-Marathon-psyop-Bauman-TeamStork-full-1

From what I can gather, Bauman’s girlfriend may have been running in the race as part of ‘Team Stork’, and she may have been a student nurse at the aforementioned hospital. Alternatively, she and Bauman may simply have been friends with Team Stork runners. In the image below of the scene immediately following the first explosion, the woman in the foreground is wearing a shirt with the blue ‘Team Stork’ logo on it. She may have been with Bauman as they waiting for team members to cross the finish line.

Bloody Actors

The above image shows quite a lot of blood on the ground. As noted, many ‘actors’ theorists have claimed that this blood is “too red” to be real, despite the fact that there are at least two shades of red blood on the ground. A little research into blood color would quickly have informed such theorists that oxygenated blood is bright red, while deoxygenated blood is a dark (or darker) red color. I would have thought that most people would have at some point in their lives had experience with the color of blood, if only their own, in terms of a small cut. Doesn’t everyone know that fresh blood from your finger can be a bright red color and dried coagulated blood is dark red, almost black? In fact, depending on where and when you cut yourself, your blood can be a brighter or a darker shade of red (see the aforementioned oxygenated or deoxygenated blood comment).

Not enough blood? Wrong color?
Not enough blood? Wrong color?
What about this one? Actors? Stage blood?
What about this one? Actors? Stage blood?

Severed Arteries, Spurting and Instant Death

Then there is the image of Bauman himself and his protruding femur. ‘Actors’ theorists were quick to point to the ‘evidence’ that there is very little blood on Jeff’s leg, either in the images immediately after the bomb went off and also when he was being wheeled away from the scene in a wheelchair. I’ve spoken to several practicing doctors, all of whom have experience of serious trauma victims. Not one of them were surprised that there was not a large amount of blood squirting from Bauman’s wounds. What most of them did say was that they had been surprised at the lack of blood when they first encountered trauma victims early in their careers, but that they were quickly able to understand it based on their prior knowledge of human anatomy, and that since then, they’re never surprised at a lack of blood loss in trauma patients.

In Bauman’s case, the ‘actors’ theorists claim was that, since his femoral artery was “severed”, there should have been massive blood loss and he should not have survived. The problem here is again one of a lack of cursory research by those promoting the theory.

The femoral artery runs inside the thigh from the pelvis down to above the knee. The now infamous picture of Bauman in the wheelchair shows pretty clearly that both of his knees are intact and that his major injuries are below the knee. Therefore, it is not true to say that his femoral artery was severed.

Even in the case that his femoral artery had been severed, arteries are sphincteral, that is to say, they spasm and contract when severed. This appears to be a natural life-preserving function of the body to prevent blood loss. When arteries are compromised, coagulation factors are also released that facilitate the formation of thrombi which minimize blood loss. Just like the formation of a scab over a wound. It is such an effective system that blood thinner drugs are often given to prevent the formation of these thrombi during surgery on an artery.

There are other arteries in the lower leg (the anterior and posterior tibial arteries) but these are not major arteries and if severed, as in Bauman’s case, would very likely have spasmed resulting in a fairly quick reduction in blood loss. In addition, the man in the cowboy hat (Carlos Arredondo) had tied a tourniquet to his mid-thigh area, further restricting blood loss. (By the way, the reason Bauman was evacuated in a wheelchair was because there are usually many wheelchairs at the finish line of races for people who really shouldn’t be running marathons to sit down in, before they collapse).

The Implausibility of Crisis Actors at a Real Bombing

The following images were taken by a person in an office on the first floor of a building directly behind where the first bomb went off. Two photos appear to have been taken every second (the person probably just held down the shutter release button). You can see the full sequence here. These photos, along with a video of the bomb exploding (see below), provide fairly conclusive proof that Jeff Bauman was at more or less ‘ground zero’ of the explosion, and that a bomb really did go off.

The first image below shows the scene immediately after the bomb went off. Bauman and a few other people are in the center surrounded by a cloud of smoke. As the smoke clears in the subsequent images, you can see Bauman lying on the ground with his back to the camera. There is a man with a black and grey hooded top (the hood is grey) right in front of Bauman. This is ‘sunglasses man’.

Photo #1

Photo#2

Photo#3

Photo#4

Photo#5

Photo#6

Take note of the man running on the road in the top right of each photograph. He is wearing a black or dark blue running outfit with white short sleeves. He is also wearing pink socks (we’ll call him ‘pink socks’). He can be seen in the video below reacting to the bomb.

Here’s a still of the man I’m talking about.

My point here is that, the appearance of ‘pink socks’ in the video above, and his appearance in the images taken from behind where the bomb went off looking towards the finish line and down at the explosion site establishes that:

a) the bomb was real

b) that Bauman and others were at the site of the explosion.

For the actors theory to be believable therefore, we have to assume that Bauman, as ‘actor’, was undeterred by the violent explosion and carried on with his assigned job of fitting prostheses to his stumps (or having sunglasses man do it for him) ready for his big photo-op. Or to put it another way, that, in the middle of a bomb blast that clearly did happen, and was clearly strong enough to cause serious injury, a few government hired “crisis actors” were either:

a) manipulated into situating themselves at the site of the bomb (of which they had no knowledge) and then, when it did explode, causing them injuries, they proceeded to carry on with their role of “actors”

b) part of the bomb plot and agreed to place themselves at the site of the bomb, and their lives in danger, so that at least one of them could produce a prosthetic leg with protruding bone for later public viewing.

Bizarrely, this scenario is preferred by many over the scenario that the real bombers would have more likely opted for just detonating the bombs and creating real casualties for public exposure. Clearly the real bombers have no consideration for human life, because three people were killed, one of them an eight year old boy at the site of the second bombing that went off 10 seconds after the first and 100 yards away. Unless, of course, we are to believe that those three were also “actors” and did not die at all and were part of the “staged event”, their families and friends either in on the plot or ‘silenced’.

The Real Evidence Vs COINTELPRO

There seems to be a thread of “fakery” claims that run from 9/11 (the ‘blue screen planes’ theory) through Sandy Hook (another ‘staged event’) and Boston which, when looked at from a broad perspective, seems to have been deliberately invented and disseminated in order to discredit the serious evidence for government complicity in these specific ‘terror’ attacks.

The problem here is that, as concerns the Boston bombings, there is hard evidence that:

  • There was a drill on the day of the marathon
  • There were spotters on roofs and dog sniffing teams
  • There were announcements made about the drills.
  • There were two tweets from the Boston globe on their marathon update page that “authorities have announced that a controlled explosion will take opposite the library in 1 minute” (this was two hours before a bomb went off at that exact location)
  • The FBI have admitted that they had been in contact with the two brothers for about 5 years
  • The NY Times ran an article stating that virtually all previous “terror plots” that were “foiled” by the FBI were actually created by the FBI.

The only evidence that the two Tsanarev brothers were involved in the bombing is the alleged testimony of Bauman and, more importantly, the allegation that they killed a policeman a few days later at MIT. All that is really known is that the policeman, officer Sean Collier, was approached by an unknown person(s) as he sat in his car and shot multiple times. The only evidence linking the Tsarnaev brothers to this killing is the claim made by the unnamed man who was allegedly taken hostage by the brothers after they allegedly killed officer Collier. The story goes that after he was taken hostage in his own car by the brothers, the older brother asked him if he had heard about the Boston bombing. The unnamed hostage replied that he had, and the older Tsarnaev brother then allegedly said;

“I did that, and I just killed a policeman in Cambridge.”

So basically, the only real evidence linking the brothers to the bombing is the claim by an unnamed alleged hostage that the brothers made their bizarre confessed to him that they had killed Collier and were responsible for the bombing

Coincidentally, the traffic cop who was the first on the scene of Colliers murder (officer Richard Donohue) was a close friend of Collier. Even more coincidentally, officer Donohue was involved later that evening in the alleged shoot out with the brothers in the Watertown area of Boston, where he was, coincidentally, the only officer to be shot by “friendly fire”. And to round off the coincidence-fest:

“Officer Donohue of the MBTA Transit Police remembers almost nothing of the night he was shot during chaotic gunfire on a normally quiet Watertown street, or of the murder of his close friend, MIT police Officer Sean Collier, hours before in Cambridge.”

What are the odds, eh?

Do you know who J. D. Tippit is? J. D. Tippit was the Dallas policeman who was allegedly shot by Lee Harvey Oswald. The shooting of Tippit was instrumental in framing Oswald, at least in the public mind, for the murder of Kennedy.

Jim Garrison stated that “If Oswald was innocent of the Tippit murder the foundation of the government’s case against him collapsed.”

And indeed, it appears that the Warren Commission ignored a lot of evidence in the form of conflicting eyewitness testimony that strongly suggests Oswald did NOT kill Tippit.

That’s just some of the hard evidence that could be used to make a case for the Boston bombings being a govt. operation. But when you add in the idea that the bombings were actually ‘staged’ by ‘actors’, and proceed to back it up with very subjective ‘evidence’, virtually all of which can be exposed as bogus, thereby making those who claim it as ‘evidence’ look like fools and or liars, well….you’ve destroyed any usefulness of the hard evidence by associating it with the bogus evidence. For me, therefore, the ‘actors’ and ‘fakery’ meme is more than likely a deliberate attempt to do exactly that.

Of course, there is the other all-important element, without which government/intel attempts to spread disinformation would be useless i.e. the many, many individuals who have bought the story and disseminated the disinfo. I don’t for a second believe that owners of respectable websites like Globalresearch.ca or bloggers like Dave McGowan (and many others) are consciously playing a part in the disinfo campaign, but the reality is that they have been aiding and abetting what is most likely a COINTELPRO operation by giving the ‘actors’ theory legs (so to speak). I won’t pretend to know why such previously sober and serious journalists and authors have uncharacteristically been taken in by a con job (and a rather obvious one at that), except to hypothesize that, as the world continues to spiral down into ever increasing lies, social hysteria and madness, we may expect to see more and more people begin to ‘lose the plot’ in more ways than one.

12 thoughts on “Why there were no “actors” at the Boston Marathon Bombings

  1. Fascinating. I rate both Joe Quinn and Dave McGowan extremely highly at analysing such events. I first discovered McGowan about 10 years ago, but didn't know he had written about this. Yet here they are on opposite sides of the fence, which maybe more generally is part of the agenda to divide the opposition – a theme that has been running strong, and is endemic at least since 9/11. What better way to discredit "conspiracy theorists" – make them look both divisive, and lacking in empathy – as if they are the same kind of psychopaths and loonies, that they are actually complaining about in "authority".

    Perhaps even the best of us are vulnerable to a bit of cognitive dissonance which seems impossible to counter. Have you ever been subjected to a magicians trick – even in full knowledge? You think no way – yet he still pulls it off – even on you when completely aware. I reckon mainly diversion, but also a bit of hypnotism. These guys running the psyops are at the top of the game – even if the results look deliberately amateurish.

    I have been patiently waiting for Joe's analysis of the events in Woolwich, which personally took me 3 days to start to get my head around.

    I couldn't make any sense out of Sandy Hook, and still can't.

    However, so far as I am concerned, the photographic and other evidence both here and at Woolwich is highly compelling.

    Dave McGowan produces yet more arguments, that I simply cannot counter.

    Tony

    1. Hi Tony, thanks for the feedback. I don’t see any photographic evidence that is compelling evidence of “actors” at Boston that is not also fairly easily explainable. I tend to discard evidence that explainable as normal i.e. not evidence of conspiracy, and try to get down to the, usually few, pieces that appear to have no other explanation other than evidence of conspiracy i.e. that the official story is not true.

      The Woolwich murders are fairly easily explainable in normal terms as regards the details, i.e. the two guys ran into and killed the soldier. What is NOT explainable, IMO, is the length of time that it took for police to arrive and the actions of the killer in hanging around waiting for something and giving the speech to cameras. Those two elements, to me, are evidence that the killer(s) may well have been mind-programmed (or “messed with) in one way or another and that the police response was very much managed by the real planners of this very public “terror attack”.

      As regards Boston; my focus is on asking someone (anyone!) to answer the question as to how a group of people could reasonably be expected to have gone about their assigned job of “crisis actors” (fitting prosthetics etc.) when they were at the epicenter of a bomb that had just exploded. It sort of defies belief. In addition, I have not read anywhere an explanation of why the FBI/other intel group would have chosen to use “actors” instead of simply using real people with real injuries.

  2. Well Joe, it's quite obvious you are working for the man. When was the last time the media revealed such graphic images to the public after a bomb attack if not for the purpose of using their shock tactics to the max? When was the last time you saw a double amputee still with color on the face let alone able to hold their knee like that? i am an ambulance officer and i see amputees every single day and those images are a joke. So who are people going to believe, a journalist? or a professional that sees this everyday? you are an embarrassment to journalism, you can try as hard as you can to discredit the conspiracy, but the only ones that will listen to you, are the ones that want to hear it like that because they are consumed with fear. You can writet about the sun being square till the cows come home, yet only the ignorant will believe the rubbish you are writing.

    1. First of all, you seem to have misunderstood me. I didn't say that the media revealing graphic images was not evidence of them using shock tactics, it clearly is, but the media doing that does not translate into "actors". Secondly, your claim to be an ambulance officer, fair enough, but I have already consulted medical professionals who see such injuries on an regular basis and they have told me that the image of Bauman is not remarkable. The rest of your comment is nonsense, and completely misses my point. How you can think I am trying to "discredit the conspiracy" is beyond me. I am simply trying to point out FLAWS in the "actors conspiracy" theory and highlight the fact that the "actors" idea is the main thing that discredits the REAL conspiracy. You accuse me of being "consumed with fear" when in fact that is most likely what is going on with you.

    2. AmboOff,

      I think you are wrong to accuse Joe of anything. I have read him for many years on SOTT, though never commented there. Most of his articles are completely brilliant. Check out what he wrote about The Underwear Bomber. I have even more respect for Dave McGowan, and have followed him for even longer. He got 9/11 the very day it happened and wrote in detail about it immediately. It took me 18 months to come to the same conclusions, though I too smelt a rat on day one. I immediately told everyone I knew about it, and all but one person thought I was having a nervous breakdown. It caused me serious social and career damage, so I learnt to keep my mouth shut.

      I am very much in a kind of similar situation with regards to more recent events. If I told people what my analysis of Woolwich is, then I would be liable to be lynched. I have enormous respect for the people that do, though I simply am not prepared to take the grief. It is almost impossible to change most people's minds. They believe what they are told by the Newspapers and see on the TV screen, without even attempting to analyse all the detailed evidence from every aspect.

      I come from a background of being trained in physics and maths to a high level. I also have a lifetime's experience in photography, and my career was in computing and analysis. I have also had psychological training to a Professional level, so am reasonably competent to make my own objective assessments. But that can be more of a burden, than a gift, cos occasionally some friend will say something to me about e.g. 9/11, at a party or whatever, and I sometimes react, when it would have been far better to say nothing. The fact of the matter is that nearly everyone is brainwashed, and there is absolutely nothing that anyone can do about it. Events are almost certain to get exceedingly horrible, because that is what the agenda is, and we have no defence against it.

      Incidentally, I do follow Joe's logic, its just that the photographic and other evidence, in my view, and that of several websites (most of which I had never seen before) seriously conflict with it. However, nothing can be proved, because almost everything including the photography and voice records can be faked.

      If my view is correct, I do actually understand the logic behind what I consider to be the latest generation of Psyops, which I hinted at in my post above.

      As well as analysing events at the physical forensic level, they should also be analysed at the psychological level, questioning the motivation of the originator, as well as examining the obvious effects it has on populations.

      Tony

        1. Check out 108Morris108 on Youtube on Woolwich. I haven't yet seen his Boston Marathon videos, and he doesn't try to do any forensic photographic analysis. What he does do however, is an extremely good analysis of the psychology and motivation of both events, on his belief that both events were hoaxes. I agree with most of what he says. Incidentally, when Woolwich happened it made me literally throw up, before I had seen or made any analysis of it – purely on written description. The reason is, because I understood immediately what the effect would be on our population and cultures, and the fear and hatred that would result. I considered it an even a more powerful Psyop than the 7/7 London Bombings, purely on the basis of how it would affect people in the UK.

          Keep an open mind. There is so much multiple disinfo about at several levels mixed with truth. The intention is to completely confuse, on the basis of how people's minds actually work. Psychology is one of the most powerful weapons in existence. I don't think they actually teach it at most Universities now, for that very reason.

          I think maybe you are too close to all of this, perhaps because you have been doing it so well for so long. I think you should take several steps backward to see it from a different perspective and get a better view, and I am not talking about the photographic analysis, but the moral and cultural value destruction of entire populations.

          Tony

  3. I don't think this necessarily has to be an either or. You yourself have asserted there is evidence that their was a drill running that day, and we know these drills come replete with actors. I'm keeping an open mind in all of this and considering all the anomalous info. before precluding anything. The "actor" angle does fill in a lot of missing pieces and discrepancies. You are correct to question if Bauman was an actor, how do you explain him? Good question, but don't assume the answer until we have it. We know the world is an awfully strange place and people do very strange things for very strange purposes. Yes, remain skeptical for now, but don't preclude anything. By the time we figure this one out, we'll have ten more events like this to figure out, but we shouldn't get hasty in the process. In the least, we know the official version of this event is an absolutely ridiculous joke. Each iteration of these events results in an increasingly ridiculous official story line. I would't be surprised if in several years to a decade they don't conjure Orson Welles and pull a contemporary version of War of the Worlds on us. I really do think it would work. Hell, I know it would work and I fully expect it.

  4. Your analysis is poor if you do not examine the analysis of other, frame by frame, of what happened. "Implausablity" is ridiculous idea when the plausible is what you think normal people would do, when in fact people can be coerced. You can start with these frame by frame photos http://beforeitsnews.com/conspiracy-theories/2013
    You don't seem to be aware of what a psy-op is? Study what actually happened with the pulling down of the Saddam Hussein statue in Baghdad or the Jessica Lynch fiction. Since 2004 the gov has used actors at drills and you admit i twas a drill. A drill at a public event? Why haven't you examined the implausibility of that? http://www.naturalnews.com/040060_terror_drills_p… Same actors used at different events? Would that prove it to you?

    1. not really Ray. Why use 'actors' when 'real people' are all over the place? I don't deny that 'crisis actors' are used, but I have seen no evidence that they were used at Boston, and I have seen no convincing argument as to why they WOULD be used by those who carried out the bombing. Think it about it for a while. And read my two articles on the topic.

Got something to tell me?

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.