Boston Bombing

Overheal · 24-04-2015 5:49pm

galljga1 wrote: »

I have given over a large portion of my life to watching videos on this thread. I don't want to do it again. Can you provide the post number please.

I wholeheartedly agree. I would consider it a personal favor if users include an abstract/synopsis/timestamps with posted video links. If you sat and watched all these videos from this thread I dare say you could hold a 2nd job down instead.

noway12345 · 24-04-2015 5:53pm

Ok, can you just watch the video I'm talking about? Or have you already made your minds up without having to see it?

noway12345 · 24-04-2015 5:55pm

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

you mean somebody in the aftermath of a bomb explosion was not acting rationally?

Overheal wrote: »

I wholeheartedly agree. I would consider it a personal favor if users include an abstract/synopsis/timestamps with posted video links. If you sat and watched all these videos from this thread I dare say you could hold a 2nd job down instead.

Actually you both thanked that comment so it's clear you've already made your mind up.

Overheal · 24-04-2015 5:59pm

You gave me all of 120 seconds to reply before jumping to a conclusion?

I would like to cultivate a CT community of people who are a little more broad-minded than that. Conclusions are a thing that happens after your other possibilities have been excluded (within reason, you know. We're not omnipotent).

In this case, 1) I didn't read your post in the requisite 2 minutes to respond to it, and 2) at the office I do not have access to youtube due to firewall restrictions - so my request for abstracts is also a personal favor to help me and others who neither have the time or the permissions to watch the videos.

That is why I didn't watch the video - so I appreciate it if we all didn't just jump at each others throats and leap to conclusions. On that note, putting words in a user's mouth is going to be looked at with a frowny-face.

noway12345 · 24-04-2015 6:06pm

Alright but it doesn't explain why you thanked the post of the other poster without actually seeing the video. Maybe you can look at it later or at another time.

degrassinoel · 24-04-2015 6:36pm

Drifting offtopic with this but anyway..

Thanking a post can be for a multitude of reasons, to show support, to indicate it was a good post, it made you laugh, cry, feel some emotion, it expressed what you would have said, that you'd seen the post, and so on..

Anyway, just because a post has been thanked doesn't make it right or wrong - it was simply thanked. This is a discussion forum - ye know, for discussing things, specifically conspiracy theories. Lets get back to that and ignore the thanks for now, they're as meaningful or less as a facebook like.

noway12345 · 24-04-2015 6:56pm

Damn stright they ain't important. It does show you already have your mind made up however. Anyway, back to the conspiracies.

ohnonotgmail · 24-04-2015 7:09pm

noway12345 wrote: »

Actually you both thanked that comment so it's clear you've already made your mind up.

perhaps you might provide the synopsis mentioned earlier? Or even tell us what are the relevant parts of the video? what specifically does the video show? I ask this because the thought of spending 20 minutes of my day listening to that annoying voiceover would drive me to drink.

noway12345 · 24-04-2015 7:11pm

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

perhaps you might provide the synopsis mentioned earlier? Or even tell us what are the relevant parts of the video? what specifically does the video show? I ask this because the thought of spending 20 minutes of my day listening to that annoying voiceover would drive me to drink.

Ah he's a funny dude, a bit crazy but he's funny. You have to watch the whole video I'm afraid. It shows the couple up to be a fraud. Ofcourse there might be a reasonable explanation but I don't see it.

Overheal · 24-04-2015 7:44pm

noway12345 wrote: »

Damn stright they ain't important. It does show you already have your mind made up however.

No. No it does not.

noway12345 · 24-04-2015 8:05pm

Overheal wrote: »

No. No it does not.

It does now get back on topic and watch the 20 minute video!

noway12345 · 28-04-2015 2:53pm

Silence.

galljga1 · 28-04-2015 3:23pm

noway12345 wrote: »

Silence.

O.K. please provide a chronologically ordered video or a series of timestamped photographs not a series of random photographs with some repeated or blown up with some moron droning on and boring the behesus out of me.

This marvelous youtube production may have lasted close to 20 minutes but there is no way of ascertaining how long it was between the bomb detonation and this guy finding his wife. Personally, I would say it was a very short time.
Do you not think it is possible to take maybe 30 stills, blow them up, highlight areas, reorganise them to make it look like the same actions are being repeated and make the event look way longer than it actually was?

These stills were also from an elevated point of view so things that are apparent to us viewing them on a screen may not have been evident to persons on the ground.

If you fancy yourself as a conspiracy theorist, please open your mind and do not take rubbish of this caliber from some youtube warrior.

degrassinoel · 28-04-2015 8:43pm

noway12345 wrote: »

Silence.

what are your own thoughts on the video?

noway12345 · 28-04-2015 11:01pm

galljga1 wrote: »

O.K. please provide a chronologically ordered video or a series of timestamped photographs not a series of random photographs with some repeated or blown up with some moron droning on and boring the behesus out of me.

This marvelous youtube production may have lasted close to 20 minutes but there is no way of ascertaining how long it was between the bomb detonation and this guy finding his wife. Personally, I would say it was a very short time.
Do you not think it is possible to take maybe 30 stills, blow them up, highlight areas, reorganise them to make it look like the same actions are being repeated and make the event look way longer than it actually was?

These stills were also from an elevated point of view so things that are apparent to us viewing them on a screen may not have been evident to persons on the ground.

If you fancy yourself as a conspiracy theorist, please open your mind and do not take rubbish of this caliber from some youtube warrior.

Where will I get the footage from? How do you know it was very short time? How can you assume anything about it when you think it was just a series of random photos put together.
Looks like I was bang on the money when I said you had your mind made up already.

noway12345 · 28-04-2015 11:03pm

degrassinoel wrote: »

what are your own thoughts on the video?

It's very strange carry on altogether. Why wasn't he beside his wife to begin with and wouldn't it be the first person you'd go to after the expolsion?

ohnonotgmail · 28-04-2015 11:12pm

noway12345 wrote: »

Where will I get the footage from? How do you know it was very short time? How can you assume anything about it when you think it was just a series of random photos put together.
Looks like I was bang on the money when I said you had your mind made up already.

It is just a series of photos put together. the only reason you believe it is because the voiceover tells you to. Take away the voiceover and there is nothing in that video

noway12345 · 28-04-2015 11:18pm

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

It is just a series of photos put together. the only reason you believe it is because the voiceover tells you to. Take away the voiceover and there is nothing in that video

The husband goes away from his wife. That's clear whether there's a voiceover or not. He leaves his wife on her own.

ohnonotgmail · 28-04-2015 11:19pm

noway12345 wrote: »

The husband goes away from his wife. That's clear whether there's a voiceover or not. He leaves his wife on her own.

and what does that prove?

noway12345 · 28-04-2015 11:20pm

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

and what does that prove?

Well it's very strange behaviour like I said.

ohnonotgmail · 28-04-2015 11:31pm

noway12345 wrote: »

Well it's very strange behaviour like I said.

but what does it prove?

noway12345 · 28-04-2015 11:43pm

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

but what does it prove?

It's not definitive proof of anything. It looks off though.

ohnonotgmail · 29-04-2015 12:10am

noway12345 wrote: »

It's not definitive proof of anything. It looks off though.

there needs to be something more than looking 'off'.

galljga1 · 29-04-2015 4:44am

noway12345 wrote: »

Where will I get the footage from? How do you know it was very short time? How can you assume anything about it when you think it was just a series of random photos put together.
Looks like I was bang on the money when I said you had your mind made up already.

Where you get something credible on which to base a claim is entirely up to you.
You ask how I can assume anything about it when I think it was a series of random photos put together? Think about that question and apply it to your own conclusions.
How do I know it was a short time? I do not, that is the point. I have counted 24 different individual photos in what morondrone calls the second set of photos. To me, it looks like a matter of moments between detonation and this guy finding his wife. He ran past her once while there was smoke in the area. This is likely to be seconds after the detonation. 24 frames later, he found her. How long this is, I have no idea but I am assuming this is not very long. What length of time do you make it?
Then you assume that I had my mind made up. On what do you base this assumption?

You ask why this guy was not beside his wife to begin with. "He leaves his wife on her own". Why should he be with her? Why wouldn't he leave her. He is free to come and go as he pleases at an open air event.
Wouldn't she be the first person he would go to after the explosion? He was looking for her and found her shortly afterwards.
You finish with "It looks off though". That is conclusive proof that the whole thing is a hoax. And in my opinion, it does not look off.

I have watched this video and a lot of others, some by morondrone, and have found nothing in any of them to even suggest this as a hoax nevermind provide proof.

noway12345 · 29-04-2015 9:46am

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

there needs to be something more than looking 'off'.

Do you have an explanation?

galljga1 · 29-04-2015 9:50am

noway12345 wrote: »

Do you have an explanation?

Bomb went off, bloke searched for his wife and found her.

noway12345 · 29-04-2015 9:51am

galljga1 wrote: »

Where you get something credible on which to base a claim is entirely up to you.
You ask how I can assume anything about it when I think it was a series of random photos put together? Think about that question and apply it to your own conclusions.
How do I know it was a short time? I do not, that is the point. I have counted 24 different individual photos in what morondrone calls the second set of photos. To me, it looks like a matter of moments between detonation and this guy finding his wife. He ran past her once while there was smoke in the area. This is likely to be seconds after the detonation. 24 frames later, he found her. How long this is, I have no idea but I am assuming this is not very long. What length of time do you make it?
Then you assume that I had my mind made up. On what do you base this assumption?

You ask why this guy was not beside his wife to begin with. "He leaves his wife on her own". Why should he be with her? Why wouldn't he leave her. He is free to come and go as he pleases at an open air event.
Wouldn't she be the first person he would go to after the explosion? He was looking for her and found her shortly afterwards.
You finish with "It looks off though". That is conclusive proof that the whole thing is a hoax. And in my opinion, it does not look off.

I have watched this video and a lot of others, some by morondrone, and have found nothing in any of them to even suggest this as a hoax nevermind provide proof.

Even referring to the voiceover as monodrone tells it's story.

So you're saying you don't know how long he was running around in circles passing by his wife and talking to other people for but you do know it was an innocent error of judgement and not that he didn't know the woman?

noway12345 · 29-04-2015 9:54am

galljga1 wrote: »

Bomb went off, bloke searched for his wife and found her.

Bomb went off, bloke who was nowhere near his wife starts running round in circles avoiding his wife, starts talking to other people, drops something strange from his hand and then moves towards his wife.

ohnonotgmail · 29-04-2015 9:59am

noway12345 wrote: »

Even referring to the voiceover as monodrone tells it's story.
So you're saying you don't know how long he was running around in circles passing by his wife and talking to other people for but you do know it was an innocent error of judgement and not that he didn't know the woman?

he is saying he doesnt know. but neither do you. so you cannot draw any conclusions.

ohnonotgmail · 29-04-2015 10:00am

noway12345 wrote: »

Bomb went off, bloke who was nowhere near his wife starts running round in circles avoiding his wife, starts talking to other people, drops something strange from his hand and then moves towards his wife.

you keep telling people that they have already made up their own mind but it is you that has made up their own mind based on no evidence whatsoever. reasonable people dont do that.

Boston Bombing

Comments