Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Boston Bombing

Options
1…3537394041

Comments

  • Options
    #1082
    noway12345
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,152 ✭✭✭noway12345


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    he is saying he doesnt know. but neither do you. so you cannot draw any conclusions.

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


  • Options
    #1083
    noway12345
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,152 ✭✭✭noway12345


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    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.

    You've made up your own mind, I'm going on the evidence in the video. You had your mind made up long before you seen the video.


  • Options
    #1084
    galljga1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,938 ✭✭✭galljga1


    noway12345 wrote: »
    Even referring to the voiceover as monodrone tells it's story. :D
    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?

    It is actually morondrone and it does tell it's story. The guy is a sick twisted individual making claims like this, particularly the reference to 'supposed to someone dead over here' or something of that nature.

    I do not know how long he was running around looking for his wife, nor do you nor does morondrone. And I do not believe he was running around in circles. This is exagerated by the manner in which the photos are presented. Again, without some sort of timescale indicated using the detonation as zero hours with each photo timestamped and presented in chronological order, this type of video is useless in support of or against any theory. This is a CT thread. This video is a very weak effort to try and support the theory that the Boston bomb was a hoax. Personally, I think it is laughable if it was not so disgusting.

    Looking at your last sentence, are you claiming that he did not know the woman? Surely that would be easy to prove if someone probed their background. Has this happened?


  • Options
    #1085
    galljga1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,938 ✭✭✭galljga1


    noway12345 wrote: »
    "Bomb went off, bloke searched for his wife and found her."

    Well, that is actually what happened as evidenced in the video. Is it not?


  • Options
    #1086
    galljga1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,938 ✭✭✭galljga1


    noway12345 wrote: »
    You've made up your own mind, I'm going on the evidence in the video. You had your mind made up long before you seen the video.

    I viewed this video before your first post referring to it. Based on that viewing, I did make my mind up, correct. I have viewed it a number of times and have seen nothing other than a bloke looking for his wife after the detonation.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1087
    noway12345
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,152 ✭✭✭noway12345


    galljga1 wrote: »
    It is actually morondrone and it does tell it's story. The guy is a sick twisted individual making claims like this, particularly the reference to 'supposed to someone dead over here' or something of that nature.

    I do not know how long he was running around looking for his wife, nor do you nor does morondrone. And I do not believe he was running around in circles. This is exagerated by the manner in which the photos are presented. Again, without some sort of timescale indicated using the detonation as zero hours with each photo timestamped and presented in chronological order, this type of video is useless in support of or against any theory. This is a CT thread. This video is a very weak effort to try and support the theory that the Boston bomb was a hoax. Personally, I think it is laughable if it was not so disgusting.

    Looking at your last sentence, are you claiming that he did not know the woman? Surely that would be easy to prove if someone probed their background. Has this happened?

    Well he didn't seem to know her when he ran right past her! I haven't even said what I think happened with the whole bombing, I just think this video makes this couple look very dodgy. I'd like to see a video in real time but how do you get to see that?


  • Options
    #1088
    noway12345
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,152 ✭✭✭noway12345


    galljga1 wrote: »
    Well, that is actually what happened as evidenced in the video. Is it not?

    No.


  • Options
    #1089
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,354 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    noway12345 wrote: »
    You've made up your own mind, I'm going on the evidence in the video. You had your mind made up long before you seen the video.

    There is no evidence in the video, you admitted that yourself. just something that looks 'off'


  • Options
    #1090
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,354 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    noway12345 wrote: »
    Well he didn't seem to know her when he ran right past her! I haven't even said what I think happened with the whole bombing, I just think this video makes this couple look very dodgy. I'd like to see a video in real time but how do you get to see that?

    you do know that people can react very strangely to shock? that they dont always react rationally?


  • Options
    #1091
    noway12345
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,152 ✭✭✭noway12345


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    There is no evidence in the video, you admitted that yourself. just something that looks 'off'

    From what we see they don't look like they know eachother. That's all we can tell from the video, you have no other video to go on yet you believe that they're a married couple.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1092
    noway12345
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,152 ✭✭✭noway12345


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    you do know that people can react very strangely to shock? that they dont always react rationally?

    Run by your wife and around in circles talking to other people?


  • Options
    #1093
    galljga1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,938 ✭✭✭galljga1


    noway12345 wrote: »
    No.

    So, what part of the below did not happen:

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


  • Options
    #1094
    noway12345
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,152 ✭✭✭noway12345


    galljga1 wrote: »
    So, what part of the below did not happen:

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

    Like I said, "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."


  • Options
    #1095
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,354 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    noway12345 wrote: »
    From what we see they don't look like they know eachother. That's all we can tell from the video, you have no other video to go on yet you believe that they're a married couple.

    well first off its not really a video is it? its just a series of stills. presumably taken from a video but morondrone decides not to show the original video. why is that? he has selectively chosen a couple of stills and shown them with no indication of a timeline. we cant even be sure he is showing them in order. the whole thing is a crock and a very poor effort.

    and secondly you are the one making extraordinary claims. it is up to evidence those claims. it is not up to us to prove you wrong. it is not up to us to prove anything.


  • Options
    #1096
    noway12345
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,152 ✭✭✭noway12345


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    well first off its not really a video is it? its just a series of stills. presumably taken from a video but morondrone decides not to show the original video. why is that? he has selectively chosen a couple of stills and shown them with no indication of a timeline. we cant even be sure he is showing them in order. the whole thing is a crock and a very poor effort.

    and secondly you are the one making extraordinary claims. it is up to evidence those claims. it is not up to us to prove you wrong. it is not up to us to prove anything.

    It's not up to me to prove anything. All we can go on is what we see. Until we get any evidence to disprove the claim then why doubt this video?


  • Options
    #1097
    galljga1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,938 ✭✭✭galljga1


    noway12345 wrote: »
    Well he didn't seem to know her when he ran right past her! I haven't even said what I think happened with the whole bombing, I just think this video makes this couple look very dodgy. I'd like to see a video in real time but how do you get to see that?

    Would you think the following is plausible? even possible?
    Bloke and his wife are in separate but close areas at open air event.
    Bomb goes off knocking the wife to the ground.
    Bloke runs to the last place he saw his wife. Or maybe not: she may have moved since he was with her last.
    Things are in a state of disarray and there is smoke in the air.
    Bloke does not see wife initially and runs around checking the immediate area.
    Bloke finds wife.

    That is what I saw in the video. And yes, he had something in his hand which looked distinctly like a camera in one particular still.

    If this couple did not know each other, surely someone from one of their backgrounds would have come forward to express their amazement at them suddenly having a wife/husband of which nobody had previous knowledge.


  • Options
    #1098
    noway12345
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,152 ✭✭✭noway12345


    galljga1 wrote: »
    Would you think the following is plausible? even possible?
    Bloke and his wife are in separate but close areas at open air event.
    Bomb goes off knocking the wife to the ground.
    Bloke runs to the last place he saw his wife. Or maybe not: she may have moved since he was with her last.
    Things are in a state of disarray and there is smoke in the air.
    Bloke does not see wife initially and runs around checking the immediate area.
    Bloke finds wife.

    That is what I saw in the video. And yes, he had something in his hand which looked distinctly like a camera in one particular still.

    If this couple did not know each other, surely someone from one of their backgrounds would have come forward to express their amazement at them suddenly having a wife/husband of which nobody had previous knowledge.

    You left out the parts where he goes around a good few times and is talking to other people just yards from his wife.


  • Options
    #1099
    Timberrrrrrrr
    Registered Users Posts: 25,486 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    noway12345 wrote: »
    It's not up to me to prove anything. All we can go on is what we see. Until we get any evidence to disprove the claim then why doubt this video?

    Because there is no video, just a few still photo's that may not be in their correct order.


  • Options
    #1100
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,354 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    noway12345 wrote: »
    It's not up to me to prove anything.

    actually it is. extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.
    noway12345 wrote: »
    All we can go on is what we see. Until we get any evidence to disprove the claim then why doubt this video?

    all we have to go on is what we see. exactly correctly. all we see is a bloke acting confused after a bomb has gone off. Or more correctly all we see are stills shown in such a way as to make it look like a bloke is confused after a bomb has gone off.


  • Options
    #1101
    galljga1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,938 ✭✭✭galljga1


    noway12345 wrote: »
    Like I said, "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."

    Let us examine the above.

    Bomb went off    : correct
    bloke who was nowhere near his wife: you have repeated this a number of times. What is your point, pointing out that a couple attending an open air event are in different but close locations?
    starts running round in circles : to me, it does not look like he was running around in circles, merely looking for his wife.
    avoiding his wife: I would not say so, he missed her once, she is on the ground, there is smoke in the air.
    starts talking to other people : I think morondrone said he was talking to his sister in law or maybe he knew others in the area. Would he perchance have been asking "did you see wifey"
    drops something strange from his hand and then moves towards his wife: Correct apart from the "something strange" bit. Looks like a camera to me.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1102
    galljga1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,938 ✭✭✭galljga1


    noway12345 wrote: »
    You left out the parts where he goes around a good few times and is talking to other people just yards from his wife.
    It is not possible to tell how many times he went around. Not sure how to quantify "a good few times". The stills were presented in such an order as to suggest he was running around in circles. Even the term "running around in circles" was coined by morondrone to impress on viewers that he was doing exactly that. I do not believe so but without chronology, timestamps etc, it is not possible to do anything other than form opinions.

    On the point of "talking to others", did MD not make a reference to a sister in law. It is also possible that he knew others at the event. Would it have been o.k. to stop and ask did anyone see his wife?


  • Options
    #1103
    Guy:Incognito
    Registered Users Posts: 38,247 ✭✭✭✭Guy:Incognito


    noway12345 wrote: »
    It's not up to me to prove anything. All we can go on is what we see. Until we get any evidence to disprove the claim then why doubt this video?

    If you're in court on a murder charge ,would you be happy to accept a long sentence because your defence didn't prove you didn't do it even though the prosecution just sat there and offered no case beyond "that guy did it"? Or would you like them to actually prove you did it?


  • Options
    #1104
    Guy:Incognito
    Registered Users Posts: 38,247 ✭✭✭✭Guy:Incognito


    Surely releasing the full, unedited, video would conclusively show what the guy was doing and can only strengthen the case that something was amiss? Strange that people seeking truth wouldn't release all the truth, no?

    It's almost like they are withholding information and just showing you what they want you to see. But that cant be true, because that's what the authorities do to fool the people and they're the opposite to that.


  • Options
    #1105
    noway12345
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,152 ✭✭✭noway12345


    Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »
    Because there is no video, just a few still photo's that may not be in their correct order.

    Why do you believe they're in an uncorrect order? Why have ye all made your mind up on this?


  • Options
    #1106
    noway12345
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,152 ✭✭✭noway12345


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    actually it is. extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.



    all we have to go on is what we see. exactly correctly. all we see is a bloke acting confused after a bomb has gone off. Or more correctly all we see are stills shown in such a way as to make it look like a bloke is confused after a bomb has gone off.

    We see a guy running away from his wife and talking to other people with his wife injured just yards away.


  • Options
    #1107
    Timberrrrrrrr
    Registered Users Posts: 25,486 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    noway12345 wrote: »
    Why do you believe they're in an uncorrect order? Why have ye all made your mind up on this?

    Why do you believe they are in the correct order? Why not show the WHOLE video as evidence instead of snapshots?


  • Options
    #1108
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,354 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    noway12345 wrote: »
    Why do you believe they're in an uncorrect order? Why have ye all made your mind up on this?

    he didnt say they are in an incorrect order. he questioned whether they are. there is a difference. as it is just a series of stills it is impossible to say one way or another that they are in the correct order. that makes it impossible to draw any conclusions from what is shown. you say that others have made their mind up already but they are the only ones asking questions. you have just accepted what has been spoonfed to you.


  • Options
    #1109
    noway12345
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,152 ✭✭✭noway12345


    galljga1 wrote: »
    Let us examine the above.

    Bomb went off    : correct
    bloke who was nowhere near his wife: you have repeated this a number of times. What is your point, pointing out that a couple attending an open air event are in different but close locations?
    starts running round in circles : to me, it does not look like he was running around in circles, merely looking for his wife.
    avoiding his wife: I would not say so, he missed her once, she is on the ground, there is smoke in the air.
    starts talking to other people : I think morondrone said he was talking to his sister in law or maybe he knew others in the area. Would he perchance have been asking "did you see wifey"
    drops something strange from his hand and then moves towards his wife: Correct apart from the "something strange" bit. Looks like a camera to me.

    So part 1 = correct
    2 = Correct, he was nowhere near his wife
    3 = Correct, he was running round in circles
    4 = she's just yards away from him
    5 = Corect, ignoring his wife
    6 = We don't know what's in his hand.


  • Options
    #1110
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,354 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    noway12345 wrote: »
    We see a guy running away from his wife and talking to other people with his wife injured just yards away.

    i will save myself some typing and just quote what somebody else said as it sums it up
    galljga1 wrote: »
    It is not possible to tell how many times he went around. Not sure how to quantify "a good few times". The stills were presented in such an order as to suggest he was running around in circles. Even the term "running around in circles" was coined by morondrone to impress on viewers that he was doing exactly that. I do not believe so but without chronology, timestamps etc, it is not possible to do anything other than form opinions.

    On the point of "talking to others", did MD not make a reference to a sister in law. It is also possible that he knew others at the event. Would it have been o.k. to stop and ask did anyone see his wife?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1111
    noway12345
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,152 ✭✭✭noway12345


    galljga1 wrote: »
    It is not possible to tell how many times he went around. Not sure how to quantify "a good few times". The stills were presented in such an order as to suggest he was running around in circles. Even the term "running around in circles" was coined by morondrone to impress on viewers that he was doing exactly that. I do not believe so but without chronology, timestamps etc, it is not possible to do anything other than form opinions.

    On the point of "talking to others", did MD not make a reference to a sister in law. It is also possible that he knew others at the event. Would it have been o.k. to stop and ask did anyone see his wife?

    So you're doing what you accuse the voiceover of doing? Making up things to impress on the reader that he was not running around in circles.
    Maybe we'll call you morandrone 2.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement