tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-481838326205496616.post8127780856487951040..comments2023-10-22T08:57:00.454-04:00Comments on Twelfth Bough: more stupid questionsA. Peasanthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01929646095992796530noreply@blogger.comBlogger77125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-481838326205496616.post-50312928131068757362013-12-29T14:35:22.380-05:002013-12-29T14:35:22.380-05:00Hey bho! Same to you brother. All is well here, i ...Hey bho! Same to you brother. All is well here, i hope for you also. Who knows what the new year will bring... A. Peasanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01929646095992796530noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-481838326205496616.post-8652254378601061022013-12-29T14:09:09.715-05:002013-12-29T14:09:09.715-05:00AP - Blessings to you, Christmas and New Year'...AP - Blessings to you, Christmas and New Year's greetings.<br />Hope all is well with you and yours. <br />Your humble fan and student missing you, but with full support.<br />- bholanathbholanathhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13722069078428772316noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-481838326205496616.post-898365961852682002013-11-30T00:38:21.755-05:002013-11-30T00:38:21.755-05:009/23/13 A.Peasant, how do we know that that is you...9/23/13 A.Peasant, how do we know that that is you and not a replicant?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-481838326205496616.post-81969214321405304082013-09-23T15:03:28.069-04:002013-09-23T15:03:28.069-04:00Hey Carol,
Yes i hope to get back. Perilous times....Hey Carol,<br />Yes i hope to get back. Perilous times. ApA. Peasanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01929646095992796530noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-481838326205496616.post-82939108142832478842013-09-23T07:39:05.401-04:002013-09-23T07:39:05.401-04:00AP - I know you are still out there in the firmame...AP - I know you are still out there in the firmament waiting for your time to go back out on the attack. <br /><br />Keep the sickos guessing I say.<br /><br />Carol x<br /><br />PS they are following me around on line, shutting down links, shutting down sites and have some way of stopping search engines showing results etc etc. That does not bode well for the internet. Suggest that they have given up trying to live with the internet?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10897143063610659843noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-481838326205496616.post-52543511299013880682013-09-10T08:58:32.984-04:002013-09-10T08:58:32.984-04:00i am here. miss you all. hope to blog again at som...i am here. miss you all. hope to blog again at some point. not sure when. A. Peasanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01929646095992796530noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-481838326205496616.post-23761811839702965222013-08-20T20:09:44.551-04:002013-08-20T20:09:44.551-04:00A.P. ma'am, where are you?A.P. ma'am, where are you?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-481838326205496616.post-49885876814489920212013-04-26T21:08:18.084-04:002013-04-26T21:08:18.084-04:00Hullo AP,
Late to the party as ever. Glad to see ...Hullo AP,<br /><br />Late to the party as ever. Glad to see you're still into things. Also glad to see you and the other punters here are taking the vicsims meme with a grain of salt. Me, I don't dismiss it utterly but I don't see it as being any kind of lay down misere either.<br /><br />Just a quick note on parallax since perspective was my bread and butter: in this case parallax may as well be viewed as an error function within perspective. Invariably whenever you hear the word parallax it will be in the phrase 'parallax error'. You will encounter parallax error every time you use a ruler to measure something. Since the ruler has a thickness unless you are directly over the mark you cannot get an accurate measurement. Were you to view the ruler from an angle, depending on how great the angle was, you could be out by a mm or so - no good if you're woodworking to a tenth mm accuracy.<br /><br />Also, just to clear James up: parallax does <i>not</i> occur when you pan a camera. Okay, maybe it does but only to a tiny degree and that by way of the inaccuracies present in lens distortion. Which is to say a pan will minimise parallax. To maximise parallax you have to move the camera. In a pan of a scene, things in the foreground will move almost not at all in regards to things in the background. But were you to put the camera in a car and drive past your aforementioned cemetary there would be parallax galore with foreground objects sliding past background ones.<br /><br />Sorry to be so pedantic but you're speaking my language. Otherwise I'm in broad agreement that punters out there are far too quick to jump on photoshop fixing as an explanation for photographic and filmic anomolies. As I've said elsewhere, these bits of weirdness aren't actually particularly weird and occur all the time.<br /><br />Besides which, (and did someone say Occam's razor just now?) I can't see the point in faking this stuff when the death cult is only too happy to kill people for real. I expect that if they were forced to come up with a one line mission statement it would probably consist of <i>'the more dead the better'</i>. And here we are imagining that they're somehow too squeamish to blow up real people. I don't think so.<br /><br />Otherwise, lovely to see everyone in here and regards to all.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-481838326205496616.post-46199613379993673112013-04-25T08:50:03.547-04:002013-04-25T08:50:03.547-04:00i will watch the lawson video btw. but if there is...i will watch the lawson video btw. but if there is some incident you had at cluesforum, i would be interested to know.A. Peasanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01929646095992796530noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-481838326205496616.post-37748813397937497242013-04-25T08:46:18.864-04:002013-04-25T08:46:18.864-04:00hi freethinker,
i hope you and James can take it o...hi freethinker,<br />i hope you and James can take it offline, first off. this cluesforum issue is just really a flashpoint, so i need to understand more about why that is so, and will do some looking into it but if you have any specifics please enlighten me.<br /><br />i do agree with your statement that they are willing to kill to advance their agenda. obviously yes. many times. this is not in question. they are also willing to fake things to divide people paying attention. that might be their more pressing task at this juncture. if so, i have to say they are doing a great job.<br /><br />paying attention is what is causing all the problems we are having with these events, because when one pays attention to the data provided, one sees that it all does not make sense. even if the photos are not shopped, where are the other injured people?<br /><br />this couple:<br /><br />http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/18/jessica-kensky-patrick-downes_n_3109979.html<br /><br />the two brothers and their friend:<br /><br />https://www.google.com/search?q=brothers%20who%20lost%20legs%20in%20boston%20bombing&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a<br /><br />this nyt graphic showing where victims were:<br /><br />http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/images/newsgraphics/2013/0416-bostonmap/diagram-4-first-bomb-overlay.jpg<br /><br />i cannot reconcile these people to the photos. that is what i am bitching about. where are they?? why can't we see them even in the wide shots supplied by hahatango?<br /><br />it does not make sense. A. Peasanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01929646095992796530noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-481838326205496616.post-70803858901207041732013-04-25T08:02:48.097-04:002013-04-25T08:02:48.097-04:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.freethinkernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-481838326205496616.post-42777941344193738052013-04-25T07:45:51.787-04:002013-04-25T07:45:51.787-04:00God almighty, i just found a bunch of comments in ...God almighty, i just found a bunch of comments in moderation. i am reading them now.A. Peasanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01929646095992796530noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-481838326205496616.post-52129313535224857082013-04-25T07:29:24.783-04:002013-04-25T07:29:24.783-04:00APea, I'm sorry we've had this misundersta...APea, I'm sorry we've had this misunderstanding. Really there is very little between or points of view. I speak plainly, I don't use spin, I think if you re-read my comments you will see I have not spoken against you. James's input, no doubt well intentioned, has not helped.<br /><br />I offer this suggestion-<br />it might be helpful to separate the performance from the narrative.<br />Consider this statement-<br />'the powers that be are prepared to kill and maim to further their agenda'<br />I consider that to be true (not narrative), but from your previous comments to me I infer that you think that it is narrative.<br />Please don't react defensively to that, just consider it.<br /><br />Personally I don't think there is much to be gained by examining the 'performance' in microscopic detail, but for those that do I wish them luck.<br /><br />All the best.freethinkernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-481838326205496616.post-65158572323797266322013-04-25T07:12:59.318-04:002013-04-25T07:12:59.318-04:00Kenny,
Yes that's the frontage I was talking a...Kenny,<br />Yes that's the frontage I was talking about in my ramble. The windows are double-glazed; on the right both inner and outer panes have been broken; on the left only the outer pane is broken, so there is a reflection from the inner pane. That proves that the theory that the windows were blown out from inside is wrong.<br />My theory for what its worth is that the windows were not broken by the blast (which wasn't very powerful) but from shrapnel. On the right something hard had enough energy to break both panes and on the left something had enough energy to break only the outer pane.<br />The breakage is entirely consistent with the reported event.<br />freethinkernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-481838326205496616.post-45949302703043187602013-04-24T22:59:54.818-04:002013-04-24T22:59:54.818-04:00"the problem is total mindfuckery by the deep..."the problem is total mindfuckery by the deep state". I think you have your finger on the essential issue. Such technique has been long and well documented; it is an art form stretching back centuries, starting with the Perfectibilists and improved on a regular basis, updated for new technologies, changing culture (driven by their purposeful changes), modernized, paid for by the taxpayer but not open to our inout or direction. <br /><br />I have been thinking for some time -- in the background, when there aren't day-to-day events and personal pressures, or incidents like the one we are discussing -- about the need for some collaboration or cooperation among people. Call it what you will; alternative media for democracy (there's a symposium at Gopddard College soon involving more than one gatekeeper); a league or association of bloggers, journalists, and others who can teach each other more, especially about critical thinking and review, and who can join together in association without giving up their independence of view or freedom of expression, and yet by working together assign roles based on abilities and sources and knowledge, and have a greater impact than 30 monks in the jungle with a keyboard. Franklin said we should all hang together or assuredly we will be hung together. Well, old Ben may not have been the most stalwart fellow, but I'll borrow on his phrase. Based on what I saw on the media this past week, we ought to be able to outthink them. This past even seemed to be made transparent by the alternative media at a faster pace than ever before.<br /><br />[And please don't assume this means I wish to be seen as one of the leading practitioners; I still have lots to learn.)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-481838326205496616.post-9581145085063690252013-04-24T20:47:41.535-04:002013-04-24T20:47:41.535-04:00The day after the Boston bombing my city, another ...The day after the Boston bombing my city, another "liberal bastion", declared they were putting up 100 more surveillance cameras in the city. Just like that. The newspaper didn't say who decided, where the money was coming from or anything else. It was just announced as fact and I haven't heard a word of concern.<br />This is the same city (Madison, Wi) where you usually can find a protest every week. And the city known for its Vietnam war protests and university bombing.<br />Now - I don't think anyone cares about ideals, constitution, civil liberties. Sure, the right and left still argue, but it's pretty much all bullshit and amounts to nothing.<br />And I find the "watch out for mentally ill" people meme becoming louder by the day. You know, we gotta make sure everyone is medicated so they can have a "happy" life and not kill anyone. More bullshit. <br />It's getting knee deep here.<br />KittyAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-481838326205496616.post-23079131651825703032013-04-24T20:17:53.948-04:002013-04-24T20:17:53.948-04:00Aangirfan has turned up an interesting article ind...Aangirfan has turned up an interesting article indicating Tamerlan Tsarnaev was recruited by Georgia’s Caucasus Fund, an organization run by the Jamestown Foundation which I have seen pieces before linking them with the company.<br /><br />http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/348740#ixzz2RPtiNprC<br /><br />http://aangirfan.blogspot.com/2013/04/boston-bomb-mysteries-solved-link-to-cia.html<br /><br />http://www.madcowprod.com/2013/04/22/was-boston-bombers-uncle-ruslan-with-the-cia/<br /><br />Now we know uncle Ruslan who says the boys are guilty was working for USAID a company affiliate also. He is now a “Duke” lawyer. Their aunt in Canada has that wild look in her we sometimes see among the tribe. Do you think the whole bunch of them could simply be tribe and pulling off a smooth one?<br /><br />Lets face it, the only ones who have seen the bodies of the two brothers are supposedly a few police, the swat team that shot up the boat, medics and members of the hospital staff at Beth Israel, that includes the Israeli doctors supposedly working on him. Very few people can verify if either one of them are really dead or actually wounded. Last I read nobody has claimed a body. For all I know both of them could be on a plane to a villa somewhere. It will be interesting to see if this guy makes it to trial. He might just have a “relapse” and that is the last we hear of him leaving behind a “confession under sedation by Israeli doctors” and officials.Dublinmickhttp://dublinsmick.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-481838326205496616.post-25971106279928372292013-04-24T20:15:10.550-04:002013-04-24T20:15:10.550-04:00Hi Freethinker,
thanks for your detailed response....Hi Freethinker,<br />thanks for your detailed response. Much of it is very interesting for me (as much as I understand it anyway) but not much of it applies to what I have said.<br /><br />Apea's link <br />http://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?p=2383138&sid=2669e2af1afc50a03a4ab198dae587c3<br /><br />works fine for me and goes to the top of the page and the pictures in question. I don't know why your browser goes elsewhere. I haven't come across that before.<br /><br />To your points-<br />a) again the link works fine for me. The picture on that page of the girl with white and blue top that you mentioned has nothing to do with what I was talking about. I understand it has to do with your estimation of the site in general but no one here is advocating for or defending that site. <br /><br />b) Yes, that's the picture of the explosion and yes you are right. I was fooled by the parallax effect. I learnt something! :)<br /><br />My first comment I made on this post was to find out about perspective and parallax. My second comment was to defend Apea's posting of that link as a reasonable thing to do. And still is. There were things wrong with the opinions of those pictures on that Cluesforum page and you have now pointed some things out. That's all as it should be.<br /><br />But this is not helpful to fruitful discussion-<br /><br /><em>“there is a lot of parallax to account for but I honestly don't understand how any intelligent person (and you are a very intelligent person James) can look at that scene and say that the explosion was in front of Starbucks.“</em><br /><br />and this-<br /><br /><em>“In case you hadn't gathered by now I think cluesforum is shit, it's a red-rag to me, I don't understand why any intelligent person wastes time on them (but they do).”</em><br /><br />I don't say things like that to you.<br /><br />The rest of your comment, though informative, does not address anything I said. Which is ok, of course, but it belongs in a separate comment addressed to the general readership. All I was concentrating on was that you misread the cluesforum guy's reasoning pertaining to perspective and parallax and I was trying to explain what <em>his</em> reasoning was and because that was pertinent to your initial explanation. I was not debating photographic technicalities because I was not personally making any claims about those pictures. Besides, I am even more clueless on this subject than those on that forum, as I've already conceded :) <br /><br />I still have your email address, so I'll write to you offline later in my day. Take care, Jamesjameshttp://www.winterpatriot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-481838326205496616.post-56600459817816569152013-04-24T19:33:49.036-04:002013-04-24T19:33:49.036-04:00i have to jump back in and add, as i got more info...i have to jump back in and add, as i got more info today on a personal level, that the whole thing does not add up. there is either a problem with the photostreams available on the internet -- ie meaning that the internet is very effectively scrubbed more than we might even dare to imagine -- OR, there is a problem with the victim narratives. it is one or the other. and either way, the problem is total mindfuckery by the deep state. i don't even know what to say anymore except it does not compute.A. Peasanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01929646095992796530noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-481838326205496616.post-61749822941959009242013-04-24T15:48:34.857-04:002013-04-24T15:48:34.857-04:00hi freethinker, i am sorry this is so exasperating...hi freethinker, i am sorry this is so exasperating. you do obviously have a lott of technilcal background and you no doubt see things and understand them where others like me may not. it is not in dispute that some explosions happened. and i can accept that you are correct on the issues you raised. there are other issues however that remain. we o not have to get into them. therre are simply too many questions and not enough answers.<br /><br />may the truth prevail.A. Peasanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01929646095992796530noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-481838326205496616.post-63630732883570225252013-04-24T10:40:46.986-04:002013-04-24T10:40:46.986-04:00freethinker, here's a photo I saved of the sto...freethinker, here's a photo I saved of the storefront window. <br /><br />http://i676.photobucket.com/albums/vv126/kennyrk2/Bostonbombscene_zpsac32b3fd.jpg<br /><br />Obvious reflection on the left side, even looks like some cracks on the far left but it still looks odd. <br /><br />Any insights?kennyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14832889157632754957noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-481838326205496616.post-16850806603436938152013-04-24T09:23:53.844-04:002013-04-24T09:23:53.844-04:00part 3
The Spacial Anomalies-
I don't have th...part 3<br /><br />The Spacial Anomalies-<br />I don't have the time or patience to refute each of the weird claims made regarding supposed spacial anomalies that are brought up to 'prove' media fakery but here are a few- <i><br />"Considering our frame of reference for the physical location of the photographer provided by the first image, could even the most advanced wide-angle lens, used from that position, possibly provide the perspective shown in the second image?"</i> Yes. Pros use very high quality very expensive lenses.<i><br />"Yet: notice how the foreground couple of superheroes scrambling into action looks exactly identical, with almost no changes in perspective and proportions despite the remarkable differences in point of views."</i> The 2 heroes are (near enough) the same distance from the cameras so there shouldn't be much difference. If you look closely the heroes shown in the long high shot look a little more squat, just as they should. <i><br />"In this next picture the white line looks painted on, added on top of the rest of the image."</i>No it doesn't. <i>"The position of yellow jacket guy relative to the white line doesn't match up at all between the picture above,"</i> Yes it does if you can imagine the scene from the point of view of the photographer close to the yellow jacket guy. BTW I wish I had his wide angle lens, very nice.<br />I see no Spacial anomalies.<br /><br /><br />I'm not saying that media fakery doesn't exist. I think this analysis has merit-<br />http://worldunitednews.blogspot.ca/2013/04/proof-that-ap-photo-being-used-to.html<br /><br />A few more things in the blogosphere (not TB!) I'd like to address quickly without links while I'm at it, and if you don't know what I'm talking about then just ignore it-<br />There are pictures of a store front with 2 large windows and glass on the sidewalk. This is taken as 'proof' that the bomb was inside as the blast would blow the glass out - right? Well if you look closer the inner pane of the left hand double-glazed unit is intact. How can the outer pane be broken and the inner intact if the bomb were inside?<br /><br />Fragments of a pressure cooker have been shown but they don't have holes from the ball bearings and shrapnel so that's 100% proof of fakery! Well no it isn't, but it does show the very limited understanding most people have of physics. When the bomb is ignited inside the pressure vessel the pressure will rise rapidly until the point of rupture. Then the fragments of casing will fly out followed by the shrapnel inside. The shrapnel is accelerating from standstill and so at the point of detonation has zero kinetic energy and zero momentum. Some time after detonation the shrapnel will overtake the larger (hence more aerodynamic drag) casing fragments. At that point it might be possible for a casing fragment to be perforated by shrapnel but 'it ain't necessarily so'.<br /><br />I've lost the will to live. Goodbye.freethinkernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-481838326205496616.post-7255374111795007782013-04-24T09:22:13.975-04:002013-04-24T09:22:13.975-04:00part 2
"First off, I was genuine in not unde...part 2<br /><br /><i>"First off, I was genuine in not understanding parallax."</i> Sometimes I forget not everyone is a techno-geek like me.<br /><br /><i>"I noticed that the link you gave was a little different to the one APea gave. Hers goes to the top of the page whereas yours goes further down the page to the two pictures where perspective and parallax that you mentioned are (and what I asked for).<br /><br />What is interesting for me is that the commenter alleging photoshopping was doing so from the point of view that both pictures represent the exact same moment in time and therefore must have been photoshopped. He said the apparent differences were due to the very same perspective distortions that you mentioned. So he was agreeing with you as far as that went. His conclusion from that is obviously different to yours but it was because he too couldn't "see anything incompatible between these 2 images"</i><br /><br />In case you hadn't gathered by now I think cluesforum is shit, it's a red-rag to me, I don't understand why any intelligent person wastes time on them (but they do). Anthony Lawson puts it more eloquently: <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYSGv5HNPxQ" rel="nofollow">September Clues - Busted!</a> So I have to concede my off the cuff comment about their shitty photo interpretation skills was not as rigorously justified as it might have been.<br /><br />APea linked to the page, not to a specific post, as far as I could tell, and so I read some of the posts as my blood pressure rose. Anyway I came upon the discussion of the 2 pics from different perspectives. It caught my attention as I noticed with Sandy Hook there was a great deal of misunderstanding about parallax, perspective, and the use of long and short lenses. My link was to the first of these but there are many more down the page. The discussion relates to 2 perceived anomalies: a) the temporal anomaly - the impossibility of 2 photos being taken at the same time; b) the spacial anomaly - inconsistencies in the perspective. Either of which would support their prejudiced opinion that the photos were fake. Their methodology seems to be: the image looks too good to be true so therefore it <b>must</b> be fake, now lets find a way to prove that its fake.<br /><br />The Temporal Anomaly-<br />It's an action picture, an iconic action shot used on all media reports. Most of the 'heroes' are on one foot and would be off balance if it were a static pose, so they are moving. One guy on the right seems to be accelerating to the right from a standstill, so he's not yet moving quickly. The 2 guys at the front are nearly on top of the fallen runner and the marshal and photographer, and their stride is short, so they can't be moving very quickly.<br />The 2 pics are taken at the same moment as near as makes no difference, ie within a small fraction of a second. Is it impossible for 2 pics to be taken at the same time without explicit synchronization? No, it might seem unlikely but consider that professional action-photographers all use cameras with a 'rapid fire' facility (it used to be called motor drive, I don't know what the current jargon is) eg a random hi-end camera, the Nikon D7100, can shoot stills at 7 frames per second; pros know a 'good shot' when they see it and there will be a high degree of agreement on what makes a good shot; the pictures we see have been selected (by whom?) and just maybe these 2 were selected to cause mischief, but it could just be blind luck.<br />Not proven.freethinkernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-481838326205496616.post-17469228607145421272013-04-24T09:16:06.563-04:002013-04-24T09:16:06.563-04:00To James, part 1
"Following APea's link ...To James, part 1<br /><br /><i>"Following APea's link which goes to the top of that page, I came across the picture of the blast as it happened and where it was, outside Starbucks. And then the second picture focussing on the building, Forum, next door to Starbucks. Yet this is the building (Forum) the media was saying is where the blast occurred. But it is obvious from the first picture that it was outside the building next door to it - Starbucks.This doesn't add up."</i><br /><br />APea's link is to the page not to any specific post (as far as I can tell).<br />I had a hard time finding the photo you were referring to:<br /><br />a) you didn't direct me to a specific post; I spent a while tracking all the links on the top post to no avail before looking about 6 posts down (maybe the page breaks are different in my browser from yours, that can happen) shortly after the typically shitty (IMHO) post:-<br /><i><b>Vicsim</b> "Ligzi Liu"<br />Blue lines on white background & <b>fake analog effect...</b><br />http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.1318955!/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_635/lingzi-lu-2.jpg </i><br />What the hell was that about? What is gained by slandering this young girl?<br /><br />b) I don't see any explosion in front of Starbucks, but I see an explosion in front of a black building (Forum) in this pic-<br />http://img.chinasmack.com/www/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/2013-boston-marathon-bombing-01-explosion-near-finish-line.jpg<br />Then I read the text within the post: <br /><i>"The explosion is clearly happening in front of the <b>starbucks</b> and not the Forum cafe".</i><br />So clearly this is the pic you are referring to James.<br /><br />Sorry, it is as clear as day to me that the explosion (a rather tame one I have to say) is in front of Forum and not Starbucks. We are viewing the scene at a fairly acute angle and the sidewalk is very wide so there is a lot of parallax to account for but I honestly don't understand how any intelligent person (and you are a very intelligent person James) can look at that scene and say that the explosion was in front of Starbucks. I guess or brains are just wired differently. Were you influenced by reading the text first?<br /><br />So no inconsistencies here; all the pics show a blast in front of Forum and cluesforum is full of shit as usual.<br />freethinkernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-481838326205496616.post-26435851256281570252013-04-24T07:33:07.867-04:002013-04-24T07:33:07.867-04:00dubs, from your rense link:
* Why Dzhokhar most ...dubs, from your rense link:<br /><br /><i>* Why Dzhokhar most likely tried to contact the campus policeman he know to turn himself in to them -- after he found out that he was wanted -- and that someone else shot the MIT campus police officer in the head to prevent that from happening<br /></i><br /><br />that rings true.A. Peasanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01929646095992796530noreply@blogger.com