My first guess would be that the emergency responders deployed the gurneys/stretchers first to move victims, which would make sense, and only began using wheelchairs when the stretchers were all in transit. Second guess would be that she was triaged with an injury - back or neck - which required prone transport.
I interpreted it as quite the opposite. I thought that because all the wheelchairs were already gathered around the finish line, the non-professional first responders would utilize them before ambulances arrived and official triage with stretchers began.
barracuda wrote:I don't think he's actually "resting on a victim", as it appears to me that his left elbow is on the ground. Are he and the person near him touching? Perhaps. As to why he's "ignoring" the other victims, I think you have to remember that he was very severely wounded, nearly died, and nearly lost both his legs. He is almost certainly deafened by the explosion, and shock is coming on. I wonder what you or I would do in the same circumstances.
Agree as to reasonable speculation, but that's all it can be, as I'm sure you've already noted.
Is there anyone involved in any of this discussion who has ever been unfortunate enough to experience a bomb blast or similar scenario? If not, I can't understand how formulating expectations as to how things ought to be or how people ought to be behaving is fair or reasonable in any measure. It reminds me of the rationalization process by which people end up blaming the victim of a crime.
barracuda wrote:canadian_watcher wrote:okay one more thing - that doesn't look like liters and liters of blood under Baumann, which could be expected from that injury.
There's an easy way to find out: go and buy a two-liter Diet Coke down at the 7-11, uncap it and pour the contents slowly onto the sidewalk or your living room floor.
No kidding B.
C_W, Are you a medical professional? A trauma surgeon, a nurse, a physician, a war reporter? If not, what qualifies you to entertain expectations about the amount of blood that should be there?
Canadian_watcher wrote:I have no idea *why* they would do this. None whatsoever. Maybe it was just a test. Maybe rogue factions wanted to make shit eating fools out of someone, who the fuck knows? These people operate on a different plane. Like pedophiles - are you going to pretend you understand the minds of pedophiles?
that's what I see.
that's what I believe.
there's nothing so far that makes me think I'm wrong but I am absolutely willing to be convinced. Please convince me I'm wrong.
Would you believe me if told you that the people who owned me most of my life, which is either the same network of folks behind recent false flags, or a connected network of folks who politically benefit from this sort of thing, GET OFF on hurting people, that is, on making real victims? That's number one. Number two is, there are far too many civilian/ancillary/potential witnesses drawn into this sort of scenario that it would be nearly impossible to contain such an op. Also, how are the actors controlled, are they paid, are they threatened, are they MC'd? How are their families and friends controlled? Given those considerations, what kind of fool and failure of tradecraft would require an op to be pulled off in the way you're suggesting with no immediately perceivable benefit as to the means?
The concept is not out of the realm of possibility, never mind its application to this case, but being possible doesn't make it probable either. Uneducated guesswork about selective photographic evidence does not, in any way, provide some sort of evidential basis for a theory. It's all pissing in the wind really, with the added benefit of denigrating people, damaged beyond comprehension, whom you don't know, who were caught up in a scenario that is beyond your ability to imagine.
I could devise ludicrous theories about any incident in history if I approached them in the same manner, and be absolutely, completely wrong according to all other sources.
barracuda wrote:Your job is to lay out evidence. I haven't yet seen you do that. Those pictures do not prove your point, hon.
Yes.
If anyone wants to pursue a line of questioning, begin with a piece of evidence that suggests the line of questioning is warranted. In the case of crisis actors in the Boston bombing, there is none yet. There is only the line of questioning, the uneducated questions, the wondering, the speculating. Evidence would consist of photos or video of actors being moved into place, testimony of witnesses seeing actors being moved into place, photos of fake blood packets, photos of victims as amputees before the incident, etc., etc. Any one of those might be a starting place. Creating expectation out of ignorance and lack of experience in order to use it as a comparative device to find fault, is not evidence. It is not evidence.
I'd rather hear you, C_W, explain why you think your intuition is directing you into questioning, or arguing here, other than just another excuse to engage in combat with your perceived enemies on the board. I don't discount intuition, I don't discount the feeling of anyone who is moved to call bullshit, but there must be some rational check on the parameters. There are already far too many bits of real evidence in this case to account for intuitive bullshit meters going off, and they have nothing to do with crisis actors.
Here I've not said one thing that's not already been said in this thread, repeatedly. For goodness sake, time is much better spent in other pursuits.
