Advocates of 'actors' at the Boston bombings tend to use a highly subjective approach to analysis of the evidence, similar to the way Rorschach inkblot tests are used to analyze a person's personality and emotional functioning.
I recently wrote an article explaining the reasons why I think there were no 'actors' used in place of victims at the Boston Marathon bombings. In that article I made reference to other websites and researchers who had taken up the 'actors' meme and run with it. In this article I'll be looking more closely at the 'evidence' that has been presented in support of the 'actors' theory. Before I begin though, I should explain how and why my approach differs from the approach that the 'actors' advocates have taken.

When trying to decide whether a particular conspiracy theory, or particular angle on a conspiracy theory, is likely to be true or false, my approach is to first look at the plausibility of the theory in question. In terms of the Boston bombings, the idea that 'actors' took the place of real victims is the theory. When I first was forced to consider this theory, it took me about 3 minutes of rumination before it began to make no logical sense whatsoever. I more or less spelled out the lack of logic in my previous article, but it can be summed up as: why would a US intel agency choose to use actor victims at a bombing that is designed to terrify the US population into believing that evil terrorists are out to kill them when they could very easily just plant a bomb and let the bomb do what bombs do best, kill and maim people?

Why would a US intel agency choose to do this when, if you think about it, it massively complicates the planning of such an operation and greatly increases the chances of the official story falling apart? To date, no one has offered a sensible answer to this question.

Some bloggers have claimed that the use of 'crisis actors' at the Boston bombings is an attempt to further blur the lines between what is real and what is false, between fantasy and reality, and usher us all into a 'reality TV' world.

That's a reasonable enough idea, but hasn't that fantasy world already been achieved, to a great extent, with the long list of US/Israeli/British false flag "Muslim terror attacks" over the past 15 years? Isn't the yawning chasm between what most people believe about "Muslim terror attacks", and the likely truth behind them, wide enough that it constitutes an already massive break with reality?

What do the PTB have to gain, vis a vis the public, by adding the 'actor victims' element into the mix. If the average person in the street is none the wiser about the presence of 'actors', isn't that functionally the same, from a psy-ops point of view, as if victims were real people and not actors? If people believe the 'actors' to be real victims, what's the point in having actors rather than real victims? Maybe the answer is that US intel agencies have suddenly grown a conscience and an aversion to killing people, hence their use of 'actors'? But the last time I checked, those high-level intel and government types were still a bunch of conscienceless, blood-thirsty, murderous bastards who delight in the suffering of others.

So basically, that's where I was coming from when I began to look at the 'actors' theory. I could find no logical reason for the inclusion of 'actors' and many reasons why they should not be used. In addition, I found the alleged evidence for 'actors' at Boston sorely lacking in that it relied on conjecture, supposition and a good measure of imagination, all to make the evidence fit what appears to be a pre-established theory. Basically, all of the 'actors' theorists seem to have used an "ink blot test" approach to their analysis of the photographic evidence from the Boston bombings.

Note, it wasn't that I was averse to the idea of the Boston bombings being staged by some element of US intel agencies - far from it. I was more or less fully convinced (based on the hard evidence and historical context) that the Boston bombings were a dyed-in-the-wool, false flag "homegrown terrorism attack", designed, like all others, to justify US imperial warmongering and to terrorize the American people into trusting their authorities and looking to them for protection.

'Actors' theorists have spent a lot of time and effort questioning the veracity and plausibility of eyewitness statements (as reported in the media) about what they did or didn't do immediately after the bombing. But surely supposedly seasoned conspiracy theorists should know better than most that it is the media's job to hype national crisis situations, and that therefore exaggeration and dodgy reporting cannot, in isolation, be construed as evidence of a grand conspiracy involving 'actors'. After all, there have been many other similar "terrorist attacks" where the media has been caught either making stuff up or misrepresenting the facts, and yet there were no associated allegations of 'actors as victims'. In addition, as regards Boston, it should come as no surprise that certain people, like Carlos Arredondo, or 'Cowboy hat man', would exaggerate his role when he is being lauded in the press as a national hero. Human nature plays a part here, and these particular conspiracy theorists tend to overlook that.

Actors theorists have cited the fact, that because there were relatively few witnesses at the blast location, and rescuers were held at bay for the first few minutes by the temporary fencing, 'actors' could have used this opportunity to stage the scene. It's true that there were relatively few witnesses at the blast location, but it's also true that most of them were in a state of shock. It's true that rescuers had to overcome the fencing before they could reach the victims, but what is overlooked is the fact that there is photographic evidence from, more or less, immediately after the bombing, and for several minutes afterwards, that shows no evidence of anyone 'staging' any 'scene'.

Have a look for yourself.

Photo #1
The image below has been used by 'actors' theorists to claim that none of the people seen here appear to have any serious injuries.

You tell me, is it reasonable to make such an assertion based on this image? Let me put it another way. Look at this image of a 2011 bombing at a shrine in Afghanistan, where 50 people, several of them in this image, were killed.

By the same rationale, couldn't it be claimed that many of the very dead people in this image don't appear to have received any significant injuries? Sure it could, but that wouldn't change the fact that several of them are 100% dead. Oh, and by the way, where is all the blood? I mean, there is ALWAYS tons of blood at bombings with fatalities, right?

These same images of the immediate aftermath of the first Boston bombing, centering on the group of people that includes Jeff Bauman, the woman in the red coat and the man in the hooded top, have been used to claim that they all three individuals look very calm relative to the other people. This 'evidence' is used to imply that those three people are actors. But look at the image yourself. Would you be prepared to make such a statement based on that image and in the understanding that these people were pictured seconds after a bomb had just detonated right beside them?

A more rational explanation is that the three people who were seriously injured are in serious shock, and therefore 'dazed and confused', while those further away are not, and are therefore able to react more normally. The problem with the general approach taken by 'actors' theorists is that they assume, a priori, that there are 'actors' in these images and they then go about the process of trying to find evidence to prove their subjective belief. The result is that, before they have provided any evidence, they are already calling the victims accomplices etc. without having provided any evidence to back up that assertion. This has the effect of priming the reader to accept the 'actors' theory without any reasonable evidence. It's not exactly an objective way to approach the matter.

Most articles and Youttube videos on this topic are full of similar attempts to state as fact that which is mere conjecture based on evidence that can be pretty easily explained in other ways.

The image below has been used by many to claim that Bauman and the woman in the red coat are giving hand signals and even making eye contact with each other, and that there is hardly any blood to be seen.

Again, the context is missing. A bomb went off 5 seconds before this photo was taken, about 3 feet from where the people in question were standing. It knocked them to the ground, damaged their ear drums (if only temporarily) and they are most likely in shock. Given this scenario, how can anyone state that anything can be interpreted from the positions of hands, legs, heads etc. Note, I'm not saying definitively that those people are not giving hand signals, neither would I state for sure that they are not singing kumbya. What I am saying is that, given the circumstances, no one can reasonably presume to know what those people are, or are not, doing.

The following two images have been used to suggest that the man in the hooded top is somehow manipulating or working on Bauman's legs.

But, again, these are two still images taken in quick succession. How can anyone reasonably claim to know what anyone in this image is actually doing? Again we see that 'actors' theorists are desperately searching for 'facts' to fit their pre-established belief.

Perhaps the most discussed photograph of the Boston bombings is the famous image of Jeff Bauman in the wheelchair. 'Actors' theorists have claimed that it is ridiculous that Bauman is being evacuated in a wheelchair rather than strapped to a gurney. They also point to the fact that his wounds are in full display rather than covered by something.

The fact that Bauman was transported in a wheelchair can be explained by the fact that, at that point in time (about 6 minutes after the first bomb exploded) no ambulances had yet arrived, and gurneys were therefore scarce. There were however many wheelchairs available as part of the marathon entourage and these were used to evacuate several people before ambulances arrived.

Watch this timelapse video (at double speed). At 3 minutes 10 seconds (i.e. 6 minutes 20 seconds after the bomb exploded) you can see Bauman being removed from the scene and still no ambulances have arrived. Also notice that many wheelchairs are brought in but precious few gurneys. Notice how many people are brought out in wheelchairs. Bauman is in fact the fourth or fifth person to be removed from the scene. As to why Bauman's injuries were not covered, that is, at present, an unknown, but it certainly isn't proof that he was an 'actor'.

The image below has been used by 'actors' theorists to make the point that the woman in the red top seems to be sitting around doing nothing and appears unfazed by the horror around her and ignorant of the fact that she is in the way of responders.

Again these are nonsensical allegations when we consider the effects of shock on a human being:
The symptoms of shock show great variation but typically include an initial state of "daze", with some constriction of the field of consciousness and narrowing of attention, inability to comprehend stimuli, and disorientation.
According to many 'actors' theorists, this woman should have been alert and aware of everything that was going on around her, regardless of the fact that a bomb had exploded right beside her just minutes before.

'Actors' theorists have also questioned why no runners appear to have been injured by the blast. But this is really a rather disingenuous question to ask. The women in the above image were mere feet from the blast. The runners were 10-15 yards from the explosion and were protected from its effects by metal and wooden barriers and the material that made up the advertising sign that was draped over the barriers; more importantly, they were protected from the blast by the bodies of the spectators. The bomb was allegedly a pressure cooker bomb filled with gunpowder and a quantity of nails. The white smoke is indicative of gunpowder. The gunpowder was the means to produce enough pressure for the pressure cooker to explode, sending parts of the cooker itself and the nails flying in all directions, mostly from ground to waist level. A pressure cooker is of limited size, therefore it will produce a limited amount of shrapnel. There was obviously also a limit to the amount of nails or ball bearings that could have been added to the pressure cooker. It's not unreasonable to suggest that most of this limited amount of shrapnel was absorbed by the bodies of those spectators closest to it. After that, all you have is a shockwave which clearly was not that strong based on the extent to which the blue advertising material covering the barriers blows out in this video:

'Actors' theorists have juxtaposed the last image above with the image below

and cited the fact that in the first image the womens' heads are together and their eyes are closed, while in the second image their eyes are open and their heads are apart. This is apparently evidence that they are 'actors'. For the 'actors' theorists, it seems that when two images are taken of the same scene just a few seconds apart, the people in the images are not allowed to move. The idea that the worker was checking for a pulse and would likely have had her hands in that position for up to a minute is apparently irrelevant. The idea that the emergency worker would probably have been trying to speak to the women and that they would have responded to either her voice or touch, is not possible, apparently. Note also, that, between the two images, the guy in blue in the center has bent down and a woman in a red baseball cap has entered the picture.

Among other evidence that I have seen offered as proof of 'actors' is a still from a YouTube video that purports to show Christian Williams (the guy in the hooded top beside Bauman in the photos taken immediately after the bombing), sitting against the wall of a building near to where the first bomb went off just after the bomb exploded. Here's the still:

The problem here is that the man in this image is wearing tan shoes, and yet it is claimed that this is the same man with the hooded top that is seen in the middle of the image below, despite the fact that the man with the hooded top in the image below is wearing dark shoes with a blue color or blue laces.

Also, if the image with the man sitting down at the wall is the same man that can be seen at the bomb site, and if the image of him sitting against the wall was taken immediately after the bomb went off, how did he get to the bomb site given that the images of him at the bomb site show him there within 2 seconds of the bomb exploding. Bi-location perhaps? I suppose anything's possible in 'crisis actor' land. Seriously though, this is just more evidence of (a perhaps unconscious) selection and substitution of data in an effort to make the case for 'actors' at the Boston bombing.

Some people have asked why the people in this image below, who are about 10 yards removed from the blast site, are looking up in the air.

This image has been used to suggest that the bomb actually exploded in the upper floors of the building and/or there was something suspicious going on up there. Additional evidence for this claim is provided by a Fox News reporter on the day of the bombing who stated that, while she wasn't exactly near the first bomb, when she looked around, she thought that the bomb came from inside a building.

A reasonable answer to the first point is that the people are looking up in the air because a large plume of smoke has just risen up in that direction, as is very obvious from the videos of the explosion. They may also be looking up at falling glass from broken windows. A reasonable answer to the second point about the Fox News reporter's statements is that she was not close to the bombing site, and only turned around when she heard the explosion and saw the plume of smoke that a bunch of other people were looking at also. She inferred from this that the explosion came from further up the building. In any case, the video evidence makes it very clear that the bomb exploded at ground level.

Following up on this claim, some people have suggested that the 'actors' could have emerged from the Lenscrafters store. The problem however is that we have photographs showing the scene approx. 2 seconds after the bomb exploded, and we see no parade of bloodied-up actors coming out of Lenscrafters, instead, what we see are the people who were there when the bomb exploded.

Here's another image of people, in this case cops, looking up at the building above the Lenscrafters store.

Why are they looking up there? Probably because the glass on the ground had just fallen from up there, and there may have been more about to fall, as it apparently did at some point based on this image.

Oh, by the way, if the bomb was inside the ground floor of the Lenscrafters store (as some people have suggested, how did that desk remain intact?)

While we're on the topic of glass; one major question that is being used to suggest actors were involved is, if the bomb exploded outwards from the sidewalk, why does the glass appear to have fallen on the sidewalk rather than inside the store?

There are two points: 1) the glass was probably tempered or laminated and therefore remained intact and then fell outwards. Or, look at the first of the two images above with the cops looking up. Notice anything? The cops are reflected in the glass. That is to say, those windows were double-paned, and on the left pane, only the outer pane was broken by the blast, hence the glass there couldn't have fallen in.

I could go on, and on and on folks, but I'm done. Oh, ok, one more. The following image is a still from minute 2.21 from this video of the bombing. I just thought it was interesting that not only had the 'actors' managed to get themselves into place in double-quick time, one of them even had the foresight to daub some blood on the barrier and on the broken part no less. Watch the few mins of video for yourself here.

Ok, I'm really done now. If anyone has any piece of 'evidence' that I haven't covered here that they'd like me to opine on, feel free to send it to me. But be warned, I've looked at a lot of 'evidence of 'actors' at the Boston bombings, and all of it fits into this same profile of mild to wild conjecture and supposition in an effort to make the case. And to be honest, I'm having a hard time explaining the extent to which this 'actors' business has been taken up by so many people.

The endless analysis of trivia in the aftermath of deliberately inflicted mass trauma events is itself evidence that the lines between what is real and what is false have blurred. It's only when you have to actually counter the arguments that are being made that you realise just how ridiculous and baseless, i.e. lacking in any evidence, the arguments are. The only thing I can think of to explain it is that people are 'disintegrating' - they're losing the plot, so to speak - and are projecting their own highly subjective and chaotic internal state outwards as 'reality'; and they're soooo damn convinced they have the 'real deal' and that they've 'busted the whole thing wide open'.

Another possible explanation is that many long-term 'conspiracy theorists' have reached the end of their rope, so to speak. They've watched the government and assorted alphabet soup agencies get away with so much evil-doing, for so long, and despite all of their attempts to expose that evil, most people still don't get it. I can see how that kind of frustration could lead a person to begin to 'strain at gnats and swallow camels'. But it's still a very bad idea to let your critical thinking capacities fall by the wayside and just go with whatever you think you see in photographs and reports of the latest 'terror attack'. It's also a serious problem for others who get sucked into this kind of subjectivity because, in the final analysis, people are being encouraged to believe lies as truth, the same kind of lies that are being spread by the government with their "terror attack" horse shit. I'm fairly convinced that believing lies has a very direct and deleterious effect on the human mind, and ultimately results in disintegration in one form or another. I'm just trying to warn people about that prospect and, as the world descends further and further into fantasy and make-believe, I'm asking those of you who can, to try to hold firm and keep the objective truth firmly in your sights.

p.s. The guy throwing "blood powder"? (minute 2.07). Those are towels, for crying out loud.