Image

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 analysis of the Boston Bombings and the idea that 'actors' were used in place of victims. In that article I made reference to other websites and researchers who had taken up this meme and run with it. Author and researcher Dave McGowan has been cited most often (to me at least) as having made the best case for 'actors'. McGowan has published a multi-part series of articles, all of which rely heavily on photographs to make his case. In this article I'll be looking at the 'evidence' that he presents for the 'actors' theory. Before I begin though, I should explain how and why my approach differs from what appears to be the way McGowan has approached this event.

The short explanation is that my approach employs a sane mind, logic and critical thinking. McGowans' approach employs mostly his imagination possibly fueled by crack cocaine or psychotropic drugs. I also assume he uses some metaphorical surgical gloves and tweezers or similar intangible instruments, because he pulls most of his 'evidence' out of his ass, metaphorically-speaking.

The longer explanation is that, 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 chose 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 chose 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. For his part, at the end of his series of articles on the topic, Dave McGowan suggests that all of the alleged "fakery" is:
a campaign aimed at erasing the line between reality and fantasy - between what is objectively real and what is make-believe. For many years now we have seen a blurring of the line between news and entertainment, as well as, through 'reality' television, a blurring of the line between what is 'real' and what is scripted. We are now entering an age when there will be no dividing line at all between news, scripted entertainment and 'reality' TV. It will all be one and the same. In the new 'reality' we will be living in, nothing will be real and everything will be true.
That's fair enough, but hasn't that 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 the 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.

So, let's look at some of McGowan's 'evidence':

The first main point McGowan makes is to question the veracity of the media reports and eyewitness statements about what they did or didn't do immediately after the bombing. This is something McGowan returns to later in his series. McGowan should know better than most that it is the media's job to hype national crisis situations, so exaggeration and dodgy reporting cannot, in isolation, be construed as evidence of a grand conspiracy involving actors. There are many other similar "terror attack" events 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, 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 McGowan tends to overlook that.

McGowan then states:
"The fact that there were relatively few witnesses at the blast location, coupled with the fact that would-be rescuers were held at bay for the first few minutes by the temporary fencing, would have provided an ideal window of opportunity to stage the scene, if anyone had been inclined to do so."
Not only were there relatively few witnesses at the blast location, most of them were in a state of shock to some degree. And it is true that rescuers had to overcome the fencing before they could reach the victims. But what McGowan seems to overlook is the fact that there is photographic evidence from, more or less, the first second after the bombing, and for several minutes afterwards, that shows no evidence of anyone "staging the scene".

Image

Photo #1
Image

Photo#2
Image

Photo#3
Image

Photo#4
Image

Photo#5
Image

Photo#6
In his first article, McGowan presents this image:

Image
and states:
"All three accomplices [...] will emerge from their ordeal without so much as a drop of Johnny's [Bauman's] blood on them. Also, none of the three appear to have received any significant injuries despite having been right alongside a guy who supposedly got both his legs blown off."
At this very early stage in his analysis, McGowan is already calling people "accomplices" 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. He engages in further spurious speculation by stating that the individuals don't appear to have any significant injuries. You tell me, is it reasonable to make that assertion based on that 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.

Image
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?

McGowan also makes the statement, based on the third image in his first article (which is very similar to the second image) that:
"Redcoat [the woman in the red coat] and hoody guy seem rather calm relative to most of the others in the scene"
Seriously? 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 just detonated right beside them? But I forget, McGowan's readers, having been offered no real evidence other than McGowan's baseless assertions, are already expected to have accepted the idea that these people are actors and that no bomb went off near them (as McGowan later tries to argue). Take note, McGowan's articles are full of similar attempts to state as fact that which is, in reality, mere conjecture based on evidence that can rather easily be explained in other ways.

McGowan then offers this next image in the series:

Image
and states:
Moments later, we can see that Jeff and Redcoat seem to both be giving the very same hand signal in the direction of approaching responders while making eye contact with one another. Both stumps continue to be in a sitting position and both continue to point directly at Redcoat. It doesn't seem to have yet occurred to Jeff or anyone else to put pressure on his wounds. Hoody guy looks on passively while making no effort to offer assistance to Jeff. Indeed, neither Redcoat nor hoody guy ever make any effort to staunch the flow of Jeff's blood, which is okay since there doesn't appear to actually be any blood flowing.
Giving the very same hand signal? A bomb went off 5 seconds beforehand about 3 feet from where they were standing, knocked them to the ground, damaged their ear drums (if only temporarily); they are in shock to some extent, and McGowan decides that the position of the hands of Bauman and the woman in the red coat are "signals" to someone? And that they are "making eye contact"? Seriously? Note, I'm not saying definitively that those people are NOT doing what McGowan says they are doing; I am saying that no person can reasonably presume to know what those people are doing given the circumstances.

In these two images below:

Image
Image
McGowan states that 'hoody guy" is:
demonstrating a considerable amount of manual dexterity for a guy with a 'degloved' hand, began working diligently on Jeff's stumps before the smoke even began to clear.
Two things; first, these are two still images taken in quick succession, for god's sake. How can anyone reasonably state that anyone in that image is showing a considerable amount of any activity, or "diligently working on anything"? Second, hoody guy, who's name is Christian Williams, had the skin stripped from his right hand. The only hand visible in these images is his left hand.

McGowan continues with this image and the following comment:

Image
The next image up for review is of Nicole, with her twice-broken left leg, fractured ankle and severed Achilles tendon. Luckily, those injuries haven't hindered her mobility as she has clearly moved from her original position. Those are some excruciatingly painful injuries that she has, but she seems to be toughing it out okay. [...]
Nicole Gross has indeed moved from her original position...she more or less sat up. Unless someone can prove otherwise, I believe it is possible for a human being to sit up with a broken leg, fractured ankle and severed Achilles tendon.

McGowan continues with this kind of highly speculative and selective analysis of several more images - and, to be honest, to deal with every single one would make this article far too long - and frankly, I don't think I need to critique every single one because I trust readers can apply the same kind of critical thinking to the rest of McGowan's photo analysis and realise that it does not constitute proof of actors at the Boston bombings. I will, however, select a few of the more glaringly false statements that McGowan makes in his subsequent articles:

McGowan opens his second part with:
Moving on now to the next image in the sequence of events, we find Arredondo moving quickly to aid Bauman. Just kidding ... what we actually find him doing is beginning to pull the fence down from the inside, seemingly oblivious to the fact that he is bringing it down directly on top of one of the victims, which is probably okay because she was undoubtedly an actress anyway. What is important to note here is that the Cowboy Hero already had access to the victims but rather than assist them he chose to spend the next few minutes helping to tear the fence down, pretending as though he hadn't already been on the other side of it.
You can view the image to which he is referring yourself here. For some reason, McGowan claims that because Carlos Arredondo had climbed over the fence and proceeded to remove it from the sidewalk side by standing on it, this means he was "pretending" that he had never been on that side. He also 'exposes' the fact that, because Arredondo was engaged in this activity rather than helping the victims, this, by implication, means they are actors, including Arredondo. The simple explanation that Arredondo was doing what others were doing at the time, removing the fence so that emergency personnel could get access to the victims, is apparently totally implausible.

In referring to the famous image of Bauman in the wheelchair, McGowan states:
Jeff is ready for his moment in the spotlight. Ridiculously, he is in a wheelchair rather than strapped to a gurney. And just as ridiculously, his alleged wounds are on full display because, you know, no one thought to throw a coat or a sheet or something over them. It couldn't really be any more obvious, given the laws of gravity, how absurd it is for a bottomless guy to be transported in an upright position. There is no question that under any other circumstances, this guy would have been on a gurney with his wounds covered with a sheet. But that would have ruined the show that his prosthetics were specifically designed for. Also, it would have looked pretty ridiculous to have him in a sitting position while lying on his back on a gurney.
McGowan labors this point of the 'ridiculousness' of Bauman being transported in a wheelchair, while at the same time decrying the fact that he wasn't getting any medical attention and should have been on a gurney. A little objective research would brought to McGowan's attention the fact that several people were carted away from the scene in wheelchairs, mainly because

a) there were dozens of wheelchairs on site as part of the marathon

b) the ambulances had not yet arrived therefore there were likely very few gurneys available.

Watch this timelapse video (at double speed). At 3 mins 10 sec (i.e. 6 mins 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 of fifth person to be removed from the scene. Despite this, McGowan goes on to show images of other people being removed on gurneys AFTER Bauman was removed.

McGowan uses the follow image:

Image
To make these points:
What is up, by the way, with the strawberry blond gal in the red top? Why is she still there? She doesn't have any visible injuries that would prevent her from leaving, or at least moving, yet she seems very reluctant to give up her position. Even when Carlos pinned her under the fence, she remained unfazed, just as she is unfazed by the two guys just behind her with mutilated legs who are presumably howling in pain, and by the dead woman and the nearly dead woman just behind her, and by the large pools of blood all around her. She also doesn't seem concerned with the fact that she is clearly impeding the progress of the responder trying to work on the girl behind her.
Apparently in his zeal to make the case for 'actors' McGowan has ignored 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 McGowan, 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 minutes before.

In questioning the fact that no runners appear to have been injured by the first explosion, McGowan asks:
The frail old runner who was knocked over by the blast was, as best it can be determined from available videotape, just on the other side of the temporary barricade from these women. And yet, by his own account, he was uninjured and was able to complete the race. So how exactly is it possible that a healthy young woman was hit with lethal force but a guy who looked like he was already half dead was just 10-15 feet further away from the explosion and directly in the line of fire and yet he walked away without a scratch on him? In what alternative reality could that actually happen?
These are more disingenuous questions from McGowan. The women in question 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 a heavy plastic sign; 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 there is a limited amount of shrapnel to come from it. There was obviously also a limit to the amount of nails 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 sign covering the railing blows out in this video:

In reference to the last image above, McGowan states:
We begin, as we did on the last outing, with that image of the two women we are clearly supposed to believe are dead. After complaining in the last post that there weren't any other views of this scene available, I discovered that there is, in fact, another image in the public domain, presumably taken by the same photographer within moments of when the other image was captured.
Image
And:
The second shot, though technically a much better photograph, has not been widely circulated. But that is probably because it clearly reveals that the above shot was a wholly contrived, posed, stage-managed affair. In the second shot, the two 'dead' actresses don't have their heads pressed together and both have their eyes and mouths open. And maybe it's just me, but the girl who is supposed to be an EMT appears to be smiling at them! Also, we can see that the hollow-leg guy, hereafter referred to as The Other Jeff, still has his lower leg and foot.
Image
For McGowan, 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 female emergency worker is taking the women's pulse in the first image, and the women's eyes are closed. In the second image, their eyes are open. For McGowan, this means the image was "staged". 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.

McGowan continues:
Next up is a fascinating video shot by a spectator who was in the blast zone filming the race when the first device detonated. The post-blast footage is understandably shaky and erratic, [...] but one thing becomes very clear: at the time of the explosion, our old friend hoody was not in the position he was later photographed in. To the contrary, he was sitting down in front of Lenscrafters with his back to the wall, calmly waiting to take his place amidst the manufactured carnage. And luckily for him, he was sitting outside the windows that didn't get blown out.

Image
McGowan's "hoody" here is wearing tan shoes, and yet McGowan claims this is the same man with the "hoody" that is seen in the middle of the below image, despite the fact that the "hoody" below is wearing shoes with a blue color or blue laces?

Image
Also, if the image with the man sitting down at the wall is the "hoody" at the bomb site, and that image of him sitting 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.

I'm getting bored with this now, so I'm going to speed it up.

In part 5 of his 7 part series, McGowan asks why the people about 10 yards removed from the blast site are looking up in the air. They are looking up in the air because a large plume of smoke has just risen up there, as is very obvious from the videos of the explosion. They may also be looking up at falling glass from broken windows.

Also in part 5 McGowan cites a Fox News reporter from the day who said that, while she wasn't exactly near the first bomb, when she looked around she thought that the bomb came from inside a building. McGowan follows up with:
So the bomb went off midway up the building, but it blew off everyone's legs?! That doesn't sound quite right. What does sound entirely plausible though is that a smoke bomb was detonated over the heads of the crowd, providing cover for the actors, in full wardrobe and make-up, to swiftly emerge from Lenscrafters to take up their positions on the pavement. And if that sounds crazy to you, blame Fox News. They're the ones who reported it.
The idea that a smoke bomb was detonated above the heads of the crowd is directly contradicted by the videos of the bomb exploding that everyone can see with their own eyes. The idea that "actors" emerged from the Lenscrafters store is ridiculous given 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; what we see are the people who were there when the bomb exploded.

In part 6 McGowan mainly tries to take apart media reports of doctors' statements, all of which can be attributed to incorrect media reports and/or exaggeration on the part of the media, and/or media plants or exaggeration by the doctors involved. Seriously.

Two more images and I'm done.

McGowan uses the following image (and a couple of other similar ones) to wonder why cops are looking up at the area above the Lenscrafters store.

Image
Answer: probably because the glass on the ground had just fallen from there, and there may have been more about to fall, as it apparently did based on this image.

Image
While McGowan doesn't ask this particular question, many others have done (and used it as 'evidence of actors'). The question 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'm done folks. I really am having a hard time explaining the extent to which this 'actors' business has been taken up by so many people. 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", that they've "busted the whole thing wide open".

Actually, maybe that's another possible explanation; 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, still most folks still don't get it. I can see how that kind of frustration can 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, it's lies that people are being encouraged to believe, the same kind of lies that are being spread by the government with their "terror attack" horseshit. 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 world descends further and further into fantasy and make believe, ask of those of you who can, to try and 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.