Why there were no 'actors' at the Boston Marathon bombings

The idea that many 'terrorist' attacks are in fact carried out by government intelligence agencies is not a new concept. What is new is the idea that these government-inspired or perpetrated terrorist attacks are somehow doubly "fake" in the sense that some or all of the details of the attack didn't actually happen in any real sense. The idea is that, not only was the attack fake in the sense that government, not 'Muslim terrorists' or 'homegrown terrorists', were responsible, but that the apparent victims were fake also, their roles, where necessary, being portrayed by 'actors', presumably working for the government. The claim that 'crisis actors' were used in place of real victims has been made about the December 2012 Sandy Hook shootings, the more recent Boston marathon bombings and even the May 22nd knife attack on a British soldier in London.

To clarify, the idea of 'actors' as it is being used in this context is not the same as 'media plants'. Media plants are people placed at the scene of a government false-flag terror attack who pose as 'eyewitnesses' to establish an official narrative for the media and public. 'Actors', on the other hand, are people who are supposedly part of the false-flag attack itself and who pose as victims of the attack but who are not really injured at all.

The Sandy Hook massacre last December seems to have been the first major event where the 'actors' idea gained traction. Within a month of the massacre, there were literally hundreds of Youtube videos and articles supposedly providing proof that the parents and neighbors of the victims were actually crisis actors and, therefore, the entire event was probably staged and no one was killed. The 'hoax' was, it is claimed, a crass and obvious attempt by the government to impose 'gun control' on America.

Many of the Sandy Hook hoax videos have received tens, and sometimes hundreds of thousands of views. I wrote about the implausibility of that particular 'actors' theory here and tried to compile the best evidence for Sandy Hook being a US intel 'black' operation here and here. Despite my efforts, (not that I ever expect them to make much difference) the 'terror attack actors' idea continued to gain pace and made a serious reappearance at the Boston Marathon bombings.

The main 'evidence' for 'actors' at the Boston marathon bombings centered around one of the victims, Jeff Bauman. Bauman is the guy whose picture was sensationally splashed across media newspapers and websites as he was taken from the scene of the bombing in a wheelchair with the bone of one of his severed legs protruding. 

I'm pretty sure half the planet saw that particular image.

Proponents of the 'actors' theory seized on this image as hard evidence that 'fakery' was afoot. After all, where was all the blood that surely should have been spurting from his leg? Even in the immediate aftermath of the bomb, it is claimed, pictures of the scene are devoid of any significant amounts of blood and certainly no spurting from Bauman's leg(s).

Disbelievers also pointed to the color of what blood there was on the ground, citing it as evidence that obviously fake or 'stage' blood because it was just too bright to be real. Some pundits even pointed out that there were different colors of blood from one image to the next! 

And what about those people around Bauman? One guy seems to be putting on his sunglasses just seconds after the bombing!

Surely all of these details constitute 'slam dunk' evidence that the Boston bombings were faked in the sense that 'crisis actors' were used, at least as part of the operation? 

The problem with this theory is that it has no legs, so to speak. It seems that not one of the advocates of the 'actors' theory bothered to think about the implications of their claims. If they had, they would have been quickly confronted with some rather implausible conclusions.

For example, if Jeff Bauman was, as is claimed, an 'actor' who was already an amputee and was fitted with the bony prosthetics immediately after the bombing, how do we explain that none of his family or friends have spoken up and pointed out that Jeff couldn't have lost his legs in the bombing because he lost them several months or years ago?

Jeff has been widely feted in the media in the months since the bombing, and made a surprise appearance before the Boston Bruins ice hockey game in early May. A few days ago Jeff threw the first pitch at Red Sox game. 

Surely someone who knew him as a prior double amputee would have said something? Then again, maybe his entire family and friends are intelligence operatives too and in on the plot? Maybe Jeff was a 'deep cover' intelligence operative with no public history before the bombings and all of the google images of him (many with legs I would add) that appear to go back several years were planted on google in the run up to his prime time exposure in Boston? Or maybe all of his family and friends were somehow silenced or 'paid off'?

Bauman seems to have been associated with 'Team Stork' which appears to be a marathon running team made up of members of the Brigham and Women's hospital, a teaching hospital of Harvard Medical School that is located in Boston. Here's an image of him with some Team Stork members. 

From what I can gather, Bauman's girlfriend may have been running in the race as part of 'Team Stork', and she may have been a student nurse at the aforementioned hospital. Alternatively, she and Bauman may simply have been friends with Team Stork runners. In the image below of the scene immediately following the first explosion, the woman in the foreground is wearing a shirt with the blue 'Team Stork' logo on it. She may have been with Bauman as they waiting were for team members to cross the finish line.


Bloody Actors

The above image shows quite a lot of blood on the ground. As noted, many 'actors' theorists have claimed that this blood is "too red" to be real, despite the fact that there are at least two shades of red blood on the ground. A little research into blood color would quickly have informed such theorists that oxygenated blood is bright red, while deoxygenated blood is a dark (or darker) red color. I would have thought that most people would have at some point in their lives had experience with the color of blood, if only their own, in terms of a small cut. Doesn't everyone know that fresh blood from your finger can be a bright red color and dried coagulated blood is dark red, almost black? In fact, depending on where and when you cut yourself, your blood can be a brighter or a darker shade of red (see the aforementioned oxygenated or deoxygenated blood comment).