The Boston Bombings: Made in America
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
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
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
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
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!
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.
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
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
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.
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
a darker shade of red (see the aforementioned oxygenated or deoxygenated blood comment).
1 | 2 | 3
|The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.