Boston Firecracker was a hoax!

Yes, you are right. Its well known now that it was a staged hoax. Must be desperate having to make such a *beep* movie.

Just read this on a link a poster placed


Melissa Benoist as Katherine Russell. Fr: Littleton, CO


Can you fly this plane?
Surely u cant be serious
I am serious,and dont call me Shirley

NUTS.

Just as big a fraud as the ape that took the white house. You probably voted for it too.

Remember,YOU TOO are entitled to MY opinion!

Absolutely moronic and the definition of a troll.

Let me guess, you're a holocaust denier as well... fcking retards

Yes. The so-called "Boston Bombing" (rolls of the tongue nicely?) was one of the most obvious PsyOps in recent history. This as been exposed on Youtube in over 1 MILLION videos.

Btw I am disgusted with people who know full well that this was fake, and who defend the "official" STORY on here. The paid Shills, i mean.

I need to know if I can convince conspiracy theorists of my case in this link before proceeding. In the off chance that I do, it is not ready for broader distribution yet. I have to reach a few people before it can appear on conspiracy themed forums. On the other hand, I'd like if it was circulated to friends and family and debated in small intimate circles.

In addition to the video presentation, I have made two HTML5 programs in an attempt to help prove my case. They are called Test 1 and Test 2. Remember, I am absolutely certain the second tape is either tampered with or fraudulent. I am absolutely certain there is a cover up of a call that suggested the event may have been fake received less than 4 minutes after the shooting began. I am absolutely certain that this constitutes corroborative proof of evidence tampering.

Knowledge of the two utterances is not unique. The belief that they can be juxtaposed to prove a cover up is unique. I am the only one making this case. Most consider them to be saying the same thing for some perplexing reason. There are several impossibilities with them being the same utterance. Please consider it. I have had over 3 years to comb through the audio. There is no changing my mind.

I first posted about this (not the presentation) on GodLikeProductions 3 years ago, but I was IP banned and then ISP banned for 6 months. A couple of people half-assed a sync on YouTube but didn't split the audio for side by side juxtaposition.

http://www.geocities.ws/rotafan/video.html (in short: 7:23 and 18:43)

From my accompanying document:

You may not instantly appreciate the case I am about to make because it makes unconventional demands on your hearing, including listening intently in microscopic detail for individual sounds not full words (I will ask you to build up some words piece by piece) but you may surprise yourself as you warm to it over time. I think it is a fair estimate that I have spent over a hundred hours listening to these tapes over the last few years.

I am not putting this video out there as a 'what if'. I am not sure I can convince others as audio is a hard case to make but I am beyond a doubt certain that the second tape is fraudulent or heavily tampered with. I do not take claims of certainty lightly, I do not mean 99.9999999999...% certain I mean 100% impossible they are the same (see IMPORTANT FINAL POINT (ABOUT CORROBORATION) at the bottom for clarification). The claims may be actionable because there is a witness and the evidence is physically corroborated. You do not need to believe my claims, just ask yourself 'what if' I am right?

Before you dismiss this because you think it is cruel to doubt someone's grief consider the possibility I am correct: that authorities have been tampering with evidence and possibly trying to legislate the imprisonment of those who would out them for their corruption (and possibly succeeding through other methods) or worse; the media may have been complicit, lying to you or withholding evidence from you and if deceit of this nature is allowed to go unchecked think about what other agendas may be pushed on you in the future; and there could be widespread persecution over unfairly targeted groups caused by this profiling affecting many thousands, especially shy and socially awkward children, the developmentally disabled and those with mental health issues not otherwise associated with violence (it is not about gun rights, which I have no concern for). My right to point out corruption where I know it exists trumps your arguments: it always will!

If you are a debunker, I invite you to do your best to answer my claims. If you are so sure I am wrong I dare you to post this video about as proof of conspiracy theorists idiocy. Ridicule my absurdity but have the backbone and integrity to link my presentation and let others be the judge while doing so. If you are a conspiracy theorist and continue to deny my claims, pretend for a second that I may be right and you may be wrong: are you going to just let this chance pass without broader consideration given what is being suggested before you could be verifiable and tangible proof of a cover up? Hearing can be subjective but it can also be objective. A casual and relaxed dismissal based on your initial feelings rather than a careful analysis of the sounds and their other irregularities is far more likely to be the former.

...

IMPORTANT FINAL POINT (ABOUT THE FACT THAT THESE CLAIMS CAN BE CORROBORATED)

To most conspiracy theorists having evidence of forgery is as good as proof that something has been tampered with. If you see an (often highly) unusual defect in a picture you're inclined to think it has been altered. It may be close to impossible for it to be caused by any other thing but alteration, it may even be apparently physics defying, but it amounts to speculation: even if you are 99.99999999999...% certain it is still speculation.

In cases of photo alteration it helps to have the source image. That way you can not only speculate you can prove that an image has been altered in no uncertain terms. And I'm not talking about the speculative source image, for example: different people with uncanny similarities pulled from some corner of the web. I'm talking about an official, undisputed source image. Even though it was never mentioned why Adam Lanza was posing in front of a blue background in the main photo (some may call it a 'Frankenstein' composite picture) it is often assumed that it is his drivers license photo and it is speculated it might be crafted from a picture of his brother. You would equate the photo that we have with his (or his brothers) unaltered drivers license (if it exists), not some picture of H.P. Lovecraft (speculative source), even though we have yet to establish its origins we can only hope to see some indisputable likeness between them.

This could potentially provide corroboration: proof. But to many conspiracy theorists speculation is basically the same thing as proof because they are so sure of their conclusions they feel they don't need that extra corroboration. And when they have something that can serve as corroboration, they may be inclined to overlook the significance of it: something that can transform that 99.999999999999...% into 100%. Far from being microscopic, it elevates the claims to another level. It no longer becomes this play thing where you may conceivably be wrong and often your certainty wavers, it becomes rigid and inflexible and rather more serious: you are right, you have a level of confidence you didn't even realize you could possess!

A few years ago a Saudi Arabian photoshopped IKEA picture surfaced showing a boy, father and infant in a bathroom with the mother removed. How do we know that? Because we have the source picture with his mother intact and they are otherwise identical. You may argue she has been inserted and the other is the source picture but one is the source and the other the alteration. Between them you have corroboration.

We do not need the same identical likeness between these tapes. We know they are suppose to be the same utterance and are not a coincidental rhyming utterance. We know that for a couple of reasons: 1) the times given on the two tapes coincide with one another; and 2) she hangs up on the caller in exactly the same place without declaration of her intent to do so. But we also have several points of identical likeness between the two tapes: 4 additional sync points between the two tapes which show her saying something identical on the two tapes at the exact same time on either side of the problematic section including her acknowledgement of the command to hang up the phone. There is no denying that we have a source and a claimed alteration, which gives us the unique ability to corroborate our claims.

If I can convince you the two cannot possibly be the same utterance then this transcends ordinary highly speculative claims of alteration and takes it up another level: it becomes something provable before your eyes and ears. Given this would you please give my claims the benefit of doubt and help circulate them so that it may be debated more broadly. Even if you do not see eye to eye with me, I know I will not be alone: after all there are still two camps of people who hear two different things in these utterances. I am merely saying the two camps (conspiracy theorists and non-conspiracy theorists) can be both correct, and the two tapes are not of the same utterance however they have done it.