Breaking: Explosion Reported at Boston Marathon's Finish Line

[Lauren Johnson]

1. The problem
When the Rolling Stone cover came out this month featuring an image of suspected Boston Marathon bomber Dzhokar Tsarnaev which was rather sympathetic in it's portrayal of him, the pro-administration opinion makers immediately took flight attacking the publication as if they had done something monstrous by using a photo of the boy that didn't make him look like a monster. Instead, the image made him look … like a regular guy… and that will not do in formerly open society anymore.

Apparently, all magazine covers have to support the consensus opinion, the official narrative, in one manner or another and to step outside that limited hangout, results in immediate condemnation.
The indignant reaction of the opinion makers speak volumes and in their own words we may find a hint of why they are so desperate to fix the message:

"I hope that the people who see these images will know that this was real. It was as real as it gets. This may have played out as a television show, but this was not a television show." Murphy

Why would this photographer who was on the scene at the phony "shootout" be suddenly talking about this being like "a TV show"? Why would he be screeching that it was "as real as it gets"?

To utilize a quote from the Bard, "The lady doth protest too much, methinks."

It was enough apparently that Rolling Stone ordained Dzhokar "The Bomber" prior to any kind of conviction or that the first three paragraphs of the article simply regurgitated law enforcement's claims made about him without so much as a shred of evidence. That wasn't enough for the spin doctors out there who are desperate to make sure the public swallow the official story without question.

Lawrence O'Donnell screeched about how the authors of the article shouldn't have included statements from his friends who were shocked to hear Jahar was suspected of the crime. To "journalists" like him, conflicting evidence isn't "interesting."

The magazine itself was pulled from several retailers on this basis. One would think they might as well announce our return to the Dark Ages of Book Burning right now and be done with it. When ideas are so terrifying to the established order that we openly ban them from the market and expect the public to applaud the act as if it is moral and just, then we might as well toss in the towel because this ain't the same country many of us were born in, that's for damn sure.

So, when the magazine came out, suddenly there was a problem.

Some of you may remember the sympathetic tide that rushed in when photos of a young James Holmes surfaced that weren't the "crazed gunman" versions with orange hair and some Photoshopped bimbo on his arm.

The real pictures of James along with statements from his friends and classmates, much like those that Lawrence O'Donnell found "uninteresting" in the Rolling Stone piece, set in motion a kind of awakening where people were starting to see the contradiction between the story and the suspect. This awakening led many to venture outside the official distributors of the official stories and in the end a large percentage of people started questioning many aspects of the Aurora Massacre.

With Holmes it was probably the "llama" picture along with the image of him giving a presentation and the one taken of him in his class room.

The same thing happened in the case of the Sandy Hook massacre when images of Adam Lanza started surfacing that humanized him as well. With him it was probably the lunch bag image or the picture of him with his friends from school.

In the case of Adam Lanza, the National Inquirer got it right when they did a cover story about him calling him a "sick twisted killer" and posting a rather disturbed looking image of the boy.
With Jahar, the cover of the Rolling Stone.

So, there was a problem.

In a world run by PR experts, at least in the world they think they run, you can't have contradictory messages being sent out to the public that get in the way of their propaganda. You can't confuse the target market, get them thinking thoughts that might lead them to ask questions. So you have to fix that immediately. This is the lesson they have learned thus far.

2. Timing

Two days after the Rolling Stone hits the web (first mention of the article and the cover of Rolling Stone came out on July 16th), out comes the "face of terror" images released by Sgt. Sean Murphy, a "tactical photographer" with the Massachusetts State Police (Boston Magazine, July 18th).
The timing is important for two reasons:

A. they had to fix the product image (product being a guilty "monster" who is assumed to be guilty without question by the public before troubling questions start coming up) as soon as possible before the carefully constructed image of "the monster" gave way to a more fully rounded impression of a human being.

B. Two days is more than enough to cobble together a photo-shoot if you have the resources and the cash to do it.

It's also important to remember that the timing of the release does not necessarily correlate to the exact date the authorities knew about the cover image. Surely a magazine with the exposure of Rolling Stone is heavily infiltrated by Mockingbirds, so they probably knew of the problem long before the magazine made it to the stands or the web for that matter.

3. Official agencies distance themselves from photos
This is VERY important. Sgt. Sean Murphy has been relieved of duty if you believe the press reports. The Massachusetts State Police have completely distanced themselves from the images and apparently refuse to answer questions about them.

"Earlier in the day, a police spokesman had told reports that the agency had not authorized publication of the photos Murphy had taken.
"Today's dissemination to Boston Magazine of photographs of Boston Marathon bombing suspect Dzhokar Tsarnaev and police activity related to his capture was not authorized by the Massachusetts State Police. The department will not release the photographs to media outlets. The State Police will have no further comment on this matter tonight."

Murphy has not been fired though and he has been order to stay away from the press now that his images and comments are out there.

4. Accompanying propaganda from Murphy
When Murphy released these images he made sure to attach some rather telling propaganda to them:

"This guy is evil. This is the real Boston bomber. Not someone fluffed and buffed for the cover of Rolling Stone magazine." Murphy
"As a professional law-enforcement officer of 25 years, I believe that the image that was portrayed by Rolling Stone magazine was an insult to any person who has every worn a uniform of any color or any police organization or military branch, and the family members who have ever lost a loved one serving in the line of duty." Murphy

How does this turn into "support the troops"? Notice the immediate appeal to authority? Notice how the statement targets such a wide ranging group of people who are told to be insulted by the image of the boy on the cover of a stupid magazine? This statement was carefully written. It is concise, it is direct, like a marketing campaign crafted by someone familiar with getting a result in a 30 second advertising slot. It's effective and it gets right to the point.

But what is the hidden message behind it? Why mention the police and people in uniform as if a photo of a kid could threaten them? Well, if people start asking questions, who would be on the line?
Perhaps a little more from Murphy would help clear that up:

"I hope that the people who see these images will know that this was real. It was as real as it gets. This may have played out as a television show, but this was not a television show. Officer Dick Donohue almost gave his life. Officer Sean Collier did give his life. These were real people, with real lives, with real families. And to have this cover dropped into Boston was hurtful to their memories and their families. I know from first-hand conversations that this Rolling Stone cover has kept many of them upagain. It's irritated the wounds that will never healagain. There is nothing glamorous in bringing more pain to a grieving family." Murphy

Not a mention of the victims of the bombing by the way, just the officers.
And notice what else he says repeatedly: "this was real".
He admits it had a certain "TV show" look to how it played out, but he keeps saying it was "real". Even the title of the Boston Magazine article reflects that same theme "The REAL Face of Terror"
Why is he so preoccupied with making sure everyone knows it's "real"?
If you go back to the MANY questions being asked after the bombing and the "shootout" you can understand there were many questions at the time as to the legitimacy of the whole thing.
Also remember that after the images of Homles and Lanza came out, people started asking questions, uncomfortable questions.

5. The images themselves

The new images released by Sgt. Murphy appear to be to be staged for a number of reasons which I unfortunately don't have time to explore in detail today. I will leave you with them to consider and compare to earlier photos of the scene of the "shootout."

Remember, we were told there was a massive shootout with Jahar at first then later it was revealed that he had no weapon and thus the "shootout" never happened.

But do look at three things when you check out these images:

A. Check out the real image taken through the window the night of the arrest. Notice you can see the tree in the background and the light has started breaking. From the look of the tarp on the boat, it is either right after the "shootout" or right before it at dusk when the cops first got there.

The image is important because it gives us a reference point to know where the photographer was in relation to the boat. Notice the panes in the window, the mullions cast a shadow on the image. You will see a similar shadow across the new images of Jahar sitting on the boat with the red dot on his forehead. But you will also notice the angle of those shots is different than the angle of the image taken on the night of his arrest. It's as if either he is in a different window OR someone screwed up when setting up the new pictures by getting the angle to the boat wrong. Whatever the case may be, the angle to the boat from his point of view taking the pictures is different.

B. Also notice the lighting and the absolute black of the background. If they set up a shoot for these photos new photos as I believe they did, they certainly wouldn't go back to that neighborhood and do it without worrying about someone spilling the beans, so they would have to have done it in studio somewhere. That said, a tree that perfectly matched the branches of the one pictured in all the photos of the scene would take time to replicate…
… so it's simply not there.

The lighting source is clearly at head level with Jahar as you can tell from the shadows cast back onto the tarp. And you'll also notice the tarp itself is bright white and angled at about 45 deg back and up under the branches of that tree.
Had there been something behind that boat and that white tarp, those lights would have bounced right off it and up into that tree illuminating some of it. But as you can see in the images, it's completely black behind the boat/tarp.

C. Notice the blood on the stripes on Jahar's shirt in the new images then look at the stripes of his shirt as he lay on the ground from the older picture from the scene. Notice anything?

Anyway, the pictures are below. The first of the set are from Sgt. Murphy's Boston Magazine piece and the rest are from the earlier reported news casts.

Conclusion:

Though this study is certainly not conclusive, clearly someone is trying to fix the problem of this Rolling Stone piece.

That's obvious.

According to the official story, it's Sgt. Murphy. But I doubt the tactical photographer has the training and the background to cobble together such a complete bit of PR as this story exhibits. That means you have have to ask yourself "why" and the answer to that question, is right in front of you, in fact they tell you why themselves: because they are desperately trying to maintain the illusion that this was "real", that it wasn't staged.

http://willyloman.wordpress.com/2013/07/...-are-fake/