Previous Update: April 9 - 15

Updates Index

(if there are any to speak of)
April 16 - 22, 2013

Boston Traumatized by FBI Bomb Plot
Obama Winks
Come Learn How the FBI Frames People

From America's most-populous area, the day-after Boston's bombings has the expected message from mayor Bloomberg:

"The Boston bombing is a terrible reminder of why we've made these investments, including camera technology, that could help us deter an attack,' the mayor said. "Of course, no system is perfect and no system can eliminate the threat of an attack. That's why it's so important that we continually improve the system, especially as technology improves and allows us to expand our capabilities.'

Interpretation: more money spent on more surveillance cameras, "better" camera's. And you can just guess right that big money is about to be justified to secure the entire country, big money that will not necessarily go to what it's reportedly intended for. A crisis justifies money, and the money can be abused. Therefore, to get money from the people, create a crisis, over blow the crisis into what it really is not.

I think I can prove, to the point of jeopardizing my life (seriously) that the Bosom bombing was an inside job. I knew with more than 50-percent certainty as I wrote this page, day by day as news unfolded, but than late in the week, on Friday and Saturday, the proof came that makes me 95 percent sure. In fact, this evidence is so strong that it can put people in prison, if only there is a will and the fearlessness to take Jeff Bauman to court.

The play-by-play story starts here, in the order that I wrote it, with late additions in square brackets.

It would be very easy for al-Qaeda to cause explosions in crowded U.S. places many times each year...if they were trying. They have not been trying. Any person can make pipe bombs in a house going completely undetected by police and neighbors. The fact that there has not been an al-Qaeda disaster since 9-11 is that al-Qaeda was not ever responsible for 9-11. If you only knew how corrupt the federal law-enforcement people have become. If you only knew. All is not at all what it seems to the naive. All truth is thrown to the ground; you will not know who to believe, who to trust; not even those who say they are Christians.

It's starting to sound like a mini-9-11:

An envelope that tested positive for the deadly poison ricin was intercepted Tuesday afternoon [day after Boston bombing] at the U.S. Capitol's off-site mail facility in Washington, congressional and law enforcement sources tell CNN.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said he was told the letter was addressed to the office of Sen. Roger Wicker, R-Mississippi...

By what coincidence does this package come timed with the marathon? Do you realize how easy it would be for al-Qaeda fans inside the U.S. to send poisoned envelopes if they were really trying? It would be as easy as smuggling cocaine into the country in a box through any transportation method. We realize that al-Qaeda is not trying. All those reports recently that al-Qaeda is about to attack America? I will not believe it at this time, which is what some official reports out of Boston are already starting to imply.

If you are an Obama lover right now, then of course you will not entertain conspiracy theories. If Bush was in power and you were a Bush lover, then of course you would not entertain conspiracy theories from anti-Bush Democrats. If you can't get your mind out of that framework, your view of reality will suffer.

The ricin scare can be deemed necessary to put a high-level face on this attack, as though it's not from a couple of hoodlum Arabs in the U.S acting alone. The fact that some bombs did not explode is what we might expect of insiders to keep the carnage lower while yet making it appear to be a "big" organized job. Plus, with bombs that failed to go off, there is the bonus of reporting what sorts of bombs they found, which of course can be used to feign indication of who made them. The insiders determined beforehand who should get the blame, and had the bombs made accordingly. [Late in the week, we never did hear what the unexploded bombs were. They no longer made the news.]

One news report out already is that the bombs were made from pressure cookers inside the U.S., and it just so happens that an al-Qaeda group supposedly gave American-jihadist wanna-bees the idea to use pressure cookers as bombs. This is what we are being fed on day 2.

One of the things that insiders will do as part of their plan is to use bloggers for various pre-determined tasks. For one: to make conspiracy theorists look very bad. I'm not a conspiracy-theorist devotee. I go by the feel as I hear the situation unfold, and am open to the Illuminati, which some will not consider at all. Illuminatists get their own into powerful positions, especially in the police efforts.

[They found the ricin suspect. He allegedly sent a ricin letter also to Obama, which heightens the case for more security, more money, more whatever they deem necessary. We can only wonder how the postal workers caught these two envelopes before they reached their final destinations. By sheer chance? Very doubtful.

In the article, as it reads below, it is very possible that the ricin suspect, Kevin Curtis, has been framed by police because he was disliked by police. It doesn't appear that he's an al-Qaeda operative. The article tells that he reported a murder victim which the police did not want him to report on. He apparently knows something of high-level murders that the authorities do not want him to uncover. How could he be tied into the marathon bombings? The article says he is a gun-wielding "Christian" of sorts.

This man (worked for a medical facility) may be in the terrible throes of being jailing on trumped charges, which is synonymous with being dumped into a horror hole like a piece of forgotten garbage. The evidence against him is heavy-duty. It's his use of a certain phrase found in the ricin letter(s) that he previously used on his Facebook page. He could have a hard, vain time fighting that evidence. But wait, how do we know whether he wrote the ricin letter(s)? If it's a frame, he didn't write them. Someone else did, possibly a government agent of the law-enforcement kind...who fears what he might tell of the organ harvesting that he thinks was taking place. Yes, he claimed, long before the ricin letters, that people at his workplace were murdered for their organs. I'm going to move on from this story, but there you have the story below:

] I saw a Boston-related photo yesterday of a man in a wheel chair with his knee ripped open, and with what appeared to be a tongue of flesh hanging well out, and yet there was no blood so much as dripping, nor signs that blood had dripped moments earlier. It looked like a Hollywood faked piece of flesh. Beside the man in the chair were two robust men (one wearing a cowboy hat), who therefore looked something like undercover authorities pretending to be the wounded man's helpers. The injured man's tee-shirt was dirty, and his face smudged, but the expression on his face was neither pained nor appropriate. It looked like a faked scene. Others thought the same. It's obviously a critical debate that the insiders are going to focus on when ridiculing those who claim it's a fake. This photo, or sets of photos, I assume, were pre-determined to go around the Internet. The three men are, in my opinion, insiders.

[Can you understand the importance of not letting the reality of this photo be discovered? If the man whose legs were reportedly blown off is a fake, then he can not only uncover the bombing as an inside job, but can lead to the guilty parties of that job. You can understand how important it is to the insiders that this photo not contain the evidence needed to bring the wounded man to court or under heavy media investigation?]

I spent weeks of full-time work looking at the 9-11 disaster. Being convinced that it was an inside job, this Boston event is child's play by comparison...because Obama can't be trusted to succeed in anything bigger. If we never hear of a victim getting caught for Boston, it would be expected with Obama in charge of the nation.

I wrote the above without first seeing this:

Peace activist Carlos Arredondo has come to be known as "the man in the hat" and widely described as a hero for a viral image of him in a cowboy hat pinching the severed artery of a bloodied, wheelchair-bound victim in the aftermath of the Boston Marathon bombings. Arredondo is no stranger to tragedy: He became a prominent opponent of the Iraq War after his son, Lance Cpl. Alexander Arredondo, was killed in Iraq in 2004. His surviving son, Brian, committed suicide in 2011. Carlos and his wife Melida, join us to describe witnessing the Boston Marathon bombings and the immediate response to aid the victims. {Transcript to come. Check back soon.}

Here is the photo I saw. Where's the blood? Why did the post above say "bloodied victim"? Can you imagine how much blood he lost? Actually, he lost no blood because his legs are not real.

To prove this photo is a fake, measure the distance between Jeff's hip and knee. It's almost three feet, too far to be normal. It's about two feet from his knee to his crotch. Sit down in a chair, measure your own, and see what I'm talking about. Then you'll know that the American government is involved in killing it's own citizens for a secret agenda. If the page above disappears, see it here:

[Late in the week, just after the Russian brothers were caught, word came out that I did not find all week long. I could be wrong, but it seems that the man in the wheelchair, Jeff Bauman, as they are calling him, made a statement that was not made earlier in the week. That is, I could be wrong about the timing of the statement, whether it came before or after the Russian brothers were first mentioned in the news on Thursday, but I am not wrong about the statement being issued: Jeff said that he looked a man in the eyes who dropped a bag at his feet that exploded soon afterwards. He said that the man he saw was the older Russian brother.

That's how I know, and how you can know, with 95 percent certainty, that the Russian brothers were framed, and that the people who framed him, as well as Jeff and his party, are part of the true criminals. The 5 percent uncertainty is a figure I'm using to show that I'm open to being wrong on the measurement of his upper leg. I have looked at it over and over again, but not once does it strike me as remotely possible that the leg could in reality be that long. If you try to imagine him getting out of the chair and standing up, you can easily see how wrong that distance is. Try to understand the importance of this failure on the part of insiders. It's their ticket to prison and scorn, if only someone has the guts to bring Jeff to court, or to investigate his life immediately before the bombing. The problem is, some of the one's responsible for investigating it are the ones involved in the Boston crime.]

Why does Arredondo look like he is over-reacting compared to the face of the injured man and of the woman? If one argues that his face should show great alarm, as it does, why are the others not showing the same air? They are not all sharing the same atmosphere. Arredondo looks like he's trying to be a star, which is exactly how the media is portraying him. He has plenty of blood stain on his hands, but not on his sleeves, yet Jeff was in a pool of his own blood before someone lifted him into the chair. Neither of the two men in the photo lifted him into that chair, very apparently.

[On Wednesday, Arredondo claims that he tied ripped pieces of Jeff's "sweater" (which he tore himself) around Jeff's bleeding legs to stop the bleeding, but I don't think one can do that without getting blood on his clothes. Moreover, the cloth around Jeff's leg does not look tight enough to be of any value, nor do they look like pieces of a sweater. Here is the story:

...Arredondo running toward the blast and helping victims is one of the lasting images of the bombings.

"I had to to stop the bleeding, so I grabbed this sweater," said Arredondo. "I ripped it apart and wrapped to stop the bleeding on his limbs."

He says Boston Police and the FBI came to his Roslindale home and questioned him about the bombing. When they left, they took some items.

"They took my clothes, my shoes my pants, my t-shirt, whatever they needed I provided to them," Arredondo told WBZ-TV.

Arredondo says the agents were just doing their job...

I don't of course know why the FBI together with Boston would visit his house. They may not have been insiders. In any case, the statement above is sheer, laughable nonsense. First, it was plain that Arredondo had no blood on his sleeves as one would expect. Second, there was no bleeding; the man in the wheelchair was a fake.


The man with "EMT" (Emergency Medical Technician) and a wired instrument on his yellow jacket has his slightly-reddened glove on top of one knee, effecting zero purpose. The glove appears to have absorbed whatever it is they used to act as blood, but his sleeves and his jacket have zero visible blood. Not even his pants at his knees show signs of his bending to the ground to attend this or other victims, and he looks like he doesn't knows what he's doing. He looks more like an FBI man in those sunglasses.

[Not neglecting that he is supposed to be an experienced medical man. note the position of his glove on Jeff's fake knee. It doesn't seem explicable that he should have the glove in that position. It looks either like the man's hand is seeking to lift the leg, but better yet, under the faked circumstances, it can be gleaned that he's trying to maintain the legs backward, toward Jeff, fearing that the faked part of the leg might detach and slip right off the chair. He may have realized that the other lag has become detached so as to slip away from Jeff's body, thus making it look way too long to be a real leg. Jeff's hands are on that faked leg as though keeping it from slipping away.

It's unbelievable to me that a hoax like this can be conducted. I kid you not, this is utterly unbelievable, and yet its happening before our eyes. The only explanation is that the people responsible had decades of experience, probably in military zones. There is a lot of faking involved in war, but with the technology available now, it's a lot easier to conduct greater and greater fake jobs. Still, faking a bomb explosion where real bombs and real injured people are involved can only be the job of lunatics that need to be put away. If you ignore this evidence here, while you are in a position to do something to stop the lunatics, then you will be partly to blame for the next faked bombing.]

Why would someone in a bomb situation be wearing sunglasses if the object is to see well when treating major wounds? Isn't there anyone else he could be helping instead of doing nothing in this photo? He's actually in the way of the hat man seemingly trying to push the chair along. He doesn't seem at all motivated to be helping others. Who is he? What's his name? Did he grow his non-stylish, highly-concealing beard, and wear the glasses, to help hide his identity?

This is of obvious importance. An entire stream of similar incidents may now follow if they get away with this one, until their end-game is finished upon naive and wary citizens alike. If one googles "Boston marathon conspiracies," there are many up-front headlines mocking those who believe that this is an inside job, which is just what can be expected from insiders. As this game plays out in more drastic events, the Internet war will grow more tense. Once the naive have committed themselves to mocking people like me, it will be hard to turn them around. The False Prophet needs such people for the ultimate deceptions yet to come.

Now that you have seen the injured man's face but haven't seen the full nasty picture, brace yourself and see the full view, but ask why the man is lacking an appropriate look of pain? I can't believe that the man has had his legs ripped off and yet his face shows no pain whatsoever. Note that Arredondo's face is, once again, over-acting as compared to other faces, and he's looking straight into the camera. Look, not a drop of blood on the pavement.

Take out a magnifying glass and look at the knees up close to see that they are not made of flesh at all. Clearly, Jeff was an amputee already, and someone stuck fake wounded legs on him. Why am I not seeing other similar photo's of other maimed victims, from this or other news organizations? The photo's may be out there, but they are not coming up in my searches.

By the way, I don't tend to load, let alone show, such brutal pictures, but in this case, I'm reporting what I feel is a staged event. One problem with my claim -- that he was an amputee already, before the bombing -- is that his neighbors and friends would know one way or the other whether he had legs before the marathon. The only way I could answer that good argument (thought it up all by myself) is to suggest a necessity: he lives in another country, across the ocean for all we know, where this story won't be covered to the extent that Jeff, or whoever he is, will be seen. There are many remote places where people don't tend to have city newspapers or Internet capability.

[Late in the week, there appeared a webpage telling of Jeff's claim that he saw the bomber straight in the eyes. On that page, shown near the end of this page, there is an entry saying that his friends started a webpage to raise money for him. It's perfectly expected that the public be conditioned to believe that he has friends here in America, because, in that way, my report here on his faked legs sounds definitely wrong. However, anyone can make a webpage and claim to be anyone they wish. I say that these any of his "friends" who come out to claim that they saw Jeff's full legs recently, is part of the insiders. These people who stick up for Jeff at this time should be afraid of suffering jail time.

I might not have realized that Jeff's faked legs were too long had not one person mentioned it in a blog. I didn't record who mentioned it; I thought it would become common knowledge. Yet, I have not seen anyone else making that point. Whoever that person is, very good and commendable job! But why didn't the idea spread to other webpages?]

Next problem. How did Jeff avoid being carried into an ambulance, where they would have discovered his faked injuries either in there, or at the hospital? It sounds moronic on my part, that he could even try to get away with this high-risk hoax, but then you can clearly see an EMT guy at his wheelchair, who, as part of the hoax, could wave away all emergency people offering to take him away. Chances are, the EMT guy had his own ambulance that took him away. The photo that we see of him on a frontal view may be from the backside of an ambulance, back door(s) wide open and ready for the great escape.

The next trick would be to get Jeff off to his home, where he would feign the recent loss of his legs. Once he's home, he's scott-free. In this picture, it should be necessary that Jeff moved into a home (best rented for the purpose) only very recently, not allowing the neighbors to see him without legs until after the marathon. That wouldn't be too much of a problem to set up. The near-final act is, he gets paid for doing the stunt. Another near-final act would be to answer no door bell or telephone. The last act would be to move away somewhere else. But he may not live long, because he knows too much.

Look at the "B.A.A. Physician" on the back of the woman in front of his wheelchair (page below). She's got a black-and-yellow vest, the color of the jacket on the EMT guy. They must be together. She's wearing blue gloves, as is another person standing mainly out of view. It looks like everyone in this picture, including the woman with "adidas" on her back (she's wearing a black-and-yellow cap), is involved with Jeff's get-away. Due to this number of emergency people in close proximity, it looks like he's very close to the ambulance / van that is prepared to take him away. Notice that the cloth tied around his right leg has fallen off to the pavement, under the chair, and yet no blood is seen out the leg even though there is clearly nothing wrapped around it any longer? Hardy-har-har...if it wasn't all so sick.

The woman pushing the wheelchair is part of the team because I've seen others wearing "B.A.A Physician" in conjunction with the three blue-on-white stripes down the arms of the woman's white coat. The letters do not stand for "Boston Ambulance Association" because that phrase is not online. It stands for "Boston Athletic Association," which does some medical-related volunteer work, but then I suppose anyone can offer to volunteer and even use their own medically-equipped vehicle...or not so-equipped van.

One hospital or medical team reported ball bearings in people, while another hospital or medical team reported no ball bearings in people. The ones reporting no ball bearings reported metal in other shapes, more like the ends of nails without their nail heads. If anyone cared to look into this, it may be able to prove that Jeff is a fake on yet another layer of evidence. If the bag that exploded was right at his feet, should Jeff's body be laced with metal pieces? Shouldn't his upper pants be torn accordingly?

I realize how insane it sounds to imagine so many people involved in faking a crime like this, but where the evidence points exactly to this, we've got to realize that they have ways to secure such people. It's incredible, I'll admit. Here's a story from Boston that begs the question of why the police refused entry to the bomb site of very helpful medical people:

Shelton EMT Jamie Goldstein has friends from college in the Boston area, so he thought it would be fun to volunteer to serve at Monday's Boston Marathon.

He and Casey Quake, another volunteer from Shelton's Echo Hose Ambulance (Connecticut], were stationed a couple of miles from the finish line during the race yesterday enjoying the event when one of the marathoners asked them a disconcerting question.

...It was frustrating to not be able to do more, he said, but they couldn't get clearance from authorities who had cordoned off the area.

"We had equipment to help people," Goldstein said. "We were so close yet so far away."

I think I get it. Most of the people in the cordoned-off area were insiders. If you care to compare the people's faces in this scam zone with people in the scam zones of 9-11, you'll probably find matches. For cautionary measures, the same trusted people are likely used over and over again, faked event after faked event, all committed to the same causes. They receive good money for their services, and are very happy to be of help, apparently. The explanations given to them for the ultimate causes are likely whitewashed to help secure their happy involvement. They know that if they betray the cause, their children will be brutally murdered. They would not chose anyone to be a partner who doesn't have vulnerable close family members. Recruiting these people must be a well-oiled machine, but one can also imagine that most recruits are satanists / witches known to partake in human sacrifices and the like. I don't think I'm far wrong, if at all, in this paragraph.

I'm reading that the bomb at the finish line went off beside the medical tent. Was it planned to have that tent there? Was Jeff in tent, and in his wheelchair, before the bomb went off? Probably. See this too:

The families of Newtown shooting victims, who experienced unspeakable tragedy when 20 children and six adults were killed during the Dec. 14 shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School, suffered again on April 15 during the Boston Marathon after two bombs exploded near the finish line of the race, especially since the Newtown families were reportedly seated in the VIP section near the end of the race, according to The Atlantic Wire. The last mile of the Boston Marathon was dedicated to families of the Newtown shooting victims -- and the honored families were seated in the VIP section of the race near where the explosions went off on April 15. Read on for more details.

Irony? Or did someone plan this sick laugh? Can we imagine that people who like to see others die are the partners in crime with the FBI and others? Yes, people who celebrate their murders is the only way to explain such events. There are people who believe that to be wicked is to be high; the more wicked, the higher. And that's why God is preparing a Big Frightful Rush for these sinners.

One thing I'm not doing is panicking as though there is no tomorrow. Even though my opinions on this and other stories favor "conspiracy theories," I'm not urging anyone, including myself, to go dismally pessimistic and unproductive in life. Life does not hinge on the conditions of political animals. They can take more of our money, make our lives harder in the meantime, but there will be a turning of the tide as they reap what they sow. They are not gods, as they believe. And in their political midst, there are yet some good whistle blowers, even if they need to blow their whistles secretly to maintain their safety and the safety of their children.

Just hours after starting to write today (Wednesday) on this topic, an AMAZING STORY came out. The FBI and others have been reporting concerning black bags / backpacks that the bombers used for setting up their explosives. In the webpage below, see two security men with black backpacks.

In case the page disappears, let me describe it. There are two photo's of the late navy SEAL, Chris Kyle, murdered two months ago. In two photos, he's wearing his black hat with a skull logo, a black shirt, off-white pants, and boots. Then, in a photo of two side-by-side men at the Boston marathon, one has the black hat and identical skull logo; both have black jackets with black backpacks; both have the same off-white pants; both have the same boots, apparently. Both are dressed exactly alike, in other words, like men in uniform. Both (one is black or at least dark skinned) are on phones talking. The implication may be that these are the true bombers. These are the ones who planted the bombs, or, if not, they could be over-seeing the insider job.

I'm sure that they will give a logical explanation for their presence there, but only if the media presses them. The two men look like they are on business, not on vacation, nor to enjoy the race. Their logical explanation will of course be to protect the marathon runners and crowds. It begs the question: why are they protecting the runners and the crowds before the bombs go off?

Beside two photo's of skull logos (both show a "SEMPER" motto term), a third logo using the same skull design has "Blackwater" written above the skull. That's Blackwater Security. See the logos on the page below, where Blackwater skull logo reappears along with SEAL logo's (this page has questionable reliability but may be of some value to show Blackwater connection to navy SEALs).;jsessionid=FD59FE7B05C88C92A546B7B1745AE363?_nkw=BLACKWATER%20SECURITY%20PUNISHER%20Skull%20IRAQ%20TALIBAN%20ARMY%20Paintball%20Guns%20Jacket%20PATCH&_itemId=260879131559

The same story (bound to become one of the most-important for conspiracy theorists) is found here, but with some extra information on a man (dark skinned) in a white cap wearing a black backpack. [It turned out that the latter is a Moroccan, and that he came out denying involvement. Story here:]

A completely new concept has just raided my mind: Blackwater Security is the enemy of America. It was founded a few years before 9-11. I'm thinking that it was in code in the Dark Water movie (2005), and in the "black water" said to be in Hotel Cecil as per the murder of Elisa Lam. If you didn't read my first chapter on Elisa Lam (written late last month), you may be interested in the heraldic links made there. See

Wikipedia: "[Blackwater] is currently the largest of the U.S. State Department's three private security contractors."

One co-founder of Blackwater, Eric Prince, has a surname in code in the Newton Crest (in Boston colors), important because Newtons use crossed bones, normally a symbol of Skull and Bones. The Newton Crest is described like so: " An eastern Prince with a gold crown." (The other co-founder was a Clark surname, tracing to Sinclair vikings, expected to use the skull-and-crossed-bones flag.)

The PINEapples in the Prince Crest suggest the Payen > Pyne > Pendragon line (Pyne's use pineapples), and it just so happens that I traced the perpetrators of 9-11 to the Pendragon bloodline. For years I've been claiming that core Pendragon elements have been are an historical satanic cult.

Both Pine's and Prince's use ermined-white on red, and Pyne's are suspect with Wayne's. The Prince Coat suggests the Macclesfields and/or Fessys/Vassys. Newtons ([probably a MacAbee and Newman branch) use "HUIC" in their motto while Fessys/Vassys use "HOC." It's the proto-Massey household of the Hyksos.

There have been quite a few bloggers making comparisons of the Sandy HOOK shootings and the Boston bombings, as though the same people are involved. It's interesting that the Sandy Hook school is in a Newton-like location: "On December 14, 2012, Adam Lanza, 20, fatally shot twenty children and six adult staff members in a mass murder at Sandy Hook Elementary School in the village of Sandy Hook in Newtown, Connecticut." There is a Hook/Hoke Coat using what I deem to be the Bellamy Shield and the Masci fleur-de-lys. I'm not trying to vilify the school, but to show a Hyksos connection to the surname.

Checking the Lanza Coat, it happens to be a rare format seen twice in the last update, in the Chafers and the Corrado's. The latter smack of yet another Hispanic name, along with the producer of Dark Water (Salles surname) and with Arredondo. Corrado's entered the discussion at Corrado Caputo of Sicily, suspect with the Montechiaro topic that I think God led me to, recently, as per a fly Sign. That sign was suspect as indicating Obama's involvement in traitorous national events as represented by black-helicopter themes inside the U.S.

There are news stories on planned bomb explosions to be conducted by Boston authorities on the same day as the marathon bombings. What a coincidence. It's suggesting that authorities knew to some degree that the marathon would be blown up. There is some cloudiness to the quote-and-photo below, but if correct, it sounds extremely suspicious and serious:


...These agents were clearly not there to help any casualties or assist local law-enforcement in their investigation / upholding-order; instead they left the area instantly - and in a sudden rush - as the area was getting sealed off by local law-enforcement....

There is an alleged photo of this incident at the webpage above. However, the photo does not make clear at all that the men are rushing outside of the cordoned zone. No other photo's nor reports have surfaced, to date, to prove this claim.

The rushing men are wearing the same security uniforms as the two others mentioned (by me) above. What were they doing at the marathon in the first place?

Of course, there will be the Obama lovers who will argue tooth-and-nail against anything that's framed "suspicious." Ignore their insults. The question is, why were several government-sponsored men, all dressed in casual uniform and unconcerned about being seen that way together, lurking at a peaceful event that literally blew up? They knew beforehand, didn't they? Boston knew beforehand, didn't it? That's a big deal. But I don't think there is anyone left in the country that's big enough to take on the perpetrators of this crime. This event signals to Obama how well or not well the perpetrators can conduct their crimes freely without fear of legal action from others. Therefore, while we can't expect Eric Holder's justice system to act, the battle is in how the masses at large perceive these events as they continue.

By what coincidence were these government-sponsored men carrying backpacks in the black color that the FBI claimed to be the color of the backpacks used by the bombers? Yes, there are many black backpacks, the color of choice for men. But still, the possibility exists large that the security people planted the bombs just because they are skilled in such things, and because we know from Jeff's false legs that the bombings were an inside job.

If the security people under discussion were legit, we might expect them to leave the area in a hurry to go find the bombers that are expected to walk quickly away from the scene, but even so, at least one government is guilty of allowing the event to go on under a looming bomb threat. Boston is guilty, isn't it? The family of the victims are asking that question too, but the perpetrators will arrange for media statements from injured parties on how proud they are of Boston. All others amongst the injured will therefore be compelled to share the same attitude, whether they feel like it or not. It's a very cruel circle of lunatics that are involved here.

[At first, it looked like the two security men, and the others, were from Craft International, a security company like Blackwater. Craft was founded and run by Chris Kyle (the late SEAL):

There has been much discussion over the two individuals fitted with earpieces and military-esque gear spotted at the Boston Marathon, but as it turns out they may likely be employees of the Blackwater-style private military/security firm Craft International.

Here's from a Craft page: "The story behind the Craft Skull logo combines several meaningful pieces of Chris Kyle's life and service to this great nation but mainly honors his fallen teammates. As part of SEAL Team 3, Chris and his fellow teammates painted similar skulls on their gear in order to strike fear in the enemy. The crosshair symbolizes his time spent on a sniper rifle and is also in the form of a templar cross to symbolize his faith." Ah, he was a Templarite "Christian." Ah, I see. The Templars were at the marathon.

Then, after most of the conspiracy-believing sites had identified them as Craft throughout April, it was discovered that they were more likely from the National Guard, and yet Craft did not come out to deny that their men were at the marathon. I'm going to call them National Guard until such time that the government reveals who they were (the state has for weeks refused to shed light on who they were and why they were at the marathon).]

Perhaps no one was supposed to know that these National Guard operatives were there. Would it offend anyone if we asked whether National Guard was at the marathon with Obama's nod? That is, if Boston knew of a bomb threat, so did the CIA, HS, and FBI, suggesting that National Guard was sent in from a high-level directive.

For those of you who believe that Obama's true father was Frank Marshall DAVIS, it's a little interesting (though we should not jump to conclusions too hastily) that a Davis surname is at this time the commissioner of the Boston police.

One blogger states:

The reason this is important is because the Boston Police Commissioner is on record stating that they had "no specific intelligence" that there was a drill [to explode bombs near the race], while University of Mobile coach and marathon participant Alastair STEVENSON has publicly stated that there was announcements telling people to stay calm and not be alarmed because beefed-up security was part of a "training exercise."

If police were aware of a perceived threat, wouldn't it make more sense to be announcing an evacuation order rather than tell everyone to stay calm?

One theory online not getting much traction is that Frank Marshall Davis was the son of Lewis STEVENSON. It may be an important point.

Clearly, the beefed up security makes it appear as though Intelligence had some word concerning a terrorist act. But perhaps it was just the false impression the O-government wanted to give. There are two ways to interpret the National Guard people: 1) the authorities who put them there didn't want us to know they were there; 2) they definitely wanted us to know they were there.

It's only Wednesday night as I continue, and the websites spreading the news on the National Guard operatives are growing enormously. [This may have contributed to the sudden faked discovery, on Thursday, of the real bombers, and their subsequent lightning-quick capture by Boston police / SWAT teams. It appeared to me that the quickness of the capture of the Russian brothers signalled that something had gone drastically wrong with Plan A of the hoax, and that someone ordered the plot to be ended as immediately as possible.]

The police official who said today that an arrest had been made, and that the suspect would be in court, may have been telling the truth even though other officials have denied both the arrest and the court action. What if the man caught on the video turns out to be one of the National Guard boys? We would expect an arrest at first, but then someone in the O-camp would go in and get the man cleared, right?

A law enforcement official briefed on the investigation told the AP around midday [Wednesday] that a suspect was in custody. The official, who was not authorized to divulge details of the investigation and spoke on the condition of anonymity, said the suspect was expected in federal court. But the FBI and the U.S. attorney's office [run by the O-man, Eric Holder] in Boston said no arrests had been made.

By nightfall, there was no evidence anyone was in custody. No one was taken to court. The law enforcement official, who had affirmed there was a suspect in custody even after federal officials denied it, was unable to obtain any further information or explanation.

I doubt very much that a law-enforcement officer would be sloppy with such a claim to a media outlet like Associated Press, where other news media get their news. It sounds like the official had the truth but was shut right up because he didn't so much as give the reason for his "error."

[It's coming to mind as I proof-read here that the suspect slated for court, who may or may not have been one of the Russian brothers, is evidence that plan A was abandoned, and that a plan B had to be devised on the spot. Plan B was to murder the older Russian brother in a faked shoot-out. Something in the plan didn't pan out so that having the suspect testify in court, and to his attorney, needed to be avoided. It would have been easy for law-enforcement, at that decision to eradicate the suspect, to devise a quick scheme for disposing him in a faked shoot-out. All they need to do is say that the suspect shot first. This illegal and murderous tactic is performed regularly.]

One alleged suspect (unclear whether it was the one slated for court) was caught on a surveillance video, we are now being told, from a department store almost directly across the street from the second explosion site (the two explosions at different sites were about 10-15 seconds apart). He dropped the black bag at the second explosion site, we are told, then walked away. What a stroke of luck. But shouldn't the public see that video? We can help to find him, after all. But wait, if Obama doesn't want him found, we're not going to see the video, right? [In a framing, excellent evidence is required because, if the victim isn't convicted, he gets to go free to tell of his story to anyone he pleases. If the pre-planned evidence isn't available because plan A was botched, then good evidence may not have been available for plan B, in which case it was definitely necessary to kill the suspect before he was delivered to the court system, out of the hands of the arresting officers. There was an Arab suspect, who may have been the one slated for court in Plan A. More on that later. The FBI never did release the video, as of Sunday as I write here, showing the bag being dropped by the one Russian brother.]

One department store video "has confirmed that a suspect is seen dropping a bag near the point of the second explosion and heading off," Murphy said.

A law enforcement official who was not authorized to discuss the case publicly and spoke to The Associated Press on the condition of anonymity confirmed only that investigators had an image of a potential suspect whose name was not known to them and who had not been questioned.

In other words, the new story was that they had a suspect that could not have been the one slated for court. That is, the words, "had not been questioned [by police]," appear deliberate in the AP quote to indicate that he wasn't the apprehended one slated for court. It's a totally new suspect that they have merely on video.

Before we can make any calls on this latest scoop, we really do need to see the surveillance video for ourselves in order to decide whether the authorities can be trusted. If they won't show us the video, something is wrong with them. The webpage below enlarges on this story, telling that they saw the same man use a cell phone at the time of the first explosion. If you're the type of person who trusts the FBI, then already, at this report, you are starting to believe that the FBI have their man.

It tells that the FBI do not know who the man is; they only have his face to go by, and yet we have just got to ask: why did the FBI leak this information and yet not show us a picture of his face? Hello? Are they waiting for the man to be hundreds of miles away before the public sees his face?

The page above shows the suspected bag, with no apparent owner standing beside it, in position on the edge of the street. This bag, we are to assume, caused the second explosion. But the bag is not black, for starters. It really looks like they don't have the right bag here. Who took this photo of a bag at the bomb site? It is coming out to us just as the black-bag National Guard men are making the conspiracy sites. It brings doubt that the National Guard men are involved. It's necessary to stop the rash of websites reporting on the National Guard men. That story must not get viral in websites that are not typically conspiracy-based sites.

[Not only is the bag white, but, soon to follow are a series of photos showing the suspect wearing a white cap. However, these photos were taken from a video where the video is itself very questionable, to be explained later. Very soon after the photos of the man in white cap come out, he and his supposed brother are captured so as to fill the news and leave the National Guard story far behind in the dust. After the events related to the capture are fully unfolded (by Friday night), no one, hardly, will take the National Guard men as serious part-takers in the bombing. I have no evidence that they were part-takers, but the way in which the events unfolded, concerning the Russian brothers, makes me suspect that plan B may have been put into effect to protect the National Guard men from further scrutiny by bloggers.]

There is something seriously wrong with the picture presented above. There is a before-explosion photo of the white bag, and an after-explosion photo. In the latter, the rail is wrapped around the mailbox, and yet the bag is positioned in such a way (beside the mailbox) that the barricade rail should have been blown in the opposite direction, away from the mailbox and toward the people. It looks as though the bomb came from the people-side of the rail, doesn't it? Yes, it does, without doubt. Don't let the "experts" fool you.

One barricade rail is completely missing from the though it has been blown across the street out of view. Yes, that's a big deal for proving that the bomb was not in the white bag, but was on the other side of the barricade rail. As it reads that the photo was taken seconds after the explosion, no one should have had time to remove the rail...expected to be in the scene where the people once stood.

It should be said that the before-explosion photo, with many people, was taken about an hour before the after-explosion photo, judging by the direction of shadow lines...if this can explain why so few people (thankfully) are in the after-explosion photo.

I'm pretty good with physics. I can tell you that, while the right side of the missing rail was being blown faster than the left side of the rail, the left side hit the rail next to it and knocked it slightly inward toward the people-side. The right side of the rail, going street-ward, forced the neighboring rail section to warp around the mailbox. It's suggesting that the bomb was on the extreme right side of the missing rail. Note that the mailbox, just a foot from the white bag, doesn't appear so much as dented.

These photo's are not from the department store surveillance camera, for that store is to the right of where this photo is taken from.

I know that some of you are smartest of all, knowing that there is never anything suspicious in events like this, and that everything has a logical explanation where criminals, not the police, are to blame. I totally understand that concept. But then please answer: why did the reports from yesterday tell of a black bag for the second explosion, and here the bag is white? You can make-up any logical explanation that you so please, or just latch on to whatever logical explanation is imagined by others, but for me, I like to entertain all angles and to ask the obvious questions while going along to wherever the answers may lead.

The bomb parts were found for the first explosion that was by far more potent than this second one. But I never heard anything committed to for what sort of bomb the second one was. I've never read anything on anyone finding any part of the second bomb. Why is there no visible blood in the second-explosion site? Why didn't the mailbox suffer a dent or multiple holes? The window glass in the store is still intact, as though no metal hit it, as though the explosive punch through the air was weak. The tree, some five feet from the mailbox, has lost no visible bark. The lowest branches are about an inch in diameter as they grow out the tree, yet there appears to be no branch blown away, not even the branches spreading directly above the bomb. The thin sign post, just five feet further out from the tree, is perfectly erect in the after-explosion photo too, and the three small signs on that post do not appear affected whatsoever. None of the chairs, just ten feet from the mailbox, are knocked over.

It looks like a small explosion occurred here, and yet the rail is wrapped around the mailbox. How very, very, very very strange. Don't you just want to ask a question? We can't say that the people blocked the explosive punch, because there is no blood visible anywhere. Do you see that blur beside the mailbox right where the bomb was supposed to be? It looks like we're supposed to think that there are people under that blur that had no blood. I mean, if the bomb wrapped the rail around the mailbox, we should see some major blood from the people under that blur? Shouldn't we see blood spattered all over those white chairs, or on the clothes of some of the people at the scene? Just one drop would help to convince me that this was a normal bomb intended to kill people.

It's okay to ask questions, then? You won't be offended? Because I even have a theory to explain what we see in the photo: someone (in high-places) placed / brushed high-powered explosive material on the rail itself, and/or inside the rail.

One alternative is that this bomb was a pressure-cooker bomb that let out it punch mainly in the direction of the lid and toward the street, but not toward the people. Fine. But in that case, with the lid flying street-ward, the pot itself would have gone the opposite direction, toward the people. It should have went flying very fast toward the chairs and the windows. Or, it should have went flying nearly straight down into the concrete/tiles, and yet other photos taken of the scene on the next sunny day showed no damage whatsoever to the concrete/tiles. I know, I checked.

An explosion this ineffective on the mailbox and other nearby objects cannot bend rail metal to the 90-degree angle that the photo reveals...unless the explosive is adhered to, or directly against, the rail itself. That can easily explain the missing rail...gone shooting across the street. The lower parts of the rail section has taken more force than the upper parts, by the looks of it.

In an AP article above, we can read: "The bombs [plural, meaning both bomb locations] were crudely fashioned from ordinary kitchen pressure cookers packed with explosives, nails and ball bearings, investigators and others close to the case said. Investigators suspect the devices were then hidden in BLACK duffel bags and left on the ground. As a result, they were looking for images of someone lugging a DARK, heavy bag." But wait. I don't think there was a pressure cooker in that white bag, and yet someone, amongst those who released the photos, may now want us to believe it. I don't see handles on that bag for carrying a pressure cooker filled with metal. One would want a bag with handles to carry such a bomb. That bag looks like it's open at the top, not what the bomber would want. If the authorities claim that this bag is the bomb bag, don't believe them.

The AP article goes on: "One department store video 'has confirmed that a suspect is seen dropping a bag [a black one, right?] near the point [why not smack on?] of the second explosion and heading off,' Murphy said." But, again, why didn't they give us the shot of the man dropping the bag? Is it because the bag is black, and because we were not supposed to know about the National Guard boys carrying black bags?

You can also read that one report had a black man, and another report had a white man, for the same event of dropping off that white, or was it black, bag. Let us see the video for ourselves before there's time to doctor it. One of the two National Guard operatives was black or dark, coincidentally. It's possible that he's on the video, and that the insiders never thought that a department store video up the street would be focused on this explosion area. Someone at the FBI or local police, who was not an insider, may have leaked that a black man dropped the bag, only for that agent to be shut up when the insiders came out with a white-man soon as the National Guard photo's hit the Internet.

For my purposes here, I don't need to solve all the developing mysteries; it's sufficient that an inside job is exposed because it predicts a massive high-level operation in progress to manipulate the nation on motives unknown and unexplained to the nation. It exposes that high-level "representatives of the people" have no problem exploding bombs in the faces of ordinary citizens, children included.

Before I leave the page above showing the white bag, scroll down (link at the end of this paragraph) to the images of a young man whose pants are torn off. He's shown in three images (see dailymail website further below) where at least two look like paintings. They truly do not look like news photos, and of course we could think up reasons as to why they wouldn't want the public to see the explosion site at the moment of the explosion. People still have their hands on their ears while this man is running off.

If the webpage above disappears, see the three images here:

I thought it very strange that most his pants would be blown off by the explosion, with bare legs much visible, while there are no signs of the expected injuries on his legs. There can be no way to have your pants blown off unless you are very close to the bomb, but that begs the question of how this man was able to run at all. Apparently, he was another fake job, and apparently the fakers feel they have the liberty to do less-than-perfect fake jobs because it's easy to make people like me look insane for even pointing this out.

No one else has shredded pants/clothes in the three images. It appears that the creators of this image wanted us to believe that the man with shredded pants was closest to the bomb, but of course it was necessary for him to escape, which explains why he still has legs.

There are multiple things seemingly wrong with the three photo's, if you care to study them. I hope to get around to explaining all the inconsistencies, but will mention a couple that are most-obvious. One problem is that he's not running in a straight line because the person who created the images did a poor job. Where his left foot hits the pavement in image 2, he's way to close to the woman in black (bent over) than predicted by the position of his stride in image 1.

There is a man in a white coat and orange shirt lying on the ground. The tip of his coat is more than twice as far from the window frame in image 2 as compared to image 1. Yet the camera, between images (a split second apart), has shifted only about half the width of the window frame, or about three to four inches.

The Video that They Won't Show Us

The black bag we saw in an FBI-released photo, right beside the mangled pressure cooker, was as per the first explosion at the finish line, a little ways up the street from the second explosion site. They have therefore committed to one black bag already in their haste to leak that part of the "news." Had the National Guard boys been exposed on the first day, the FBI is predicted not have included the black bag in their set of released photos.

The following from the LA Times was out on Wednesday, the day that the SEAL stories came out (it wasn't discovered until the next day that the two men were instead National Guard operatives as opposed to SEALs). We see again that BLACK bags had been committed to in the news. Why do we read of two suspects at the same mailbox? There were two National Guard men. One report had a black man while the other report had a white man? One of the two National Guard men is white. So, if you don't mind, if you happen to be an Obama lover, let's imagine the two National Guard men walking to the mailbox, dropping a package inside if it, then :

Two suspects in the Boston Marathon bombing have been singled out in surveillance videos of the scene, sources told the Los Angeles Times on Wednesday.

U.S. counter-terrorism and law enforcement officials told The Times that the suspects in the Boston bombings were seen in a department store video that caught images of a man leaving a backpack near the finish line.

A second federal official said he has been briefed that authorities believe a second video or photo showed "two men with two backpacks."

A counter-terrorism official said the suspects were picked out because they were carrying black backpacks, as well as because of their demeanor and how they reacted to the bomb blasts. That official said authorities do not yet know the identities of those in the videos.,0,3006353.story

[Now hang on. The words above reported on Wednesday are very similar to the words that would be used one day later to describe the Russian brothers. I guarantee you, that if you compare the paragraph above to the words used elsewhere to describe the Russian brothers, you will get the impression that it's talking about the same thing. However, one Russian brother had a light-grey bag, yet we see two black bags above. Now you could say, if you're an Obama lover, that the mention of two black bags above was a slight error. But if you're a conspiracy believer, you would have some good ground in the quote above for pointing the finger to the National Guard men.

There are two videos mentioned above. One of them was released by FBI on Thursday. The other one, with all the evidence, was not released, as of Sunday morning. Here's one theory before I go on. Someone in law-enforcement, engaged in looking over the videos as they rolled in, who was not privy to the presence of National Guard operatives at the marathon, was the first to find the two suspicious men in a damning video. He brought the matter up with other officers, asking their opinion, and of course, seeing that one man dropped the bag at the finishing line, these officers got real excited because it looked like they had found their man already.

Decisions were made to notify the press concerning these two, and the story was hot into Thursday. The whole world was waiting to see the video. But other officers who were part of the insiders eventually got hold of this exciting event to learn that the National Guard men had been caught on video. And these officers freaked. Oh no, their faces aflame, "does Chaos Headquarters know about this"!?

Plan A was thereby botched. Plan B was needed. But first, they had to thwart the normal officers who weren't part of the insider plot. They must have told the normal officers that this video could not be released under any circumstances because those guys are "one of us." They had to convince the normal officers, with high-level people above their heads, that those guys in the video were not the bombers. So, the insiders made a second video to feed to the public, and created other suspects, and unfortunately, the innocent Russian brothers got chosen to be the victims. And they made up an excuse, for public consumption, not to publicize the video showing the bag drop-off. I'm not sure whether this bag-drop-off video is from the department-store video, or from another place.]

It's hard to believe that the National Guard employees would plant the explosive bags while in their official uniforms, a dead give-away, even if they could be assured beforehand that they would not be found on video. On the other hand, due to tightened security at the marathon, one way not to be caught with the explosive bags was to wear National Guard uniforms. Am I right? Yes I am. No Boston officer would check the bags of National Guard operatives, right? Correct.

It's Thursday, and the two bags are still black:

Authorities have CLEAR video images of two separate suspects in the Boston Marathon bombings carrying BLACK bags [plural] at each explosion site and are planning to release the images today in an appeal for the public's help in identifying the men, according to an official briefed on the case.

Why are they waiting until late Thursday to release the pictures? How long can it take to send them to a news agency? Two minutes. What are they doing to the pictures that it should take so long? The article says that there are new pictures from the same side of the street as the explosions, and that "the widely reported Lord and Taylor [= department store] surveillance camera, and snapshots from individual cellphone camera users, have not provided the clearest images." Does this mean that they are not going to show the shots from the department store? If that turns out to be the case, we have reason to be suspicious of a cover up. The article admits: "It was unclear why authorities did not publicize images of the unidentified suspects yesterday. President Obama is visiting Boston today [wowie], and the timing of a law enforcement briefing remained unclear."

[Stop. Ask why the two bags are still black on Thursday morning while the video, released about 5 pm, show one light-grey bag on the younger Russian brother. It could look as though the normal officers, as of Thursday morning, are still in charge of the publication of the video, and that the insiders haven't gotten round to changing their plan. Perhaps the insiders convinced the normal officers to wait until later in the day. Then, as soon as Chaos Headquarters was notified that the National Guard men had been caught on video, Obama rushes to Boston to make sure things don't get worse. Have I got that right? Did Obama visit the normal policemen, to set them "straight"?]

Listen to the excuse for not releasing the video pictures:

Law-enforcement officials said that they had not yet decided [on Thursday] whether the authorities will release the video images of the two men...While it could help investigators locate them, it could also alert them that they are being sought -- and potentially lead to hundreds of false sightings that could eat up the time of law-enforcement officers.

What nonsense. In that case, if false leads are detrimental to investigators, it's best never to release pictures to the public. And, zowie, as if the culprit(s) don't already know that they could be on video. Get the pictures out right away, and let the public catch the men while the entire Boston area is focused on this news. By now, the men could be driving through in the canyon lands of Idaho without fear of being caught by the public. (The article above begs the public to allow facial-recognition camera's to be installed everywhere.)

The highest levels, including James Clapper and Janet Napolitana, are saying on Thursday that the suspects' faces on video are not yet capable of indicating foreign versus domestic initiative. However, other early reports (i.e. the pressure-cooker "evidence") indicate that the O-government intended to finger al-Qaeda. Therefore, the following has meaning:

The Saudi "person of interest" suspected of being involved in the Boston Marathon bombings is being deported from the United States next week on "national security grounds," according to a terrorism expert, who notes that the move is "very unusual," especially given an unscheduled meeting yesterday between President Obama and Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal.

The attempt to cover up a possible Saudi connection to the Boston attack could explain why authorities are scrambling to get their official narrative straight after photos emerged yesterday on the Internet showing numerous suspects carrying large backpacks, some of them middle eastern in appearance and two of the individuals having been almost certainly identified as employees of private military/security firm Craft International.

The article above is the first I've read that the suspects on video have a Middle-Eastern look to them, but perhaps that was part of Plan A, to finger the Arab that Obama allowed to go free...when Plan A was aborted. From his visit with Faisal, no time to waste, the American president was off to Boston.

Just out Thursday, another National Guard operative photo:

Natural News has now confirmed that at least five private military contractors were operating on scene at the Boston marathon, and that they all carried black backpacks which look very similar to the backpack carrying the pressure cooker bomb (see pictures below).

...The following photo was snapped mere moments after the first bomb detonation. Many people are asking, "Who is this guy?" and why is he dressed in combat boots and military BDUs (pants)? More importantly, what is he carrying in his hand?

We were able to get a close-up of the object in his hand: With a bit of research, we were able to confirm this object is an "Inspector Radiation Alert" device that detects the kind of radiation which would be produced in a dirty bomb attack or a nuclear attack:

There is nothing damning about the face value of the words above. It's indicating that security people, working for the government, were on alert and acting in the way that they were trained. However, the underlying fact is that they were employed at all, and with radiation-detection devices to boot, and then, the same man was caught on camera twice with the device in his hand. The first time he was photographed, he's rushing out as would be expected upon hearing a bomb.

[This same man may be the one in the popular photo with the skull logo on his hat. If so, he's one of the bomb suspects. The instrument in his hand may have been re-wired secretly to set the bombs off from a distance. He may have set the first bomb off a second before we see him rushing out with the devise in his hand. I'm not making any hard accusations, just entertaining what might be the truth.]

The article points out sharply that the media are ignoring the National Guard operatives. I'm not sure if that claim is correct, but by Thursday, a new story was over-shadowing the National Guard story. Here's what may have happened. Obama betrayed Boston. Obama's people called Boston to alert them of a possible bombing in the up-coming marathon, but that the marathon should go on because the threat was not very credible. Just the same, they told Boston, we will send our security people in, just in case. Doesn't that make sense? That's one way that the O-goons may have gotten to the event safely and surely with their bombs.

When the media locks on to this story, Boston will not want to admit that they allowed the security people to the marathon because it makes Boston look like it gambled with the lives of its people. In the end, if the media presses Boston, the latter will need to admit to some foreknowledge of possible bombings. And that's why Obama is predicted to direct the media not to press Boston, but to just let it go. The media seems hypnotized by Obama.

The FBI finally released several photos of two young men walking one behind the other, one in a white cap (worn backward), and the other in a black cap. The one in the white cap looks mild and even happy, not expected of a human about to blow a bomb from his backpack. The FBI is claiming that the two men are armed and dangerous. I don't know how they can possibly know such a thing, and they didn't say, but the claim would tend to make the public believe more strongly that these are the correct bombers, thus taking focus away from the conspiracy theorists who are pointing to the National Guard operators. The release of these photos also gives the media something to operate on -- that the FBI wants them to operate on -- rather than seeing the media introduce the National Guard story.

[Point: if the normal people on Wednesday who were promising to release the video were from Boston or even the state police, the FBI has taken over as of Thursday afternoon, as per the release of photos showing the Russian brothers. You understand what I'm implying, that Obama got the FBI to take over the job of releasing the video, and that it was NOT the video from the department store, or the one showing the bag drop-off at the finish line.]

It's all very wrong what I'm hearing. They want us to watch the video with the idea framed in our heads that these guys have guns. It's a trick, right? If they had good reason to make that statement, they would have explained it. It's very much an exaggeration to say that, because they think these are the bombers, therefore they consider them armed and dangerous. It's not professional to speak in that way; it stinks. [I never did hear how they knew the brothers had guns on Thursday, but the reason for the FBI announcement would be understood by Friday morning.]

If there is nothing wrong with my video upload, then the condition of the video released by the FBI is wanting, in poor condition deliberately. I wonder why they gave it to us like this. Note that we never see the man putting down his bag, as they claimed the man did. The camera taking this video is on the same side of the street as the bombing. We are to think that the men are walking toward that mailbox shown earlier. Why didn't they release the other video too? This video (below) is so unreal that, for all we may know, they pasted the entire thing in from some other video they had of people walking along at some other place and time. Is there something they don't want us to see so that they sped it up as they did? For all we know, the FBI used pictures of boys 20 years ago now dead. I wouldn't be suggesting it if the video was normal.

I've seen nearly ten photo's of these two boys, none of them suggesting guilt. Admittedly, their walking along separately would be strange if they were friends. However, they may not have known each other. Admittedly, they look like they could be friends, perhaps sick of each other and wanting to be alone yet staying close enough not lose each other. [Later, it becomes evident as to why they are not walking together; the FBI needed to have it that way in order to fake the video. You'll understand later.]

Now look at the strong charges made against the boys (one of them looks like a boy, anyway), and then read with some head scratching the FBI reasoning for not publicizing the other video. You can plainly see that the FBI has taken over the narrative on how the videos should be interpreted:

Other footage, still unreleased, shows that the two suspects stayed at the scene to watch the carnage unfold, a federal law enforcement official with knowledge of the investigation told CNN's Susan Candiotti.

"When the bombs blow up, when most people are running away and victims were lying on the ground, the two suspects walk away pretty casually," said the official, who has seen the unreleased video. "They acted differently than everyone else," he added [fully expected of National Guard operatives].

While video of at least one suspect planting the bomb exists, the FBI had chosen not to release it, according to the official. One reason, according to the official, is that were the media to repeatedly show the suspects leaving the bomb, it might cause some people to overreact if they came into contact with them.

In other words, these two guys in the photos are definitely guilty, so don't go putting the blame on anyone else, but, in case you're wondering why we can't show you the damning video, it's really because we've been making excuses for decades, and are damned good at it by now. You'll have to trust us good ol' boys. We don't want you to go out and kill one of these two young men, so we're not going to show them dropping their bags. At least not until after we doctor them so that you can't make out who they are.

That excuse is about as poor as it can get. And, um, did you happen to see how the 2nd young man had his backpack to the side? He's being a little sloppy if he has a bomb in there, wouldn't you think? You don't walk along with a bomb in that manner, especially if it's heavy. It does not seem that the 1st man has a heavy bag either, judging by his walk.

Look at how intense the FBI has become suddenly: "The FBI said only these images [of the two boys, as I call them] should be considered credible and urged the public to ignore all other alleged suspect photos that have circulated in the press and on social media." Zowie, the FBI sounds like it wants to be inside your brain to make it think as it pleases. But wait FBI, these images do NOT look credible at all. Why are there so many missing frames in this video?

If Obama or Boston had alerted the marathon beforehand of a possible bombing, the people still willing to attend would have been on the alert. There would not have been any chance that a bag could be dropped off and left unattended for minutes. But that's what reportedly happened: "The man identified as Suspect 2 was seen setting down a backpack at the site of the second explosion 'within minutes' of the blasts." Yes, that bag did not explode until the first bomb went off several minutes later. In the picture drawn by the FBI, the bag was dropped as the two men walked by the second-explosion site, while the leading man continued forward toward the first-explosion site. Depending on long it took him to get there, the bag at site 2 was sitting by itself for at least that long. [Later, Jeff Bauman says that the bag at site 1 was sitting by his feet for 2 1/2 minutes before it went off.]

I think Obama and Boston owe some people their lives and their body parts. I think Obama and Boston both knew of the bombing before the marathon took place. I know that the Obama lover would have a difficult time entertaining this, but it's far worse because Obama showed no regret on his face for his part in these bombings. A man without conscience is a sociopath, or, as he's regarding Biblically, a child of the devil.]

Police Inconsistencies Troublesome

It's Friday morning. One of the boys is dead, the other not yet caught. It's seems too incredible, and the boys are being identified as brothers, terrorists from Russia's Caucasus area.

I went to bed last night assured that these young men were being framed, and the killing of one of them this morning can play into that idea. A dead man can not speak up to tell the truth against fabrications of the FBI. Therefore, to justify the killing, we are hearing that the brothers became violent.

They now have no reason not to show us that video. They themselves have killed one, and they did it brutally.

Tips came pouring in to the FBI immediately, but exactly how authorities managed to close in on the two was not immediately disclosed.

Authorities in Boston suspended all mass transit...From Watertown to Cambridge, police SWAT teams, sharpshooters and FBI agents with armored vehicles surrounded various buildings as police helicopters buzzed overhead.

It was not disclosed immediately how the brothers were closed in on. I suppose they wanted time to manufacture that story too. The article above even says that "family members" confirmed their identify "as Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev, brothers from a Russian region near Chechnya...The men's uncle, Ruslan Tsarni of Montgomery Village, Md., told The Associated Press that the brothers traveled here together from the Russian region near Chechnya." But the brothers have been living in Boston for a decade; they didn't just come over recently.

Their father, Anzor Tsarnaev, said in a telephone interview with The Associated Press from the Russian city of Makhachkala that his younger son, Dzhokhar, is "a true angel." "'Dzhokhar is a second-year medical student in the U.S. He is such an intelligent boy. We expected him to come on holidays here,' the father said."

The city of Cambridge announced two years ago that it had awarded a $2,500 scholarship to Dzhokar Tsarnaev, who was listed as a senior at Cambridge Rindge & Latin School, a highly regarded public school whose alumni include Matt Damon, Ben Affleck and NBA star Patrick Ewing.

Perhaps the following is yet another pre-planned lie to make us hate these men all the more: "Authorities said surveillance tape recorded late Thursday showed Suspect No. 2 during a robbery of a convenience store [said to be at 10:30 pm] in Cambridge, near the campus of MIT, where a university police officer - 26-year-old Sean Collier - was shot to death while responding to a report of a disturbance." Late Thursday? That was just last night, hours after the FBI released the video footage of the brothers.

Spit! I don't believe it. The police are lying. How exceptionally fortunate that the FBI found this robbery video just in time for this morning. Here's the AP story and the officer's photo. Is it normal to show the photo of the dead officer so soon?

If the FBI really wanted to -- if it was important enough -- do you think they could fake a shoot-out situation, and get away with it? Remember, we were told, before this gunfight at a robbery store allegedly occurred, that the FBI knew the brothers to be armed. How could they have known it, judging only from the videos of them walking along? I'm sure that the FBI lied to us at that point because they already had plan B determined wherein the two would be using their guns during the night. They attacked the two during the late night, like when they did it to Jesus so that the people couldn't see the illegality of it all.

A map at an article below shows one officer shot in his car about a mile south from the robbery location. He died: "10:20 p.m. An armed robbery involving two male suspects is reported at a 7/11 in Cambridge, Mass...An MIT [Massachusetts Institute of Technology] campus police officer responding to the robbery is shot and killed in his police vehicle by the two suspects." Where exactly was he shot in relation to the robbery location?

I know someone who was arrested by Homeland Security on trumped charges. You can believe me or not. Homeland Security attempted to jail him on severe false charges. The judge saw through it, and let him go free the morning after the arrest, but also thanks to the video of the event that showed there was never any crime committed as the HS had charged. Three Homeland Security officers wrote sworn affidavits claiming that he had committed the crime. How can that happen? How can officers of the law wink and commit crimes together in this way? The entire outfit must be filled with officers sworn to support one another in illegal activity if they should deem it necessary.

There are two reported gunfights, one at the robbery, and another at the place where they followed the brothers later on. We have all heard stories of police officers opening fire on unarmed people, then claiming innocence later with lies supported by the brotherhood of fellow police officers.

How did the one brother get away while the other got killed at close range in a gunfight? Behold how fast the brothers were caught and identified thanks to the robbery that didn't happen. We read that there are thousands of officers in the streets looking for the remaining one. How could he possibly get away? "Authorities gave no details on how he escaped [just in case they need to change their story?], but said he may have been in a Honda CRV that was found later in the morning in Boston." In a sham situation where the FBI needs to explain it's inability to catch one man in a neighborhood with thousands (not dozens, not hundreds, but "thousands") of experienced crime fighters looking for him, and because it would look like the crime fighters are complete dopes if they can't find him, we could expect them to concoct a story that he got away in a car...because it's highly unlikely that he could get away on foot. The most he could do on foot is hide in a shed, a tree, or a house (etc.) near the shoot-out.

I'm already starting to wonder whether they want this one to escape in order to justify thousands of officers in the streets, to condition the population to accept this as a matter of normal course. In the same way, it was deemed necessary to let bin Laden get away to justify the perpetuity of American troops in Afghanistan.

I kid you not, this is what happened. Up until two days ago, it was still on the cold side, but yesterday was unusually warm (reaching summer-like temperatures) so that I kept the door open all day for the first time in months. By the end of the day, I looked into my bedroom to see many flies (30 or so) on the window. I had never seen that many on that or any other window of the house. This is the room in which my fly Sigh took place some weeks ago that had the inklings of disclosing some black-helicopter operations to be conducted soon by Obama. I guarantee you, in my past writings, you can read that I have never been a black-helicopter devotee, and have tended to shun such conspiracy least until we start to see something like martial law developing. Or, if God gives me a Sign that I should start to believe in a black-helicopter theme for society, then I'll start to take it seriously.

When waking this morning, I was wondering whether the many flies on the window were to be regarded as another Sign. However, I wasn't rushing to force it to be a Sign. It was not odd to have flies on the window, because I left the door open all day, and besides, flies that have been stiff all winter are expected to start being active in warm weather. But here I am reading that thousands of officers are in the Boston streets, SWAT teams and helicopters included, and that this is expected to go on until the one man is caught. Is that what the many flies on the window represented? If the one fly in the first fly Sign was a symbol of the black-helicopter theme, did God make it warm yesterday for this purpose of sending us a second fly message: that the many SWAT men in the Boston streets this morning are there as an Obama plot to control the city? Is this a trial run by the black-helicopter goons, to see what it takes to manipulate city peoples in a fabricated crisis? Or to gauge their responses to such?

What if there is a rash of bombings from other terrorists in many U.S. cities just in time for Obama to continue as president after 2016 under martial law? I've never spoken like this before against any president or other western leader, but I do it freely with Obama. Why is that? Why don't I trust this man? More importantly, if God is sending these signs to you through me, what does He want us to know?

It turns out that there was a car chase. The page below gives a timeline and a map of the Boston area where the night's events took place. The map has a legend with distance in kilometers so that one can measure the distance of about four to five kilometers (two to three miles) between the robbery location and the place where the gunfight killed one of the brothers. However, we also read that, after the robbery at the 7-11, they stole a Mercedes-Benz and drove it for a half hour with the owner in the car. This is just another claimed event that makes little sense, because they are said to have dropped the owner off not much more than about a mile from the robbery location. Wouldn't they be a lot further away after a half hour, driving at about 11 pm on a Thursday night? Didn't they know that, after a half hour, the area of the robbery would be swarming with police cars? Therefore, I refuse to believe these robbery stories as they are being told.

They are reporting that a car chase took place along the road to Watertown, that the officers gunned down the older brother on the street, and that while they were handcuffing the older brother, the younger brother drove toward them and tried to run the officers over. But the story is faulty. It doesn't tell how the younger brother managed to be or get into the SUV. It doesn't tell us because there is no logical explanation, unless the police officers are dopes. Are we to believe that officers left the younger brother unattended while trying to cuff a man with many bullets in his body? They said that he was machine-gunned down.

Plus, as they say, this younger brother was armed with a gun so that you must know they wouldn't try to cuff the older brother in plain view of the younger one. Wouldn't they first try to apprehend the younger brother before getting out into the open to cuff the older one? Hello? The older one is not going anywhere far with bullets from a machine gun in his body. And can you imagine the thought of cuffing a man riddled with machine-gun bullets? Only an absolute goon can do something like that.

I don't think the young man was armed. I don't think the older brother was armed. I think there was a murder there, at about 2 am when the whole city was sleeping. I don't think there was a car chase. I think they ran over the older brother and needed to blame it on the younger brother. Here's another statement intended to vilify the two brothers in our minds: "The law enforcement officials spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the ongoing investigation [and because he was lying]. Tsarnaev [19 years old] ran over the other suspect, his older brother Tamerlan, during the shoot-out in Watertown, according to a federal law [= FBI] enforcement official."

The younger brother, we are told, got away in the SUV. Really? They were reporting that the brothers were tossing explosives out their car window(s) during the chase. It's a sheer Hollywood movie, right? Can you imagine how many police cars would have been involved, heading toward the stolen car from all directions upon the report that the brothers were throwing explosives at the police car chasing them? Yet the younger brother was able to get away? Due to the many problems, I find the entire story too fantastic.

...The two suspects car-jack a black Mercedes SUV. Pursued by police vehicles [plural], the suspects drive 10 kilometers [six miles] to the neighbourhood of Watertown.

12:48 [am] Radio traffic indicates that, during the pursuit, the suspects are tossing multiple explosive devices out the side of the vehicle.

If we're going to understand these fiends -- the police -- in their pack of lies, every detail of their official story is important to scrutinize. Is it really true that the brothers drove six miles over a half hour and let the owner of the SUV go? These are supposed to be guys with bombs, and yet they let their protection get away? The initial report was that the owner was let go, totally unharmed. Then, the story started to change to a get-away on the part of the owner, because that makes more sense, obviously. But it doesn't make an explanation for how he got away easy. The owner was reportedly free from the SUV three miles from the final shoot-out, about half way through the six-mile drive. "The man was not injured."

I my opinion, under this scenario, where the SUV was involved one way or the other, I would guess that the police or similar agents drove in the SUV and tossed explosives out the window to frame the brothers. People in their homes would hear it. That's why the chase was cut very short a mile or two along, before any other police could arrive to the scene to see who it really was that tossed the explosives out the window. At Watertown, they all got out, threw the older brother out of a car, shot him, and perhaps drove over him for good measure. The official report: "One of the suspects is hit [at the Watertown residential neighborhood] multiple times and taken into custody. The second suspect attempts to flee at full speed in the SUV. After the vehicle is barraged with gunfire, the suspect escapes and reportedly flees on foot." It's completely illogical for this boy to be able to get into the SUV at all, with at least one machine gun at the site, let alone start the vehicle, and tear off while surviving.

It's not slightly problematic that they say he fled in the Mercedes, and yet claimed he may have gotten away in a Honda? It's just another example of a police fabrication one way or another. After the discovery of too many police fabrications and inconsistencies, the brothers ought to be deemed innocent until the state can prove the police claims against them. And they need more than just their own claims and fellow-police witnesses. It's a sad day when the authorities will stand up and be numbered amongst those who give false testimony. Ask Jesus how painful it is.

We've got to assume that the police drove after him, with all available cars, as he tore off. If he tore off, that is. Sirens blaring, they followed him, until he got out of the SUV and fled on foot, at which time, we are to believe, he escaped somehow. It does make them look like dopes. Fortunately, it didn't happen, so they're not that dopey. You understand that, if he gets out of the vehicle and flees, he starts off at the vehicle. The police know exactly where he starts to flee. There is no way he could get far. All he can do is jump into someone's yard. But one officer merely needs to go up the street a ways, and get himself into a yard to cut off the pass. Another officer needs to go down the street into another yard, and cut off the pass in that direction. The accused is going to be sandwiched somewhere in the middle. Now the officers need only to wait for reinforcements, which should be arriving any minute, helicopters first because they don't have traffic to contend with.

The article says that the brothers stole the Mercedes at ""in the area of Third street." Third street on the map above is about 3/4 of a mile almost due east/right of where the MIT officer was found shot in his car. Third street is approximately 10 kilometers from the final shoot-out location (Watertown). Judging from where they say the SUV owner was dropped off (on Memorial Drive), the brothers, instead of driving away from the robbery location, circled it, and came to within a half mile of it, before turning toward Watertown. What I'm trying to say is that this story makes no sense; we would expect the brothers to drive away from the robbery location. But it gets worse.

You can zoom in on a Mapquest map of Cambridge here. It shows that the officer was shot at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, not even off the parking lot yet (or at best, on the road in front of the Institute). In other words, if it's true that he received a call to investigate the robbery, he (an MIT campus police officer) wasn't even off the property from where he operated out of. It doesn't make sense that the brothers would have shot him at the Institute...unless they were walking past it in their escape from the robbery.

It makes little sense that bombers would risk getting caught by robbing merely a convenience store, inviting police toward them. But then to walk a mile from the robbery and shoot a police officer in his car is only inviting more trouble. The story is even less likely after we discover that one of the brothers (the younger, I think) lives in Cambridge, the area where the 7-11 and MIT is located! In other words, he knows his way around this part of town. He knows which way to go, to go further away from the 7-11, and which way to go, to go further away from MIT.

Let me tell the story again. The report is such that the officer was shot before the brothers stole the Mercedes. It means that, after the robbery, the brothers would have been on foot southward to MIT, and upon shooting the officer several times (how many bullets did they have, anyway?), fled east to Third Street, stole a Mercedes, and then drove it right past MIT (!!!) instead of going in the other direction. Not credible. I charge the Boston / Massachusetts police with crime upon crime, making up stories to frame brothers, and killing one before his day in court.

From the Washington Post, I don't think we would get the following use of words if indeed the SUV owner had to escape: "After the MIT officer was killed, according to officials who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss the unfolding case, the brothers carjacked the SUV and told the driver that they were the marathon bombers. They let the driver out and then led police on a chase that ended up in a shootout in Watertown..." Why is it that so many officials are willing to speak about things that they are supposedly not allowed to, under the condition that the media not report who they are? Does it make it right? Doesn't it suggest corruption and insubordination amongst the officials? Not if they're were permitted to leak the information, and directed to do so while acting as though they're not permitted.

Do you think it's ringing true that the brothers would confess their being the marathon bombers, and then let the owner go free, just in time for a police car chase? Couldn't it be true that the SUV owner is an insider telling lies that favor the FBI story? Here's a red flag:

...the brothers carjacked the SUV and told the driver that they were the marathon bombers....They forced the driver of the car to stop at several bank machines to withdraw money, and succeeded in taking $800 from one location, before the driver was able to get away unharmed. It was unclear how he got away.

How could it be unclear how he got away? The SUV owner seems to be very talkative, and then, what? He fails to tell how he got away? You can't expect me to believe that the most-exciting part of his adventure is left untold? I mean, he should be a little hero for managing to get away from those big bad boys with explosives strapped around their chests, and then, and then, and then...he's just not going to talk about how he got away. Just another malfunction in the FBI concoction.

The concocted story is apparently seeking to paint the picture of two young men without enough money to escape Boston, wherefore they need to steal money quickly, then get out of town. It assumes that the brothers didn't think they had a viable option of staying home and denying the bombing charges. We are left to believe that they agreed it was best to make a run for it as soon as the FBI released their photos earlier that day. But I think the FBI knew where these brothers lived before the marathon.

At this point, the FBI only needs to get into their homes to steal their backpacks, so as to hide the evidence that the boys are innocent, and in the meantime the FBI may decide to plant bomb materials, or some other damning thing, in their homes for good measure.

AHA! The article below By Annie Gowen, Sari Horwitz and Jerry Markon, Washington Post, April 19, 2013:

Law enforcement officials said Friday afternoon that the robbery of a convenience store near where the MIT police officer was killed apparently was not connected to the two suspects. For much of the day, authorities had said the two men robbed the store minutes before shooting the MIT officer.

Is that not amazing? Why did the authorities (WHOEVER THEY ARE, PHANTOMS) change their minds? Did they deem their story to be too risky?

[The story above is not getting much traction as of Sunday, and some news people are once again maintaining that the brothers did in fact rob the 7-11 as well as kill the MIT officer. But the story above is not from a conspiracy site, but from the Washington Post. I wouldn't care much should the Post withdraw the statements above; I would view the Post as caving in to the pressure of FBI tactics. The fact is, we had yet another change in story midway through the story-making night. They must have had a story-maker think tank trying hard to decide how to make the story pan out best. Obama's think-tank people did the same with Benghazi night.]

Here's a the first inklings of planting evidence in the home of the younger brother: "Authorities said they were planning a "controlled explosion" for later Friday afternoon at a house in Cambridge that they planned to search. They declined to provide details but said the investigation had yielded several new leads. Massachusetts Gov. Deval L. Patrick (D) urged residents to remain indoors and open their doors only for police." Clearly, they are suggesting that the accused house has a bomb that needs attention.

While the law-enforcement phantoms who don't give their names are doing their darndest to paint the brothers as Chechen criminals, other's are saying quite the opposite:

Larry Aaronson, who said he was a neighbor of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, described the young man in glowing terms in an interview with CNN. He said Tsarnaev told him he was Chechen, and had been in Chechnya during the war there.

"He was grateful to be here," Aaronson said. "He was compassionate. He was caring. He was jovial...He was a lovely, lovely kid...He was never a troublemaker in school."

When I write all the above, I did not yet see this and related articles online:

The father of the two suspects in the Boston bombing, Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, has told Russian and Western media that he believes his sons have been framed by US intelligence.

...Reports on Twitter also claim that Anzor has said that "all hell will break loose,' if his remaining son, who is currently on the run in a suburb of Boston, is killed.

"They were set up, they were set up!"; he exclaimed. "I saw it on television; they killed my older son Tamerlan."

Then comes the bombshell that forces the FBI to admit that it told a fib, and yet the nation, and Boston especially, is quite confident, not at all doubtful even, that the FBI can be trusted with its assessment of the case: "Mother of suspects says FBI had been keeping tabs on one of her sons for a few years and would definitely have known if he was up to something." Yes, the FBI admitted that this was true, just one day after telling the world that it didn't know who the men were in the video.

If correct that the FBI was keeping tabs on these brothers, and quite frankly it may have been justified for all I know, then it adds to the feasibility of these boys being framed. It's regrettable that Muslims are being spied on continuously by the FBI now, but that's not enough for the FBI, the CIA and the Obamacrackers. They want to spy on everyone, and know whether you have a favorable impression of government, or one like mine that has soured over the years, and they then want to keep you either in a good-and-pliable file, or a bad-and-resistant file.

By the way, I don't belong to any of the websites that I use for my information. Just so you know. The infowars webpage above also has this in it's blog that tends to prove further that "Jeff Bauman" is an insider: "Mr. Bauman, who lost both of his legs, said that the man who put down the backpack a couple of feet from him, looked him right in the eye and then walked away. It blew up after the man walked off. He described the same clothing and appearance which has been put out of the older brother with the black hat, sunglasses." I didn't know until now concerning this wild "coincidence" that Jeff got a square look at the bomber. Jeff's lying, right? And if he's lying, then the brothers are not the bombers, pure and simple.

Did you hear what I said? Did you hear Jeff properly? He said, "Since I am a fake, and part of the great ones who faked this bombing, to make it look like a terrorist bombing, then I did not really see the Russian brother in the face, but I am lying because I am part of the drive to frame him, even if it means killing him brutally, and making all the world rejoice over it. I am a very evil man, but you are not supposed to know it. If you can't see that my leg is too long, then you are a real prize for the Obama machine. He could really use blind bats like you."

A question I have is, when did Jeff first come out with this story of seeing the bomber face-to-face? If the story came out on the first or even second day of the bombing, then with certainty did the FBI have the brothers pegged for a frame job from the start. But I've followed this story all week long, full time every day, and I did not hear that he saw the bomber until I read it in the article above. It seems to me that Jeff was instructed by the FBI to damn the Russian brothers all the more with his fabricated statement.

And if you don't think these wicked ones are prepared to do the same sort of thing to Christians, that's why I'm going to include this page in my post-trib book. And when they kill Christians too in this manner, the nation will again rejoice, those who are blind, and leading the blind. Your fellow Americans will rejoice over you, when you are punished for resisting what they rejoice in. And that's why Armageddon will be so fierce, because He loves you.

Here's the admission:

The FBI admitted Friday they interviewed the now-deceased Boston Marathon bombing suspect Tamerlan Tsarnaev two years ago and failed to find any incriminating information about him.

...the FBI interviewed the request of a foreign government to see if he had any extremist ties, but failed to find any linkage.

...Miller reports that culminated in a sit-down interview where they probably asked him a lot of questions about his life, his contacts, his surroundings. All of this was then written in a report and sent it to the requesting government.

...Although the FBI initially denied contacting Tsarnaev, the brothers' mother said they had in an interview with Russia Today.

Just think of it, the FIB knew all along who the suspects were, but were causing us to believe that they didn't know. They then pretended to give the pictures to the public because they wanted our help in identifying them, when in reality they gave us the pictures because the time had been deemed right to begin their killing machine. I pray that God will expose the FIB once and for all, and thus weaken its powers to commit such acts in the future.

I think it's safe to say that the marathon bombing did not go well, as planned. We have yet to see the fallout as the weeks and months go by. Good intelligent people in high places will effect their affects against the brotherhood of fiends, one way or another. It's going to come as a shock when some of their highest operatives are caught due to their over-confidence. I have God's word on it that it's not going to go well for them.

It appears that Russia is the nation who asked to check on the brother now dead: "President Barack Obama spoke with Russian President Vladimir Putin Friday evening and thanked the Russian leader for unspecified cooperation in the investigation into the Boston Marathon bombings. " We are left to think that, because Putin offered help, therefore the brothers are guilty. But then whatever cooperation it was that Putin offered is left untold. Is that the right way to do things?

Here is an excellent statement from the mother of the brothers: "She is surprised that having been so stringent with the entire family, the FBI had no idea the sons were supposedly planning a terrorist act." EXACTLY. If the FBI was watching these brothers, they would easily have tapped into their emails and their phone calls, from time to time, as a precaution. Here's more from the article above, from the mother:

"They [the FBI] used to come {to our} home, they used to talk to me ... they were telling me that he was really an extremist leader and that they were afraid of him," Tsarnaeva said. "They told me whatever information he is getting, he gets from these extremist sites... they were controlling him, they were controlling his every step...and now they say that this is a terrorist act!"

You really have to feel sorry for her. She's dealing with a brute beast. How can the FBI be so foolish as to think it could pretend not to know these boys in light of what the mother knew on the matter, in light of what she could reveal in contradiction to FBI claims? Didn't the FBI know last night that, if they tried to pretend they didn't know the boys, the daylight would speak otherwise? It just goes to show that the FBI had little time to effect plan B, and that it was needed in spite of what the costs might be from the mother or others.

I know how the FBI is playing this game now, after having had to admit that it interviewed the older brother two years ago. It wants you to believe that it found nothing of interest so that you get the impression Tsarnaeva case was closed two years ago, and that's why they didn't catch the bombers until it was too late. They want to excuse themselves for not following up on the brothers over the last two years, but Americans shouldn't be fooled. They should drop the FBI into a pool of its own defecation, because they just wiped their backsides with the American flag, and flushed American honor down the toilet.

It's a lose-lose situation for the FBI because the people who are apt to believe that the brothers are the bombers are going to point the finger at the FBI for not saving America from the bombers. When the dust of the celebration is over, these people are going to view the FBI as incompetent.

Alas, the Russian brothers did not conduct the bombing. Regardless:

Police found assembled pipe bombs inside the suspects' residence, CBS News senior correspondent John Miller reported, as well as IED's along the chase route. There was meant to a controlled detonation of a device(s) or materials found at the 410 Norfolk Street in Cambridge.

How can anyone prove that the FBI planted those pipe bombs there? The whole country, but merely a few, will believe the brothers guilty with this evidence alone, unless there is a miracle to expose the FBI. Most people are not inclined to believe that the FBI would plant the explosives in someone's home. Most people live in a normal world where such things are inconceivable. And that's why it's important for God to catch these guys so that they have no way out in spite of all their earthly powers, and in spite of their spiritual powers.

One media article I bumped into claimed that the unexploded bombs never existed. There you have another changed story. I suppose that there were people who foiled that part of the plot, for not everyone in law enforcement is a willing stooge of the stooges. Seriously, there is a major piece of condemnation here. They lied about the bombs. There can be only one reason for that lie. They were trying to make something look like something that it wasn't. They were framing somebody. Pure and simple.
The Final Blows Come Early

Friday evening as it grew dark, the younger brother was "captured," though I would view this as the capitulation of the police to their dismal performance. In other words, they deemed the time had come to "find" the brother because there were already too many contradictory blunders. Here's another set of contradictions, even in the final act:

The standoff began just before 7 p.m., minutes after Massachusetts State Police announced that they had completed their door-to-door search in Watertown without locating Dzhokhar Tsarnaev.

A homeowner on Franklin Street went into his yard after being inside all day. According to police, he noticed a rip in the tarp that covered his boat and saw blood on the boat. Upon looking inside, he saw a man covered in blood.

The homeowner then called 911.

Franklin Street is a little over a mile east from where the shoot-out the night before was said to have taken place. Under the circumstances of this high-profile case, the boy would have been unable to move around, backyard-to-backyard, during the day. I'm finding it hard to believe that he could get a mile beyond the alleged place of escape by night, for his body is a bright glow to a helicopter's thermal imaging camera. It's very unlikely that he could have evaded detection in a covered boat, even if the police failed to search Franklin street door-to-door, because helicopters could see the boat from the air.

On this map, where Watertown is to the left of Cambridge, the alleged shoot-out was near the corner of Elm and Arsenal. Franklin is shown to the right, and there's just two nearby ways to Franklin, both requiring passage by road across the river. One would think that these two roads would have had police guards all night and day long, in other words. In fact, I'm sure that there would have been guards at those roads under normal circumstances, and all along the river if it was swim-able, otherwise the boy could open up a huge field of escape across the river. But these are not normal circumstances. Under the scenario dictated by Jeff's faked legs, there was a specific agenda in the works for this insider bombing. One of the agenda's may have involved a long-term SWAT presence in Boston.

It all begs the question of whether the police allowed him to escape.

[The supposed infrared picture of the boy in the boat at the webpage below shows how bright a person glows to the view of a helicopter in the night. I find it suspicious that while the image gives the latitude and longitude, and the height of the helicopter, it doesn't show the time. You would think that every image of such a photo from a police helicopter would have the time. Why was the time removed from this picture? What could have been deemed problematic for the police claims by showing us the times?

Second problem: there are two infrared pictures in this page (both indicate that they are armed for infrared), one showing a boat cover over the railing (i.e. railing not visible) on the bow of the boat, and yet the boat railing is clearly visible in the other though the rail is above the tarp. This is supposed to be an infrared image, not an x-ray.

How strange. In one photo, the fence posts and fence frames are visible (because the fence is smooth on the other side, to the neighbor's side, that is), but in the other photo, the fence is perfectly flat with no posts or frames pieces visible. It's looks like another contradiction, another lie, and another fake job. It must be standard practice for the police to lie to us all, only this time, as you can clearly see on the images, it's the Massachusetts state police that's doing the lying.

The fence-board widths between the two photos are not the same, about two inches wide verses six inches wide. The top image has posts extending above the top fence line, while the second photo does not...except that, if you look closely, it looks like they may have tried to add the tops of the posts faintly into the photo, but, if true, it was decided not to let them show very well. Their problem was that, if the fence posts showed well, then the rest of the fence boards would be expected to show well. Instead, they decided to show no fence detail so that you might not notice the smaller board-widths in the one fence. Besides, the creators knew that they could try to explain away the missing framework due to use of infrared imagery. If those faint markings were intended to be the post locations, their further mistake is that they didn't locate the posts in the second photo to match the locations of the posts in the first photo. In case the photos disappear from online, see them below, courtesy of the Massachusetts State Police that wants the whole country to see them: To explain why the boat cover was ripped mercilessly by police, I suppose it was to hide from us the fact that these are not images of the same boat, for where the one image shows the ripped-out tarp, the other has a square patch acting as an opening to look through. In fact, it's not ripped only, but cut right out so that a viewer would not be able to tell that it never had the square patch. There is a ladder up to the patch to explain how the boat owner looked in to see the boy curled up into a bloody ball (= his description), but suddenly we have reason to doubt the boat owner's testimony.

A boat owner who prizes his boat does not lean a ladder to it, and then climb up, for fear of scratching the boat with his weight on the ladder (a neighbor reported to the news that this boat owner treated this boat like his baby). Instead, the ladder would be spread open and climbed without it leaning against the boat. The ladder detail is clearly visible; why not also the fence posts?

Apparently, the state police had decided to use the second image from another police file on another date and place. Apparently, this image was going to be used in an effort to fabricate a story in which it looks like the boy was hiding out in a boat. The authorities had agreed to use the property and boat of this homeowner for the rest of the hoax, and they instructed him to report his ladder climb for a peek into the boat, because the photo happened to come with a ladder and a patch.

The first image looks as though the tarp is the cellophane or "shrink-wrap" type, for the part that's cut out has jagged edges. A permanent tarp does not tend to rip easily like that, but needs to be cut straight (without jaggedness) with a knife. The second photo clearly does not show shrink-wrap.

The first photo shows a large white object in the neighbor;s yard that's closer to the fence than the white table. In the second photo, the white object is further from the fence than the white table. It means that someone doctored the photo by adding things in that were not there originally. You might imagine that police departments, in these days, have areas in their building strictly reserved for altering photo's and videos. What a shameful sham these "men of honor" have become.]

As it would appear, the order was given to take him alive, but I now do not believe he was hiding out in the boat. They must have planted the boy in the boat, or at least at the boat location. Didn't the helicopters see the boat all day long? Of course they did. Were not the helicopter pilots instructed to report anything in any back yard where the boy might be hiding? Of course. Yet we hear nothing from the homeowner that anyone checked his boat earlier in the day. Doesn't this stink? Not every homeowner has a boat, wherefore covered boats are amongst the first things that the helicopters would have reported to the ground crews. Am I right? Yes I am.

The initial official claim was that three officers came to the house with the boat, when, at about 7 pm, the boy popped his head out and started to fire on the officers. How unlikely, unless he wanted to die brutally like his brother. The officers say they shot back some 30 rounds. But wait. The police had already committed to stating that the boy was armed with a gun, wherefore I must assume they had to catch him with a gun on his person, meaning they had to bring a gun with them to the boat. A good place to fire "his" gun, to make it look used, would have been at the location of the boat. The boat should be filled with bullet holes:

Apprehended 'covered in blood and hiding in a covered boat in Watertown by homeowner who ventured out after curfew was lifted'

He and law enforcement officers engaged in a furious exchange of gun-fire that began shortly after 7pm Over 30 rounds [others say 40] were fired in the exchange - as terrified residents of Franklin Street were evacuated by police

We should assume that they didn't fire bullets into the ground, or at the fence, if this was a true story as told. There should be over 30 bullet markings / holes in the boat. But wait, the young boy is trapped in a boat, and already bleeding. There is no need to fire 40 bullets at him and ruin the boat in the process. But they needed to have another shoot-out to "prove" that he was a dangerous man. Otherwise, they could have gotten to boy out by other means such as gas.

Oh, yeah, they evacuated much of the area so that no neighbors were watching this particular shoot-out. The police have a great method of staging neighborhood events because they have the excuse of clearing out all neighbors in the name of their safety. We have no real witnesses, do we? The boy has no witnesses but the police and the homeowner.

May we see the boat to prove that the officers shot at it? The page above shows a photo of the boat as taken by a Boston photographer (AFP/Getty), and yet look at the condition of the photo so that we may not make out any detail on the hull. Is that weird or what? The photo was deliberately blurred, wasn't it? It wasn't the choice of the photographer, that's for sure. At every turn in this investigation, there is dirt on the police.

The Freedom Issue

Now, if there is one criminal on-the-loose in a major city with a gun, and I choose to go to work, or for a drive down to the store, don't I have that right? Bostonians don't: "Boston's police commissioner says all of Boston MUST stay in their homes as the search for the surviving suspect in the marathon bombings continues." Do they really have a right to make that order? Isn't this the start of testing the people, to see how they will honor or not honor such far-reaching curfews?

"Fortunately," it looks like Plan A got botched so that the decision was made to shut down the operation as soon as possible...meaning Bostonians got their freedom back after just one day of manipulation.

I beg your pardon? If I choose to leave my house and take my chances with my own life under the situation of just one criminal somewhere in the city, I'm not allowed to do so? Is that the new mentality that I must follow? No, no, I'm not going to do it. I refuse. What penalty will I get if I leave my house? Will you stick your bazooka down my throat? No, no, you don't understand, officer, I need to get out of the house. I'm 12 miles away from the mad criminal, so I'll take my chances, okay? Alas, he arrests me because he has been ordered by his superiors to let it be known to everyone that a curfew ordered by the state is a serious matter, not to be taken lightly. Can this happen in America? It just did.

Maybe we really do need to take a look under the dirty rug to see what kind of filth this really is. If this is the situation with just one armed man on the loose, what will the police order when there are five men doing the same? For how long will they shut a city down if five terrorists are on the loose? I think they're begging for a fight, and I'm afraid they are going to win due to too many spineless ones in the cities.

After shutting down much of the city:

From Watertown to Cambridge, police surrounded various buildings as they searched for Suspect No. 2. Around 8:30 a.m., officers sprinted toward a house in Watertown, and reporters were pushed back more than a block as helicopters buzzed overhead. SWAT teams, FBI agents and armoured vehicles assembled at the scene as sharpshooters across the street trained their guns at the house.

We then hear: "'There are a lot of places where he could hide,' said one of the [phantoms]." Possible interpretation: it could be a while before our thousands of men find him, and maybe we'll need a few thousand more. And if you live in this area, don't think you can just come waltzing in to your own house, because we own it now:

Michael Demirdjian, 47, a postal worker from Watertown, said he was on his way back from Logan Airport early Friday when he suddenly found himself surrounded by police cars. "It was amazing,"he said. "There were police cruisers all around. Thirty to forty cruisers followed us to my house."

He made it to his house, on Spruce Street, but "it was in the zone and they wouldn't let us in."

He said he saw police going from house to house with dogs, searching, the area blazing with flashing emergency lights. Heavily armed police told him he could not enter.

"They said 'no way'" said Demirdjian, who had been awake all night. "I want to go home but it looks like it's not going to happen."(article above)

[On Sunday, we find a story of a sleeper cell, which is not at all surprising, allegedly connected to the two Russian brothers. This story out so soon suggests to Obama lovers and other naive Americans that the FBI did not know of this sleeper cell except that the brothers somehow it away. The promise from this further development coming at the unreliable word of the FBI spells that there is more trouble ahead for American society:

The FBI was last night hunting a 12-strong terrorist "sleeper cell" linked to the Boston marathon bomb brothers.

Police believe Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev were specially trained to carry out the devastating attack.

More than 1,000 FBI operatives were last night working to track down the cell and arrested a man and two women 60 miles from Boston in the hours before Dzhokhar's dramatic capture after a bloody shootout on Friday.

A source close to the investigation said: "We have no doubt the brothers were not acting alone. The devices used to detonate the two bombs were highly sophisticated and not the kind of thing people learn from Google."

"They were too advanced. Someone gave the brothers the skills and it is now our job to find out just who they were. Agents think the sleeper cell has up to a dozen members and has been waiting several years for their day to come."

Brace yourself, America. We don't know where they are taking this. I have yet to read word on anything concerning the second bomb, and yet here they are claiming to have found the "sophisticated" device that set that bomb off. But Jeff's faked legs tells us that the sophisticated devices belonged to insider American police / military / security people. We await to hear whether this sleeper cell is from Chechnya groups, or some other Muslim group.]

Perhaps I had it wrong to suggest the plan A against Arab extremists was changed to plan B against the Russian extremists. Perhaps the Russian brothers were not at the marathon, and the released video of them being there was created months ahead of time by a special video-doctoring team. In this picture, it is not at all likely that the bombings were held by the insiders merely to have cause for arresting / killing the brothers. I doubt very much that the insiders would go to such lengths to nab only the brothers. Instead, it appears that the bombings took place for an entirely different purpose, as a stepping stone to a much-wider faked crisis.

The FBI is skilled in planting false evidence because there is often no way to get a criminal off the streets without it. I understand the frustration of the police knowing that certain persons are guilty while having no recourse to get them in jail. However, the practice of planting evidence is such that, once perfected by trial and error over many decades, it can be used effectively to jail people on fully-trumped charges. It's one thing to charge a person for a crime he truly committed, and then to plant evidence if needed, and quite another thing to fabricate a crime along with false evidence. In either case, the FBI is itself guilty of a crime, but unfortunately, judges tend to give the police testimony some benefit of the doubt. But if not, that's why the false evidence against the victim needs to be heavily stacked, to make the judge look terribly unfair if he would ignore the entire mountain of evidence.

And so, it clearly was insufficient to arrest the brothers based only on the videos that the FBI claimed it has. For one, they needed to get into the home(s) to plant evidence, but as good measure, they needed the brothers to shoot guns...and the police even tried to make it appear as though the brothers killed an officer with their guns.

There is this question in the back of my mind as to whether the insiders shot their own policeman, one whom they didn't like in the first place, in an effort to frame the brothers. Would they go to such lengths? Yes, because some officers are normal, and would betray officers who use illegal methods. It might just be that the officer who was shot in this case was deemed troublesome to the plot at hand. He may have been cruising the streets of Cambridge, seeing something that the FBI or state police didn't want him to see. As soon as he got to the parking lot where he operated from, he was approached and shot mercilessly several times, something that I do not think the brothers would have done.

In one possibility, the FBI / state police had arranged to arrest or kill the Russian brothers at the faked 7-11 robbery, but then the MIT officer came along as per a neighbor reporting something amiss. The MIT officer saw the FBI agents there, or whatever it was that didn't look right, but was directed to go back to MIT, and wait there for an officer to come explain what was taking place. And that was the end of his life.

Another fatal mistake of the police is their claim that the brothers had a rifle with them that night. That claim could be due to the type of bullets through the dead officer coming from something other than a pistol. In any case, do we really think that the brothers, without a vehicle to begin with, would leave their house and walk the streets with a rifle? The picture is utterly ridiculous because, at that point, they had not yet been caught, and no officer would have known there whereabouts, so that the last thing they would do is draw attention to themselves by having a rifle. You would like to argue that the rifle was carried under a coat, but the older brother was a 26-year old intelligent man, and would not have risked bringing along a rifle.

They would not have lingered in their home area to get money from the bank machines of the SUV driver, but would have high-tailed it as far as the SUV could take them from the area of their own house. The police report has no such thing talking place. And now you're going to believe them when they say they have found a sleeper cell???

Right now, there is no police for the police aside from Eric Holder. And Obama has already made a public statement that the brothers are guilty. Yes, even before the trial, Obama has said that the brothers are guilty as charged. It looks like Obama may have had a play-by-play of the week's events, and that he may have been calling some of the agenda as plans changed. It is not correct for a president to come out and claim guilt blatantly before the trial, but rather it makes it appear that Obama has a special need to convince America that these men were guilty as charged. This is the bigger story, isn't it? "President Barack Obama praised the outcome after a 'tough week' but said the focus would now be on getting answers for the victims. He said: 'Why did young men who grew up and studied here as part of our communities and our country resort to such violence?'" I'm sure he's asking the question because he already has the answer for the masses to believe, to come out shortly.

There is enormous pressure on everyone, including some relatives, to accept the going verdict. The uncle has already capitulated, accusing the brothers. Look at the use of words by the sister of the brothers, not sure whose side to take because she'll be vilified by friends, employers, and others if she doesn't accept the going verdict:

She balked when media asked if she was "okay."

"No I'm not okay. No one is okay right now," she said.

..."He was a great person," she said of her dead brother. "I thought I knew him. I never would have expected that from him. He is a kind and loving man. The cops took his life away just the same way he took others' lives away, if that's even true. At the end of the day, no one knows the truth."

Later, she said, "I have no idea what got into them."

I'm starting to get the impression that Democrats are the ones fully behind the police, but then high-level Republicans have no choice but to at least sound pleased with the outcome, even if they secretly harbor questions of police misconduct. I, as a lowly one not needing to uphold a political office, am not ashamed to say: I have a hard time believing that these boys were bomb makers and killers. Yes, that statement comes with a fundamental implication: the FBI are as guilty as scarlet sin.

The FBI claims to have found pipe bombs in the Cambridge home of one of the brothers. But wait. It would be very sloppy to go out to do a bombing Monday, and then, by Thursday, knowing that the FBI has been inspecting street videos, to leave pipe bombs in your house as evidence against yourself. It's completely ludicrous. The only acceptable explanation is that, whoever did the bombing would have removed all evidence from their homes, and would have planned to sit it out, feigning innocence without running. Running makes one look guilty. We don't know whether these boys were running away. We only have the police report that they were running away. It would have been easy for the FBI to visit the brothers at their homes, and to take them away quietly for questioning. After that, it was too late for the brothers.

Under the conviction, and under the report, that the brothers did not hold up the 7-11 or shoot the MIT officer, the first we hear of them is in robbing an SUV. We are told that they forced him to his bank that the police would have known by the next day what neighborhood they were in that night. All of this is not a likely scenario because the last thing the brothers would have wanted was to bring attention to their whereabouts (if indeed they were on the run at all). But the police, if they wanted to make it appear that the brothers were on the run, but also because police needed a method to explain how the brothers were suddenly found so quickly, concocted the SUV-robbery report wherein the SUV owner tipped off the police.

I'm not incapable of believing that young men can bomb people, or carry guns and use them against the police. But the older brother was an intelligent 26-year old with solid education and respectable career opportunities. He wasn't a street-gang type. It's only his Chechen-Muslim background that condemns him in this case, because Americans have no problem believing that radical Muslims are capable of bombing no matter how holy or educated their backgrounds. The holier the Muslims, the more capable of bombing they might be viewed.

I would not be surprised if Muslims the nation over now start to retaliate with more bombings, in honor of the fallen Chechen brothers. However, what if the government insiders start to produce more faked bombings while framing other Muslim suspects? It could happen. The situation is ripe for either a faked or real crisis. It could throw the nation into a crisis requiring much martial law.

There will be another victim in this event: people like me who ask questions and tend to see it as an insider job. Hate will be directed toward anyone who signals the possibility that an inside job is in play. For this purpose, the ones who fling the hate will tend to become pets, puppets, and stooges of the FBI / CIA / Justice Department.


As reported exclusively on Before It's News, the FBI surveillance video is in fact a digitally manipulated slideshow of still photos and not an actual video.

This is evidenced by the existence of ghost images appearing in between still photos in the so-called video as a transition effect is applied during the fade between frames."

The article goes on to suggest things that I don't necessarily agree with, but I tend to find the above feasible, that still photo's were altered many times to create a movie-like scene. It never dawned on me that they could do such a thing, but it makes a lot of sense. It could be a "cartoon." Anything can be done in a cartoon/animation. The BIG QUESTION: when would they have made such a cartoon, before the bombing or afterward? Were the brothers pegged as the suspects from even before the bombing? If not, why did the authorities decide to make the cartoon in the three or four days following the bombing? Regardless, this video stands to be evidence against the FBI. If the video pros can prove that the frames are from still photo's, the FBI, or whoever had possession of the videos, will be nabbed, and the marathon-bombing effort will be undermined (hopefully). Are there any brave video experts out there in Good America?

You can ask yourself over and over again as to why the FBI would release the video in the unusual way that it did, and while you may expect that the FBI has a prepared excuse in case they are forced to respond to the question, you must realize that there really is no excuse for not showing the video normally. The one good reason for not showing it normally is that it was never a video in the first place.

And where the video was created cartoon style, the makers had to do so with the brothers not walking together, because it would have complicated the fabrication enormously by having an image of one brother superimposed on the other, as would be the requirement if they were shown walking side-by-side. I get it.

But even if the video is not made from still photo's, the FBI could have taken the footage of the brothers walking elsewhere, and just pasted the walk into the scene at the marathon. The only people who would know this, besides the FBI, are the owners of the camera (I don't know who owns the camera).

Here is Jeff late in the week:

BOSTON'S extraordinary manhunt began with eight words, written down by one of the victims of the marathon bombing, who has now been hailed a hero.

He wrote: "Bag, saw the guy, looked right at me".

Jeff Bauman had been waiting for his girlfriend to cross the finish line when a man wearing a cap, sunglasses and a black jacket over a hooded sweatshirt looked him in the eyes and dropped a bag at his feet.

Two and a half minutes later, the bag exploded, tearing the 27-year-old's legs apart.

A picture of him in a wheelchair, bloodied and ashen, was broadcast around the world as he was rushed to Boston Medical Centre. He lost both legs below the knee.

There is a good question as to why they chose to use two and a half minutes as the time that the bag sat at his feet from the time that it was dropped by a man walking away. I don't know the answer. As the bag was at his feet, Jeff must have been standing where the aftermath photos show that large red stain on the sidewalk. See the stain in this overhead photo:

Now inspect the scene where a young man with shredded pants is running along to see if you can find the spot on the overhead view. Here's the photo's of the shredded man: The shredded-pants images are from a height of at least the second story, not the ground floor. There is a street-view of the same explosion site in the webpage below.

To better investigate this, you could get all photos above on their own browser windows so that you can click easily from one to the other without going through my page here. In the shredded-pants images, look at the coloration on the ground. There is a dark (grey) square in the bottom-center of the foreground (man with Boston Bruin jersey stands on this square), and an adjacent reddish border upon which one man (in orange shirt and white coat) is lying. The dark grey square can be seen in the overhead view near the red stain of blood (or dye). The reddish border is the one perpendicular (i.e. not parallel) to the street and buildings, and this border is immediately beside the red stain. Therefore, the man in the white coat, lying on this reddish border, is located smack beside the red stain. In case the overhead view disappears from online, here it is from my own files:

m So, the people to the left of the man lying on the border are right upon the red stain. It is not likely by coincidence that we cannot make anything out upon that red stain. The people there, if that's what they are, do not look like people, which underscores that this is a painting. Perhaps channel 7 and NBC (the third photo is from NBC) were not permitted to release a true photo; perhaps releasing a painting is legal, so long as the identities of the people is not given away. How convenient for the insiders.

Nothing in the picture looks like Jeff, who had on a white t-shirt...and a white sweater according to Arredondo. But if these are paintings, then of course we can't trust anything that we are seeing. Insiders can now blow people up and feed us paintings that do not reflect the true details.

To be sure that we are at the red stain in the shredded-pants images, check the third shredded-pants photo to see one corner of a railing. This entire railing, around an outdoor patio, is visible in the overhead view. The second photo has this same corner post partially visible at the far-left-center. This post helps greatly to locate the shredded-pants image near the large red stain, but it all becomes undeniable in the fourth shredded-pants image (NBC) below, where one can see that the images are coming from inside a bay window.

I take it that the paintings, as a normal course of practice, must be made to reflect the reality as much as possible...if insiders don't contact the news orgs to ask for changes which specifically mar some realities. As you can see in the fourth photo, there are people standing around next to the explosion site, just seconds after the bomb went off. The FBI claimed that everyone, except the Russian bomber, was running or moving expectedly. But I see people just walking along, or standing, in what should be the third second after the explosion. I don't know why they might start to run after that if they didn't already do so by then.

The problem with my painting theory, that NBC and channel 7 were not permitted to release real photos, is that real photo's of the bombing site do exist. I'm not going to show them here; they are online for anyone to see if anyone needs to. My point is that there may be something that warrants suspicion in the images above. Perhaps the "paintings" are a computer-generated method for intentionally degrading details.

This just out Monday morning:

Boston marathon bomber Tamerlan Tsarnaev was thrown out of his local mosque for 'crazy' behavior after getting involved a 'shouting match' with his imam according to one member of the congregation.

No good. The man's name is not provided and so we don't know whether this story is part of the insider plot. The FBI apparently has revealed nothing on the brothers of real evidence in their terror-turning ways, but, instead, there has been a constant drip of stories like the one above having no teeth. I'm not saying that the FBI can't manufacture hard evidence against them in the way of past links to terrorists, but that they haven't done it yet. There are also news pictures coming out of Chechen rebels to reinforce within the public's mind that America is filled with sleeper cells from that bunch. Don't be fooled.

There is also this report that can come only from police: "Dead Boston bomber phoned his MOTHER in final shoot out with cops: Suspect told her 'Mama, I love you' before hanging up and resuming deadly rampage." The idea is to portray the man as suicidal; we are to believe that he had decided to shoot at the police until shot dead himself, like the worst of criminal types. I don't buy it. I say the police murdered him in cold blood when he had no gun, while he was already in handcuffs.

Monday of this week, a week after the marathon, is the day that Glenn Beck said he would bring the government down:

What does Glenn Beck know that he hasn't shared with the rest of the world about the Boston Marathon bombing "cover-up"? According to Glenn, this could be the most important story that he has ever covered. "What I know could make this the most important story of our lifetime." Glenn has given the government until Monday to "come clean" about it or he will be sharing it with you and I and the rest of the world. According to Glenn, the government's response to the Boston Marathon bombing will determine if America lives, or America dies.

If there is anything to speak on from what Glenn Beck says, I'll add it to the next update, or, before that, I'll add it here. I've read from infowars that Beck will focus on the Saudi who was let go:

#11 Initially we were told that Saudi national Abdulrahman Ali Alharbi was a "person of interest" in the case. But now he is scheduled to leave the country with the full blessing of the U.S. government. Why is there such a rush to get him out of the United States?

#12 Why aren't we being told that Abdulrahman Ali Alharbi was photographed with two other Saudis in the vicinity of the Boston marathon bombings?

#13 Why aren't we being told of the shocking familial links that Abdulrahman Ali Alharbi has to known members of al-Qaeda? The following is from research complied by Walid Shoebat...

...#14 Why did U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry have a private meeting with a Saudi foreign minister shortly after Abdulrahman Ali Alharbi was identified as a potential suspect?

...#16 Why did Michelle Obama visit Abdulrahman Ali Alharbi in the hospital?

It really looks like there was a faked plan A, doesn't it, that didn't pan out? And, Obama the fink won't want to tell us the details concerning that Saudi, even though it smells like he cares more for the Arab leaders than he does for the safety of the American people.

On Monday, it came out from the government that the National Guard workers at the marathon were really part of the National Guard, but, really, I don't trust anything that's said anyone by the FIB.

I cannot foresee a full-scale martial-law society. That's not anything that I'm expecting. It may turn out that way if the government tries anything that gets out of hand, but ideally, the government needs society to function well. Full-scale destruction of the society machine is the spoiling of the oil (i.e. tax dollars) that greases the government machine. However, controlled tactics for the purpose of seizing > transferring money bags here and there is everything I expect.

Conclusion: If the purpose of the FBI was to punish the Saudi and/or Russian brothers, they would not have conducted a marathon bomb plot for such purpose. The marathon bomb plot must have a larger purpose that involves a new(er) government agenda overseas and/or at home. Americans beware. Because I doubt it very much that Obama wants to invade the Chechen terrorists abroad.

Here is a Glenn Beck story:


Especially for new or confused readers
shows where I'm coming from.

For serious investigators:
How to Work with Bloodline Topics

Here's what I did when I had spare time on my hands:
Ladon Gog and the Hebrew Rose

On this page, you will find evidence enough that NASA did not put men on the moon.
Starting at this paragraph, there is a single piece of evidence -- the almost-invisible dot that no one on the outside was supposed to find -- that is enough in itself to prove the hoax.
End-times false signs and wonders may have to do with staged productions like the lunar landing.

The rest of the Gog-in-Iraq story is in PART 2 of the
Table of Contents

web site analytic