Suspect 2's backpack is definitely a light color, #1's is dark but it I can't tell the specifics. I tried to get the pics off the FBI site but it won't load at this time.Originally Posted by Live2Love
Suspect 2's backpack is definitely a light color, #1's is dark but it I can't tell the specifics. I tried to get the pics off the FBI site but it won't load at this time.
Only idiots think that anyone believes there is a way to stop violence. The point of the vote was to extend waiting periods to make it harder for crazy fucks to get access to deadly weapons as easily. It was to make it harder, not impossible. Anyone who is like ZOMG I AIN'T NEVER GONNA PASS THAT KIND OF SCRUTINY probably SHOULDN'T have a gun.
The guy with the black hat, his bp looks black but it has a logo on the back. The guy with the white hat, his looks black on the sides, but the front looks white to me.
"Well, it's YOUR fog..." - J. Martinez
I snagged this off the FBI.GOV site. It's the guy with the white/black bp. I'm on there right now, it's loaded for me, so if someone wants me to grab all the pics and put them on my photobucket, let me know.
"Well, it's YOUR fog..." - J. Martinez
Omg, Gonzo did it.
I saw his injury because I was matching shoes. He had his right shoe intact but his left shoe is by Krystle. They wheeled him out in the wheel chair but has his leg covered. The small child in the red shirt, and the old lady is all the way to the left were wheeled out.
I know this. You know this. But not everyone does. Lots of scare tactics around the second amendment. Also, lots of ignorance.
Oh, for sure. What's scary to me is that this country is REALLY being terrorized by multi-millionaire corporations.
Sadly, we don't really vote anymore, and even if a candidate you want gets in their goals, values ect won't matter because they're always worrying about who will vote for them ect. Just look at the 2 dems from red states that voted no. They weren't thinking about the bill, they were thinking about the next election.
This is the hat of the first suspect.
Just gathering minor details so anyone can look in photos of the crowd and find this hat in particular.
Although I don't think they stayed in the crowd for long, dropped it and then left.
My husband was noticing the hats as well. He said they're both golf hats and the other suspect's is Taylor Made brand.
Pretty sure the hate in the crowd is gray and the guy is wearing different attire, close but different. Not the same cat.
The hat looks mesh to me, which means you can see his hair. It looks like he is wearing the same attire.
I don't know many people wearing their clothes like that.
Back of the hat of bridgestone;
Bigger picture of suspect;
Who is the guy running away?? HMMM
You mean everyone who still has legs?
I don't see hair through the hat in the orig. suspect pic. just me. I see a few other folks wearing hoodies or hoodies & jackets so it's not an odd dress style.
No, as soon as the bomb or smoke comes you see someone in black just running away...
I see like three or four people running away, a lot of whom are in black.
The fact that this bomb went off and neither of these guys were in the hospital (I am sure the police/FBI were very meticulous in properly identifying every person admitted) makes it unlikely they were right by the bomb at the time.
He could have just been freaked out...but maybe it was one of the bombers.
Of the three people killed, did they all die as a result of the first bomb?
4chan thinks they identified suspect 2s hat;
http://i48.tinypic.com/54xd9z.jpg
I don't know about the others but the 8 year old boy and his family were hit by the second, running from the first. There's an article a few pages back.
Yup. Samecat
Yeah, 4chan has also identified about a dozen innocent people as the bombers.
This is hilarious:
http://gawker.com/5994999/is-the-new...&post=58911365
This morning, the New York Post published on its front page a photo of two spectators near the Boston Marathon finish line, one wearing a backpack and one with a duffel bag slung at his side, under the headline "BAG MEN."
"Feds seek these two pictured at Boston Marathon," the giant subhead added.
The two had nothing to do with the bombing. One of them, whose face is clearly shown on the front page, is a 17-year-old high-school runner. They were among the many bag-toting people whose images were being studied by the internet hive-mind yesterday, and there was no good reason to think they were the bombers. Yet there they were, on every newsstand in New York: "Feds seek these two."
As it has been all week, the New York Post was wrong. And as it has all week, the Post denied being wrong. This afternoon—after the Post had run a story conceding that the two were not suspects—Col Allan, the paper's editor, issued a statement defending the front page:
We stand by our story. The image was emailed to law enforcement agencies yesterday afternoon seeking information about these men, as our story reported. We did not identify them as suspects.
This is legalistic horseshit. In small type, the cover did say that "there is no direct evidence linking them to the crime, but authorities want to identify them." But it was the front page image in the newspaper. The whole point of putting them on the cover was to imply that these two—rather than the dozens of other backpack-bearing figures being scrutinized yesterday—were under serious suspicion.
A normal newspaper editor—someone who wanted a scoop yet was concerned about embarrassing the paper or harming an innocent person—would not have slapped that picture on Page One without some deep underlying confidence that the two were serious suspects, and that the absence of "direct evidence" was a temporary condition. There is no sign that Col Allan had such confidence.
Given all the surrounding discussion and the shaky performance of the Post and its law-enforcement sources, one might even conclude that to have slapped the photo on the front page, an editor would have had to have been cripplingly stupid, cripplingly reckless, or both. We do not know for sure that Col Allan is cripplingly stupid and reckless. We may have heard from sources that Col Allan is stupid and reckless. But we do not know it, so we are not saying it.
Sources have also suggested that Col Allan may drink to excess, but we have no direct knowledge that he is an alcoholic, or that he was drunk at any time that he was guiding the Post through its various blunders in the marathon coverage. Col Allan may have been too drunk to recognize the mistakes that the Post was making—say, to see that it was publishing a front-page photo of young man carrying a royal-blue duffel bag when the authorities were saying the bombs had been in black bags. That is a mistake that a drunk person could conceivably have made, but we do not know that Col Allan was drunk when the Post made it.
The Post had previously identified an innocent Saudi as a suspect before it decided to put this brown-skinned teenager on the front page. The back-to-back focus on innocent people of non-European ancestry could imply that the Post is systematically hostile to nonwhite people, and that the paper's editors are so wedded to the notion that all Muslims are terrorists that they literally do not care which Muslim or "Muslim-looking" person they happen to be targeting on any particular day. We are not saying that Col Allan, motivated by bigotry, is intentionally trying to use the Post to stir up hostility against Muslims. We do not know that Col Allan is a racist. The evidence may suggest that he is a racist, but we are not saying that Col Allan is a racist.
It does seem clear, based on the flow of images and facts through Internet and the media yesterday, that the New York Post found itself sewed to the far end of an informational Human Centipede—evidently beginning with a crowd photo published on Deadspin, passing through Reddit and 4chan and Reddit and Reddit, being passed on to the investigators actively working the Boston case, then trickling through gossip-mongering New York law-enforcement officials, till it flowed over Col Allan's taste buds.
But we are not drawing any conclusions about that. Perhaps Col Allan and the New York Post are having an incredibly unlucky week. Perhaps the worthlessness of every single scoop the Post has had—its inability even to get the body count straight—does not prove that the editor is a booze-addled, race-baiting, information-illiterate moron who has neither the common sense nor the journalistic skills to avoid repeatedly humiliating his newspaper.
We would not say that, any more than we would say that Col Allan fucks pigs. He is from Australia; if he were to engage in bestiality, it's much more likely that it would be with sheep. But we are not saying Col Allan fucks sheep, either. It could be that Col Allan fucks pigs or sheep. We do not know. It would be irresponsible to speculate.
so they are preppie white boys that wear hoodies?
There are currently 5 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 5 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
