Two explosions at Boston marathon finish line

[MacCruiskeen]

Aside from the colossal Todashev fuck-up by the FBI,

You would, wouldn't you? You would call it a "fuck-up" ("Oops!"), to protect your Authorities. Of course you would, because that's what they tell you to do.

It was a brutal and blatantly obvious murder by your Authorities. Yet another murder-by-cop. The murder of a witness who had already expressed his fear that the FBI would kill him.

I have seen nothing to indicate that what went down in Boston on that day isn't what it so obviously seems to be.

What is this information worth? Jerky has seen nothing. So what? Why should it interest anyone what you have not seen, or claim not to have seen? There your "argument" ends, i.e. before it even begins.

How, in any case, could you see anything to indicate anything, with your head so firmly buried where it is so firmly buried? How could light even begin to penetrate the inner sanctum of Jerky?

Nor have I seen any evidence that the court case was a fascist kangaroo court.

See above. Once again you inform us your fascinating inability to see. Thanks for that, we might have missed it first time. And it constitutes your entire "argument" (again). In any case, how could it possibly be "a fascist kangaroo court" when it is the court of your Authorities? Contradiction in terms, for you. Case closed, for you. Nothing to see. Ergo, move on.

And you haven't followed a single link posted here, have you? You engage with precisely nothing.

It's all just hot air billowing out of Mac's rather prodigious blow-hole.

What a hero you are. In there fighting the good fight, fearlessly engaging in vigorous and honest debate, questioning the Authorities and your own prejudices, posting loads of relevant information to back up your claims, rebutting and refuting the work of (say) Russ Baker and Rick Raznikov with your fine analytical mind and your sharply-honed argumentative ski Seeing nothing because you refuse to look, then boasting about that repeatedly as if it were a rather prodigious achievement.

Jerky

QED, repeatedly.

[82_28]

Well, let's throw this into the firepit so it doesn't grow out of proportion.

[MacCruiskeen]

NO. Why put it in the Firepit (aka Memory Hole)? Shine a light on it. It reveals the true state of this board in May 2015. Jerky, FourthBase and IanEye want to fry the patsy ("the shitbag") or let him rot. Compare that cosy near-consensus, that happy know-nothingism, that yay-team cruelty, with the early years of this board.

The Western mass media have already consigned this discussion to the Firepit. If it can't be discussed here, then the place might as well shut down.

[Elvis]

The Western mass media have already consigned this discussion to the Firepit. If it can't be discussed here, then the place might as well shut down.

I agree.


All personal insults must cease, that's what gets threads firepitted.

[82_28]

Let's just all dust it off, help one another up from the ground, pat your fellow teammate on the ass and get back out there! I think, as Elvis does, the personalization must stop.

[divideandconquer]

Like the loyalty of children to even the worst of parents, most people are too emotionally attached, and ever loyal to local and governmental authorities to consider hard evidence, facts, reason and logic, even when it's obvious that those same authorities have all but outwardly declared war on them. Although...



From John Locke: Second Treatise of Civil government

Sec. 222. The reason why men enter into society, is the preservation of their property; and the end why they chuse and authorize a legislative, is, that there may be laws made, and rules set, as guards and fences to the properties of all the members of the society, to limit the power, and moderate the dominion, of every part and member of the society: for since it can never be supposed to be the will of the society, that the legislative should have a power to destroy that which every one designs to secure, by entering into society, and for which the people submitted themselves to legislators of their own making; whenever the legislators endeavour to take away, and destroy the property of the people, or to reduce them to slavery under arbitrary power, they put themselves into a state of war with the people, who are thereupon absolved from any farther obedience, and are left to the common refuge, which God hath provided for all men, against force and violence. Whensoever therefore the legislative shall transgress this fundamental rule of society; and either by ambition, fear, folly or corruption, endeavour to grasp themselves, or put into the hands of any other, an absolute power over the lives, liberties, and estates of the people; by this breach of trust they forfeit the power the people had put into their hands for quite contrary ends, and it devolves to the people, who. have a right to resume their original liberty, and, by the establishment of a new legislative, (such as they shall think fit) provide for their own safety and security, which is the end for which they are in society. What I have said here, concerning the legislative in general, holds true also concerning the supreme executor, who having a double trust put in him, both to have a part in the legislative, and the supreme execution of the law, acts against both, when he goes about to set up his own arbitrary will as the law of the society. He acts also contrary to his trust, when he either employs the force, treasure, and offices of the society, to corrupt the representatives, and gain them to his purposes; or openly preengages the electors, and prescribes to their choice, such, whom he has, by sollicitations, threats, promises, or otherwise, won to his designs; and employs them to bring in such, who have promised before-hand what to vote, and what to enact. Thus to regulate candidates and electors, and new-model the ways of election, what is it but to cut up the government by the roots, and poison the very fountain of public security? for the people having reserved to themselves the choice of their representatives, as the fence to their properties, could do it for no other end, but that they might always be freely chosen, and so chosen, freely act, and advise, as the necessity of the common-wealth, and the public good should, upon examination, and mature debate, be judged to require. This, those who give their votes before they hear the debate, and have weighed the reasons on all sides, are not capable of doing. To prepare such an assembly as this, and endeavour to set up the declared abettors of his own will, for the true representatives of the people, and the law-makers of the society, is certainly as great a breach of trust, and as perfect a declaration of a design to subvert the government, as is possible to be met with. To which, if one shall add rewards and punishments visibly employed to the same end, and all the arts of perverted law made use of, to take off and destroy all that stand in the way of such a design, and will not comply and consent to betray the liberties of their country, it will be past doubt what is doing. What power they ought to have in the society, who thus employ it contrary to the trust went along with it in its first institution, is easy to determine; and one cannot but see, that he, who has once attempted any such thing as this, cannot any longer be trusted.

Sec. 223. To this perhaps it will be said, that the people being ignorant, and always discontented, to lay the foundation of government in the unsteady opinion and uncertain humour of the people, is to expose it to certain ruin; and no government will be able long to subsist, if the people may set up a new legislative, whenever they take offence at the old one. To this I answer, Quite the contrary. People are not so easily got out of their old forms, as some are apt to suggest. They are hardly to be prevailed with to amend the acknowledged faults in the frame they have been accustomed to. And if there be any original defects, or adventitious ones introduced by time, or corruption; it is not an easy thing to get them changed, even when all the world sees there is an opportunity for it. This slowness and aversion in the people to quit their old constitutions, has, in the many revolutions which have been seen in this kingdom, in this and former ages, still kept us to, or, after some interval of fruitless attempts, still brought us back again to our old legislative of king, lords and commons: and whatever provocations have made the crown be taken from some of our princes heads, they never carried the people so far as to place it in another line.

[IanEye]

When I view this video, I am looking at it on a large monitor.

The video is playing on it's own browser window, taking up the whole monitor.

It is set to 1080pHD.

Sometimes I view it in regular motion speed.
Sometimes I go back over parts and set the playback to half speed.

The following timings below are based on the timing on the youtube bar, not the time that is running in the lower left hand part of the video frame itself.

@ 03:36 I can see Dzhokhar Tsarnaev at the top of the frame approaching 753 Boylston Street

@ 03:40 I can see that Tsarnaev is holding a phone in his left hand and his right hand is holding onto the strap of his backpack

@ 03:45 Tsarnaev slides the backpack off of his shoulder and places it between himself and the tree

@ 04:31 there is a very obvious jump cut in the video.
I can see this jump cut because there is a marathon participator (marathoner?) running right towards the tree, then he seemingly disappears. If one watches it a few times, one can see that this marathoner is still in the frame, but over closer to people in the crowd talking to them.

If I was on the defense I would ask the jury about this jump cut, why is it there?

It does not appear to be a significant amount of time, it is interesting to go over it a few times, first looking at the foreground, then looking at the background to try and gauge the amount of time that the cut involves.

Of course, I do not know the manner in which the actual jury was allowed to view video and stills.

The youtube video above that I am referring to here is on youtube because of a local Boston radio station, I am making the assumption that the actual jury wasn't told to go on youtube to look at this footage.

@ 07:28 I can see the sun glint off of Tsarnaev's phone, bald head in foreground of lower right part of the frame is also fiddling with his phone.

@ 07:34 Tsarnaev is starting to leave away from the finish line, his back pack is not on him. I am not comfortable saying his backpack is still where I saw him slide it off before, because now that I know there are jumpcuts in the footage, I can't know what happened in the parts of the footage I didn't get to see.

Rumsfeld's "unknown unknowns"

What I can see is Tsarnaev stop in his tracks and look back towards the finish line.

Once the crowd reacts to the first explosion, Tsarnaev immediately resumes his exit from the area. He is almost out of frame when the second explosion occurs.

It is interesting to replay a couple of times and observe bald head's behavior.

Again, if I was on the defense I would want to know where each and every member of Craft Security was stationed along Boylston Street.

[Elvis]

Now we're getting somewhere. Excellent post, Ian. I wonder if the jury was even aware of Craft being on the scene (I doubt it).

[Elvis]

Do we know who he was talking to or texting with on the phone?

[FourthBase]

What evidence is there re: Craft being present except for that Craft/Punisher hat on one of the Mass. National Guard khaki-wearing dudes? I do remember there being another dude who'd been involved with Kyle's TV show somehow, who played hero in Oklahoma and then again at the Marathon, but who lied about his creds and who was suspiciously bashful after the Marathon, had Deval Patrick looking for him on TV, etc. That's it, right? Or is there more?All other evidence re: Craft/Kyle seems to relate instead to the National Guard crisis/WMD unit. Which may be no less suspicious, but is not quite as juicy a bogeyman as Craft, I guess.

I can't imagine it'd be too hard to identify the bald dude IanEye is talking about. Because he was caught in the blast, right? Presumably injured? Doesn't seem like someone who knew the exact nature of what was about to happen, purely accidental victim or not.

I'm definitely of the mind that there's more to the story of that day besides just the two murderous shitheads blowing up a couple bombs. The JFK Library fire, for example. My hunch is that something bad was planned for that day, and then something else even worse was inserted into or overlaid onto that plan. I feel the same way about 9/11, basically. I'm twice as paranoid as anyone here, I guess. I see bad guys on the right and on the left. There's no point getting into that here. But I want it on the record that in no way am I the Marathon equivalent of a lone-nut-theorist.

[IanEye]

My hunch is that something bad was planned for that day, and then something else even worse was inserted into or overlaid onto that plan. I feel the same way about 9/11, basically.

The baldness is just a pattern that stands out in the footage to me.

That youtube clip is obviously an edited montage, if you had cameras on the brothers the entire time and then wanted to make a montage, you could release any number of sequences of events to show any number of other patterns from the crowd, like red headed women.

In terms of finding that particular guy to hear his testimony, i would be interested, but i would be interested in hearing from anyone in that frame really.

I'm twice as paranoid as anyone here, I guess. I see bad guys on the right and on the left. There's no point getting into that here. But I want it on the record that in no way am I the Marathon equivalent of a lone-nut-theorist.

Well, i guess eye see bald guys on the right and the left.

.

[identity]

Just a reminder, folks:

Thirteen Techniques for Truth Suppression

by David Martin

Strong, credible allegations of high-level criminal activity can bring down a government. When the government lacks an effective, fact-based defense, other techniques must be employed. The success of these techniques depends heavily upon a cooperative, compliant press and a mere token opposition party.

Dummy up. If it's not reported, if it's not news, it didn't happen.

Wax indignant. This is also known as the "how dare you?" gambit.

Characterize the charges as "rumors" or, better yet, "wild rumors." If, in spite of the news blackout, the public is still able to learn about the suspicious facts, it can only be through "rumors."

Knock down straw men. Deal only with the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Even better, create your own straw men. Make up wild rumors and give them lead play when you appear to debunk all the charges, real and fanciful alike.

Call the skeptics names like "conspiracy theorist," "nut," "ranter," "kook," "crackpot," and of course, "rumor monger." You must then carefully avoid fair and open debate with any of the people you have thus maligned.

Impugn motives. Attempt to marginalize the critics by suggesting strongly that they are not really interested in the truth but are simply pursuing a partisan political agenda or are out to make money.

Invoke authority. Here the controlled press and the sham opposition can be very useful.

Dismiss the charges as "old news."

Come half-clean. This is also known as "confession and avoidance" or "taking the limited hang-out route." This way, you create the impression of candor and honesty while you admit only to relatively harmless, less-than-criminal "mistakes." This stratagem often requires the embrace of a fall-back position quite different from the one originally taken.

Characterize the crimes as impossibly complex and the truth as ultimately unknowable.

Reason backward, using the deductive method with a vengeance. With thoroughly rigorous deduction, troublesome evidence is irrelevant. For example: We have a completely free press. If they know of evidence that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (BATF) had prior knowledge of the Oklahoma City bombing they would have reported it. They haven't reported it, so there was no prior knowledge by the BATF. Another variation on this theme involves the likelihood of a conspiracy leaker and a press that would report it.

Require the skeptics to solve the crime completely.

Change the subject. This technique includes creating and/or reporting a distraction.

Also:

We’ve seen a number of tactics come and go over the years. Here are the ones we see a lot of currently.

1. Start a partisan divide-and-conquer fight or otherwise push emotional buttons to sow discord and ensure that cooperation is thwarted. Get people fighting against each other instead of the corrupt powers-that-be. Use baseless caricatures to rile everyone up. For example, start a religious war whenever possible using stereotypes like “all Jews are selfish”, “all Christians are crazy” or “all Muslims are terrorists”. Accuse the author of being a gay, pro-abortion limp-wristed wimp or being a fundamentalist pro-war hick when the discussion has nothing to do with abortion, sexuality, religion, war or region. Appeal to people’s basest prejudices and biases. And – as Sweeney explains – push the author into a defensive posture:

Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule … Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as “kooks”, “right-wing”, “liberal”, “left-wing”, “terrorists”, “conspiracy buffs”, “radicals”, “militia”, “racists”, “religious fanatics”, “sexual deviates”, and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.

That's all. Carry on.

[IanEye]

Thirteen Techniques for Truth Suppression

That's all. Carry on.

What baffles me again and again when discussing this and other similar cases, is people's readiness to forget all historical context

Ian, I'm flattered by your attention to [randomly selected fragments of] my past oeuvre on this thread, but is this elaborate dance routine incessant pointless cut 'n' paste orgy of yours supposed to constitute a response to what I've been arguing here? Or are you presenting it to the waiting world as a pathbreaking new art form? Or have you too simply been mysteriously struck dumb? I think we should be told. (On second thoughts: not.)

Since the day of the bombings Dzokhar Tsarnaev has never yet been seen on film or heard from in public.

You should research this more thoroughly, and challenge specifically what you find.

I really needed to read those two last postings on this board here today. I was beginning to think sanity was lost.

Why? The most charitable thing to call either of those postings is idiotic. Idiotically point-missing. Idiotically question-begging. Completely immune to argument or evidence. Completely indifferent to argument or evidence, and proud of it too. QED. (See the posts. I am not being even remotely unkind or unjust. In fact they show not just indifference but a positively rancorous animosity towards evidence and argument.)

The less charitable and more accurate term for both of those postings is "fascist", of course. Fascist and proud of it. The brutality and the sanctimoniousness both come as part of the package, along with the little and big lies.

FourthBase and IanEye have had their designated villain handed to them by The Authorities and they ain't gonna let any bleedin' heart pinko liberal faggot spoil their fun by casting any doubt on the boy's guilt. Don't pester them with any of that evidence or due process or burden of proof crap. 'Cause -- get this, commies -- only a Bay Stater can understand. Bay Staters alone can identify a guilty defendant by a process of mystical intuition that Outsiders simply cannot begin to comprehend. That's how the law works, these days.

Case closed.


Bay State Strong. Boston Big and Tough.

Insane bullshit like this would have angered me in the past. Seeing "antifascists" like yourself projecting your own fascist tendencies only makes me sigh and chuckle now.

If you object to being called a fascist, then stop saying fascist things and stop defending fascist show-trials. ("Fascist" is not just some random insult like "poopy-pants", you know, although you appear to believe that it is.) You're the one justifying a brutal and ridiculous kangaroo court, not I. Of course you would claim it's "insane" (sic) for anyone to notice that fact. Your views of what constitutes sanity are clearly somewhat idiosyncratic (though I'm sure you have company in Boston). Since you returned to this thread you have offered precisely nothing in the way of way of argument or evidence. Indeed, you contradict yourself at every turn:

I wonder what happened to 4B. He sure was all over this "Boston Strong" thing back then (when the whole city was on lockdown) and then he went away. This thread is way too long to read again. I just remember being the "first one" skeptical of anything about this morass. I remain so and agree it is a patsy ridden psy-op in order to see if they could get a big city to capitulate. But what do I know really? Just what I do and closing down an entire city for this is basically ridiculous and needs to be somehow explored honestly by someone "high up", just like all the assassinations of note that we talk about here, oh and 9/11.

Hi. Today I was just telling someone what happened to me, actually.

I left the reservation soon after the Boston Marathon bombings. Didn't turn me into a right-winger so much as expanded my sight to encompass the possibility of truths taboo to both the left and the right, a stereoscopic cynicism. Which leaves me as an orphan, lol.

I still doubt the official story, of course. All the same alternative explanations are still at play, in my opinion, except for the despicable hoaxer variety. I just have more ideas about what the unofficial story might involve than anyone here would care to entertain. It would bore me (or enrage me) to defend Boston again, as nothing has changed over the last two years about my opinion on the police response. I've grown tired of groupthink, no matter how rare or well-researched or eloquent the form it takes.

In case this hasn't been posted yet...

http://whowhatwhy.org/2015/03/03/fbis-s ... snt-exist/

I don't think Tsarnaev is innocent, I think he and his brother fully intended to murder a bunch of people. (While I'm not happy he got the death penalty, I don't particularly give a shit, either.) But there must be something in the video quite inconvenient to the government for that smoking gun to never surface.

Of course you don't condescend to inform us what those "truths taboo to both the left and the right" (sic) might be. Presumably they're just too scary, just too avant-garde, for anyone but a Strong Bostonian.

Test us.

Didn't turn me into a right-winger so much as expanded my sight

Yeah, right. You're transparent. Your sight has expanded to include truths invisible to mere humans and incommunicable by merely human means.

It would bore me (or enrage me) to defend Boston again

What is this sentence intended to mean, if anything? I think we should be told.

I've grown tired of groupthink

Are you a surrealist?

I've grown tired of groupthink

Fixed. Clearly you are tired of think. It makes your brain hurt. You acknowledge that the government is hiding something important, but still you're perfectly content with a show trial. You think your sacred Authorities might well be lying, but still you insist, "the boy dunnit" (and that's good enough for you). You link to WhoWhatWhy and ignore everything they document. You claim to be a daring avantgarde out-of-the-box Beyond-Left-And-Right thinker, but still your main priority is to see your (silent and invisible) designated victim either fry or rot. You claim, condescendingly, like some jaded intellectual dandy, to be "tired of groupthink", yet you regurgitate the most bovine antithought fed to you by the telly. You are clearly a bit confused.

If you have nothing better or more honest or more rational to offer, stay out of the thread. It is a waste of time talking to you.

Ian, I may or may not think you are a shitbag (or, indeed, a pawn) for posting this unconscionable, sanctimonious, wilfully ignorant, stubbornly point-missing, deliberately question-begging crap (again), but let's suppose for the sake of argument that I do. Let's suppose your posts in this thread are evidence enough for me. Exactly what, then, is the legal consequence (for you) of my fascinating opinion?

None.

By contrast: The legal consequence of your fascinating opinion that Dzokhar Tsarnaev is a shitbag is that he will be either a) fried soon or b) left to rot in solitary for decades. Why? Because you share that fascinating opinion with most of your compatriots -- exactly as presumed, planned, desired and intended by your National Security State via its mass media -- and therefore the fascist show-trial could go ahead smoothly without anyone ever asking any serious questions, protesting angrily, or even laughing out loud. Clearly, your government knows its people, nearly 15 years after 9/11. They know you watch a lot of TV. They know you don't spend much time thinking about editing techniques, stills vs motion pictures, the power of suggestion, the influnece of the alphabet agencies on the mass media, etc. They know you like big bangs and feeling tearful and outraged and uplifted. And they know that hardly anyone, especially in the sacred "Bay State," is going to care one single solitary shit about identifying the shitbags who run the pawns. Least of all you.

So you win, Ian. Rest assured, the kid will fry. Go out and celebrate. You're a free man, after all, in the land of the free. Fascism? It couldn't happen there.

PS What's this bizarre obsession of yours with Boston's alleged uniqueness in having a marathon that actually runs through the city (as opposed to going round in tiny circles somewhere on the outskirts)? I hate to break this to you, but it's just like every other marathon everywhere else, including the one in this here city.

Post-9/11 Law Exam:

1. Should everyone be entitled to a fair trial or only those we agree aren't shitbags? Discuss.

2. (Multiple choice, one answer only): When there is evidence to suggest that someone is a pawn, should we a) just ignore it, or b) ignore it and also pour scorn on conspiracy nuts? Give reasons for your choice.

By contrast: The legal consequence of your fascinating opinion that Dzokhar Tsarnaev is a shitbag is that he will be either a) fried soon or b) left to rot in solitary for decades.

I think your claim that Ian is part of the US Judiciary might not have standing.

I'll leave it to him to verify, but I'm pretty sure he didn't preside over this case, and is only offering his opinion as a citizen observer.

That's a perfect example of that there (tendentious) editing stuff I went on to mention very shortly after your cut.

This is bloody damned difficult difficult lemon difficult. Dzhokar shouldn't be executed, although I think his participation in the plot is evident. And when I say 'the plot' I think it's very broad and spook-laden and stinks to high heaven. Everybody loses on this one. I appreciate the vigor and rigour on both sides, Mac and Ian... and somehow... you're both right.

Et tu, norton? Really?

Where's the rigour you claim to see on Ian's side? Honestly, where is it? Point it out to me if you can. Because I think it is every bit as imaginary as the film of Dzokhar dropping the bag. It doesn't exist.

Ian's posts in this thread consist entirely of such fond imaginings (sponsored by Coca Cola), along with lashings of liberal stoner vagueness, bizarre Baystate Patriot uplift bullshit, snippets from his favourite TV shows, samples from his sizable record collection, and occasional stabs of really nasty New Fascist vindictiveness.

Otherwise, as Gertrude Stein said in another context: There is no there there. None. Just obediently regurgitated government PR. (Plus "bald heads", ffs.)

The Tsarnaev brothers will never be treated with any respect because they don’t deserve it.
The Tsarnaev brothers look like real shitbags.

Nothing has happened since 2013 that make the Tsarnaev brothers look like anything less than shitbags.

I still want to see this legendary, world-famous film of Dzokhar dropping the bag. Ian claims it exists. Ian says that it's powerful evidence of his guilt. Ian says it's sufficient evidence for him to want to see the "shitbag", "Dzhok", "Master Dzokhar" (sic, sic, sic) slaughtered by the State (just like his brother and just like Ibragim Todashev), or rotting in solitary for decades. (Ian has no interest in anyone who might have been using "Dzhok" as a pawn. Because it's safer and comfier for Ian that way.)

So where is that film, Ian? Yes, that's a challenge. Show me the exact seconds when "the shitbag" does it. Name the precise time, to the second.

Put up or STFU. I am calling you on your bullshit. And there are good reasons why I call that bullshit fascist.

-- Also, while we're at it: Where's the film of Tamerlan dropping the bag? (The plot thickens.)

I have never doubted, until this thread, that Ian is a nice guy, insofar as I can judge that on the Interwebs. Nor have I ever doubted that even nice guys are capable of going along* with fascism, especially when doing so makes their life in the Gemeinschaft (and Gesellschaft) just that little bit comfier and less stressful. That's how it works. Ian, undoubtedly a nice guy, undoubtedly wants to see the pawn* fry (or rot).



Back on-topic: Can't wait to see those two world-famous documentary films Ian keeps going on about, Dzokhar Drops The Bag and the even rarer Tamerlan Drops The Bag. I suspect he is confusing this allegedly-existent evidence with something he imagined while stoned. Time will tell.

*To get along.

**aka "the shitbag" (sic).

NO. Why put it in the Firepit (aka Memory Hole)? Shine a light on it. It reveals the true state of this board in May 2015. Jerky, FourthBase and IanEye want to fry the patsy ("the shitbag") or let him rot. Compare that cosy near-consensus, that happy know-nothingism, that yay-team cruelty, with the early years of this board.
The Western mass media have already consigned this discussion to the Firepit. If it can't be discussed here, then the place might as well shut down.

*

[Project Willow]

Well, i guess eye see bald guys on the right and the left.

.

<ot stream of consciousness>
Handlers often work in pairs. In the aughts my handler worked with a guy my system called Frank. He was buff, 50 something, obviously ex-military and bald. His role was to be physically intimidating, hold the gun, etc. during accessing. I encountered him once in normative life, on a bus. I couldn't imagine he was the sort of fellow who would ride buses, so I took it as a personal message, especially since he sat right in front of me and draped his arm over the back of the bench seat like he owned all the territory within a 10 foot radius. After a brief internal meltdown and then overt recognition I practically ran off the bus at the next stop, still a quarter mile from where I wanted to go.

Around the same time a local artist was plastering cut-out drawings on telephone poles all over town, just a bald head, with the words, "The bald man is watching you." I caught him outside my building once and asked what was up. He launched into a discussion of Foucault. For me the images were an intimidating trigger, and they were everywhere in the city, for several years running.



https://www.flickr.com/people/baldmanwatching/

Postscript: The Baldmanwatching artist is also a dancer and was part of the group I exhibited with at City Hall, after which all of my recent troubles began. I just discovered this while searching for the above photo. What a strange world, and another example of how conspiracy knowledge can really fuck up art appreciation.

</ot stream of consciousness>

I'm not exactly sure why bald men came up in this thread, I just thought I'd share. If some bald man is watching you (in a menacing, non-poetic way), tell him to fuck off, and please, be kind to one another.

[IanEye]

Boston 1979

No municipal police were allowed within the stadium during the festival.
The concert organizers had Boston residents trained in crowd security over a period of 6 months.

.