Friday, 18 July 2014

Boston kid with permanently raised, bent legs - dummy - crisis actors? ventriloquist? You decide.

Go through all of these images before judging. Here is a summative argument to start with.

Whether or not there were real casualties of the explosions in Boston at the Marathon (such as Jane, a well-known dancer who seems to have lost a leg -- if she had not had surgery quietly beforehand and was paid off to do this as a stunt),

if a simple proof exists of there being a drill going on that day, perhaps with some people in it expecting a live controlled bomb blast, it is worth knowing such a proof.

This article proposes that there is, indeed, such a proof of at least one subpoena-appropriate person as a very likely crisis actor with a prop (or two subpoena-worthy persons, if we include a teen later seen with the same prop). The prop in question is a life-sized child doll.

Is it one? Why would someone bring it and, moreover, give it to a screaming teen, later, if not that these people were part of a drill, thinking the whole bombing event was a live drill?

If they did think it was a live drill, even if there were real casualties, they could answer if they knew and were paid off to participate in a large lie: the Boston bombing as a somewhat real event but for a hoax.

Now, right off the bat, let us note the general gist of the main objections to the evidence you will see.

The nicey nicey, or non-dummy interpretation of the immediate issue of screen captures:

The issue the debunker-wishers will take is that the images are not continuous. They are taken from screen grabs of a video compilation, in turn from still images available if one searches "hahatango"  and "Thorndike" (and an article about the latter, here, with the Thorndike video showing our woman without the child here). The video compilation of all the images of the woman is credited in the full screen capture images themselves, but is here. (The videomaker's anger is evident and he uses sexist, insulting language about the woman, however.)

Because the images are sometimes from footage several seconds apart, the 56 screen grabs you will see below would be anomalies, if those are correct who wish to debunk the argument that a dummy was used at the Boston Marathon in the main explosion area. They would argue that the supposedly freaking child just happens to be caught again and again in approximately 90-degree hip angle to itself, its different angles to the mother seeming to show difference in its own body (they do not), and ... basically ...

the people who want this not to be a dummy are positing that the scenes depict a miracle child as it jumps down then up, grabs the mother with the same pose, then down again and up in the missing seconds repeatedly, maybe sometimes even wrapping its legs around.

Let us instead remember gravity, natural differences in body poses, etc., and continue.

"Some pictures could have been taken seconds apart, so the positions of the legs of the child figure could be maintained that long and, moreover, some people could achieve these positions by chance, again."

 Indeed, many of the images were only a second or two apart. Some were definitely more than that: maybe 15 or so seconds apart.

The body's lower half -- real or not -- swings out and up, out and up, always with consistent hip and knee angles for each leg. Never does the child figure's grip lessen, never does a leg fall lower or have to reach for the ground. Never does the child get an arm picking up its leg by the adult.

Those are some wildly strong abdominal muscles, thigh muscles (inner, top and outer)!

The child does not ever lose its leg positions, swinging out & away, again & again.


this child is supported by the wall (next two images have no credits because supplied by would-be debunker without credit) and by the man's knee:

Our child figure has no support except lower back, with its arms at maximum extention.

This child is unsupported but high up on the woman's hip and truly grips with its thighs & legs into the butt of the woman, as much as it can, nor is this kid imaged swung out again and again with the same positions always, for its hips and legs -- could it do so? This is a brief situation and more supported by where it is on the hip and by the leg.

Not only, if this is a real child, does the camera catch the child figure always in the selfsame pose relative to its hips (its upper portion is pulled closer or farther from the woman), but the pose must be pulling itself up and down, sometimes several times in 30 seconds, always maintaining the pose or being caught with no change in the pose (the lower half of the body).

Indeed bodies can achieve similar poses in mid-swing sometimes.

The images you will see, however, show the child figure is basically unsupported and does not have time to jump up and down without betraying major reactions from the woman -- she would react to a large child jumping. If frozen in fear, this child is always caught in the perfection a muscleman or leg squat expert would have a hard time maintaining.

If swinging from her, this child is only seen in perfect 90 and 90 degree angles of hip to upper leg and knee to lower leg, particularly evident on the left leg.

The woman does not seem affected by major weight shifts in the child figure's positions.

And the child figure even manages to get a leg at 90 degrees from the woman's hips while walking, for  second or more, just before she drops it off in the building behind her -- in mid-air, this leg sticks out.

The woman and the teen sister who later carries what this article posits is a 4 year-old-child dummy, has been interviewed. She does have a real 4-year-old child.

If the abdominal muscles and non-gripping thigh-muscles of this child can swing down and up again and again like this, she should be tested by top bodybuilders!

Our argument will be that, though it is an ugly thought, the required impossible abdominal and thigh muscles for a real child to do what is seen in the footage means the mother has been paid off to participate with a false child, in a drill gone live, with her sister and the family money will be such that they will never be in need again really, whatever they may say.

The perpetrators, if the basic premise here is correct, would have known they would have to actually provide the family for TV, because the doll image came out due to the still images taken by the photographer linked below.

Here is the interview. If they are lying, they are lying. But it is presented for thoroughness, as would be in an honest court.


If there was a doll, it does not matter?

Well, what is a child doll doing at the event? It is large size, probably fairly expensive ($400 to $500 or more) and is on not only the woman but later on a screaming teen.

What would these two persons be doing with it? Is it a ventriloquist doll? What?

Back to the possible dummy or doll in a moment, but let us digress onto the different lines of interpretation of the implications of this doll, if it is one.

There could be real casualties at a drill which goes live in a falseflag

Some have argued that the Boston Marathon bombing was a political lie (for various proposed reasons that such a thing would be done then, there, with the effects the event did bring about). Let us call the proposed reasons for a political lie, in general, "ideological reasons" to want such an event to occur.

If it was a political lie, it may, they suggest, have not had any casualties at all. How so? By using crisis actors in a drill with real but controlled explosives.

This is possible to conceive, but is it accurate?

If we take on the position that there were no casualties, then all deaths claimed were paid-off "shills": persons who would sell out their lives for money and possibly a new life under a cushioned Witness Protection Program. Not all persons in regular government would know.

It also would mean that Jane, the dancer, well known in her community, did not really lose a leg at the event. This is problematic to consider; it is possible she might have needed surgery for a medical condition in the leg, had surgery beforehand and, again, sold out for big bucks and the ideology behind the event to pretend the wound was new. It is also possible she was a real casualty (her leg, anyway, being the literal casualty), in an otherwise fairly safe and planned event, where most people in the putative drill did know and did not get hurt.

The deaths which were claimed seem mostly to have been given memorial services only. These could all be real or an easy way to cover false deaths, but real disappearances of real people who, in the general sense, sold out for an ideological lie. (Again, we will discuss which ideologies would support doing such an event.)

However, it is also possible no-one died and no-one was injured from the explosion, at least not seriously. Persons may have been affected by smoke, certain persons trampled in the crowd, hit by debris, but not actually hurt by the bomb in the ordinary sense of the concept.

There certainly is evidence amassed to support that most, if not all, claimants of injuries are lies. (Later, we will give links to a doctor and EMT who support this idea.) But either way, this doll figure, if the argument for its existence is correct, would most naturally support the idea that a drill was occurring, even if a real low-grade terrorist (non falseflag government-sponsored terrorist) acted as well.

Why does the doll figure, if present, support a drill or drill going live for a political lie (a falseflag)?

If a life-sized, rather expensive ($400?) doll child was being carried during the blast at the Boston Marathon, was dropped off, later to resurface on a screaming teen, we either have some crazy ventriloquists with the dummy, or it is the simplest proof of crisis actors at the event.

With all the questions swirling around the event as a political lie (a false flag), the implications tend toward the latter.

So, how do kids, frozen in fear, let us say, hang on a parent?

This is not the right question, though. The right one is:

If unsupported by the parent's back in piggy-back style, how long can a mid-sized child do this, then, on the front of the adult,
while having their own hips lower than the adult's but with one hand on their back and clinging with arms fully extended,
while moreover, swinging out again and again,
while, moreover, maintaining a 90-degree angle from hip to upper leg
and, moreover, a 90-degree angle from knee to lower leg,
with this moreover true for both legs,
and, while, moreover, even getting feet way out in the air against gravity for a second?

Sometimes a common-sense issue is the best to argue with the public about: something they have common experience with. The implications are not immediate common sense, perhaps, but informed new common sense (about falseflags and lies) is also a form of common sense.

There are no shots of the whole face. The face is turned down so that only a similar-expression upper 1/2 of the face is viewable. Perpetrators of using a dummy would make sure of such obvious upon obvious type of evidence, one would think. There is no need to see the face, though -- but one does need to actually think through how legs and gravity and a child's gripping another larger person look. As such, there is really only one layer in the way of some people's perceiving this fakery, and as such it is relatively common sense even in the initial sense of nearly immediate knowledge, to be able to perceive this is a dummy, even if the broader implications require informed common sense about ugly topics.

This issue is not about someone crouched in terror; it is not about children's proclivity to hang on parents; it is not about missing seconds in footage. This issue is about an unsupported, swinging lower half of a fairly large (4-year-old or 5-year-old) child figure, which maintains 90 degrees from its hip to its upper legs and almost 90 degrees from its knees to its lower legs, against gravity, hanging on the front of a woman and then later gripping with its knees only and arms with the same posture of body and legs to hips, though not lower legs, when upon a teenage girl, again with no support.

"What shocks me is why the f**k she thinks it's relevant. What if it was a doll?!?! Changes nothing."

 Yes, this is a debunkery position and someone on Twitter said it. Actually, it is, in the most extreme, isolated sense -- ad hoc sense  -- true. This is true of any piece of evidence, even DNA in a court case: the implications are always the issue, the implications in a context.

Let us take a moment to acknowledge this fact: if a child-size doll was hanging around a woman for a while in the smoke blast, then the proof of its being there which we will advance here, is actually proof only of a child-size doll. In the general context of the situation in Boston that day of the marathon and seemingly relatively small bomb explosions at the main area and the presence of a mercenary violence security team called "Craft International", with other instances of medical opinion arguing that there were no real casualties in evidence that day, the doll becomes part of a larger argument, a larger story or narrative based on evidence amassed in its support. (For doctor and EMT opinions that no-one was actually hurt on film at the location, we will give some links later.)

The main, first issue is whether it was a doll around this woman's neck, a sort of expensive mid-size child girl doll. Then we would have to ask about the implications: What would this woman be, carrying it there anyway? A ventriloquist? A crazy, plain and simple?

And why give it to a teen later to scream with? Really. Let us not be technically limited to this issue of how all the evidence is about is the doll. There are implications, if it is, or we in the public are truly dupes on the other side, the debunk attempters. (Not all debunking attempts are so outrageously blind to implications.)

Back to the argument itself:

At one point, the woman drops off the child figure (dumps the dummy, if it is one), and has switched it to the right side of her body. Just before she goes into a building to drop it off, later to return without it, the foot of the child figure's left leg can be seen fully extended in the air for several seconds as she walks into the building.

What muscleman, even in fear, can do this?
If this is indeed what the images show (we will argue they do), then this has to be a lifelike but mechanical dummy -- one with certain set points for its joints and hips.


And if this argument is correct and is not called into the court among all the other falseflag potential evidence, the defense will not be considering the easiest ways -- though with biggest implications -- to get their client, the man named Dzokhar Tsarnaev, cleared of charges.

This is the issue. If persons can understand this proof reasoning line properly, in the public, but wait for the defense to notice, integrate, take seriously this line, they will never realize the issue fully in their own minds as well.

Remember: incredulity is a feeling, not an argument.

Sloppiness is one thing, but arguments can indicate tricks are played on us. And it would not be the first time in history, if it was done, that trickery brought about a mass mobilization of even rather innocent police and bomb squads, evidence tampered with or misleading them and so on.

And why? If this was done, it was a distraction from Syria probably and a way to maintain the impression of a great need for antiterror legislation, policing (near military-style). There are many admitted operations from paragovernment branches affiliated with government agencies, which can and in the long run have admitted to such things. (Operation Gladio in Europe and Operation Condor in South America are two such. History provides many other examples for thousands of years, however, of various forms of such things.)

Much chaos and emotional hurt are real at Boston.

But were the people tricked? That is an entirely separate issue.

At least at Boston, if this argument is right, no one likely died at the event -- unless there was some side casualty; persons who had memorials would most likely, then, be persons who wanted to be paid to go into witness protection somewhere -- some people are willing. Death certificates are illegal to forge. Will such be refused or forged if we ask?

And if the argument below is correct, it implies also that the real casualties of the event were in the Tsarnaev family, the FBI (some loyal person who discovered the truth, if we are right, here), and other witnesses to parts of the coverup.

The following is the argument about the dummy.
For more on crisis actors at Boston and medical evidence supporting that idea, aside from the dummy (the simplest argument), we will provide a doctor and an EMT's opinions, a bit further down.


The layer in front of people who doubt this is the common impression that children hang on adults with consistent poses which are physically impossible to maintain and repeat without exact support.

This child is hanging on the adult woman with 90 degrees from hips to upper leg and 90 degrees from knee to lower leg. This child is unsupported in its bum at every point. It is never seen slipping or grasping.

The next thing we have to deal with is the idea that being frozen in fear allows it these postures. This is against gravity, not supported by the mother's upper hip (though her leg occasionally passes under its hips and looks like a support, though that is an illusion, since she is walking in those shots).

The next thing and really the last major thing in the way of understanding what follows -- though we will provide more background than this little preamble, of course -- is the fact these are still images, so some people may feel the child did change its legs regularly between these shots. Given that these shots consistently show 90-90 degree relationships with the same basic grip (in some cases no grip at all from the mother seems to be the case), the improbability of a child's reaching such a posture for its body against gravity regularly, with no true hold on the woman, becomes impossibility in the regular natural world. Claims of cherry-picking (selective, ad hoc imagery choosing) on this author's part or the source photo providers reasonably falls apart, given that even in slow-motion films, poses rarely repeat when they are of difficult body postures against gravity in a hanging position.

It can be reasonably presumed then, that the woman is carrying the child and it is not jumping up and down to regain a hold between these often close-together frames of film (judging by others around the woman, many stills are from seconds apart), or that the child figure is frozen in near rigor mortis of terror, given the 90-90 degree posture against gravity without true support.

The arguments below are from our common experience, if given some thought. This mean that we can know about this, on its own and not stop our knowing this because of the bigger issues we would have to think about after knowing it.


56 screen shots will be shown after this Introduction.
Many are quite clear.
The first set I have shown here is of 7 images. They are taken from the still image screen shots. There is no available complete moving image of this part of the event, according to the person who made the video compilation of 56 still images we will be using.

Remember, all the images directly below -- and most of the 56 which follow this Introduction section -- are from the same camera's point of view. So the images on the far right (three images in smokey air) have to take place with time for the woman to turn around and walk. The other 3 images also take place with a few seconds between the first and at least the second, judging by surrounding movements in the full frames.

The child figure swings this way and that, but the movements in the body are mere perspective changes or slight shifts at best. Sometimes the top of the body is more at an angle with the rest, pushing the legs and hips further out and back, but the gist is the same.

This took place during about 90 seconds in time or 2 minutes.

The pose of the lower body is like this mid-jump picture of Suri (Tom Cruise's ex-wife) and their child, but ours not only stays like this, it swings out again and again in this pose, even leaving a foot visible in mid air while carried into a building:


We will mention some of the common objections to the finding that the Boston images are of a dummy in a moment. Keep in mind the points raised above.

The basics of what we will see:

As was mentioned above, after some basic points are noted, this particular proof of at least one adult crisis actor (and a teen as well) is the simplest and most common-sense knowledge-based proof. It does not require a medical degree or bomb expertise or whatever.

It requires daring to know how your body -- and every other body with normal leg and arm function -- works when gripping a tree, pole, human being, etc.: how long can one maintain certain unsupported positions with one's legs, the upper leg relative to one's hips and the lower leg relative to the upper.

The child figure's angle of legs -- except the bottom turn of the boots, perhaps widened a bit -- never changes in all 56 images. There are 4 times some background shows behind the right leg, but 5 images of it (2 from the same second or two are shown above).

The legs never vary on the child until 2 stills (at the end of the 56 frames), when the child figure is carried by a teen who likewise is not supporting it. The lower legs are then more acutely bent, but the angle of the upper legs to the hips is the same and the child -- if it is taken to be real -- is in mid-jump, struggle, holding by mostly its inner knees, still in the same general impossible-to-hold position, and the rest of the body does not indicate that this is mid-jump or a shifting position at all.

There are some perspective changes on the legs (of course). Sometimes this gives a straighter impression or a more gripping impression, but the actual legs remain in a partly raised upper leg, bent towards centre lower leg, held for about 90 seconds, sometimes without even the semblance of support by the woman's hip.

There is an early screen capture where the right leg, almost at 90 degrees from lower leg to knee, is tilted in on the central axis toward the child figure's midline more than later. This gives the impression that the pose is significantly different than in other frames as to indicate some natural movement. However, in fact the angle of both upper legs to the child figure's hips and the lower legs to the knees are in fact still 90 degrees. The left leg never appreciably moves at all in any frame, relative to the child figure's hips.

It is likely, if this is a dummy child, that the woman's walking leg or bending down a bit with her legs at some early point, pushed the child figure's right leg's boot (foot) a bit wider, making the foot less in line with the midline of the child figure, just after this image. This would widen the feet but not change the 90-degree hip-to-upper leg ratio for the right leg, or the 90-degree knee-to-lower leg ratio for the right leg.

As already noted, the left leg seems to have no appreciable change.

The straight lower back and full spread of legs at 90 degrees to its hip, with almost always 90 degrees also at knee suggest a maximum mechanical bend in the hip joint mechanism. Such dolls as this child figure seems to be have full bottoms and flat lower backs and often a maximal bend at the hip, as well as limited bend at the knees up to about 30 degrees without pressure added.

The arms of the child figure are consistently fully around the woman's neck, seemingly elongated, almost dislocated (which would occur in tying a doll figure's hands together to become a strap).

There is no continuous footage available of this segment of the main Boston explosion site showing this woman. This article uses all of the stills available, to the current knowledge of this author.

We will discuss fairly soon the issue of how we might wish that this child could just "by chance" be caught in the same position among many moving image frames, but how that would not happen again and again unless the child were jumping up and down and achieved perfect 90 and 90 degrees on its upper legbone to hip and its lower legbone to knee again and again, while being caught by the woman, who shows no sign of being in the middle of catching the child. How reasonable is all that? We may wish it to work, but it does not.

The woman never grips the rear end of the child figure, nor does the child figure ever wrap its legs around the woman or begin to fall off her.

It is true a child can "cling", but it will not maintain the same body relationship to its own shape (its "proper" or self-referential proportions).

The "Clinging Child" Claim:

Before anyone outright thinks this child is merely cowering, in some general sense "paralyzed with fear" for 2 minutes ...

The position this child is in is more like rigor mortis here (sorry to be crude). Why do I say that? Am I merely rude? No, far from it.

The legs are against gravity, unsupported and consistent. They are counter to gravity and consistent.

These are normal children in somewhat similar leg positions (not really, except for the top one, this article will maintain, but they were provided to this author as a debunk attempt, so let us use them: they are appropriate impressions). These images have no credited source, unfortunately, from the people I got them from.

1. Mid-jump. Unmaintainable. 2. Gripping and supported bum. 3. Same, with even smaller child.

The top one is the most similar situation for the following child figure. However, as you can see, this cannot be maintained. It is a great picture for the kind of thing this seeming dummy is doing, though, in a far more compromised situation, where it is never supported.

Or how about this?

But this kid has a back and butt of the adult for support and the child figure we will be dealing with is hanging on the front,

low (lower than actual top of hip),

maintains the same angle of legs for knees and hips,

and even ends up with one boot spread out into mid-air!

This lattermost point is just before the woman drops it off (if a dummy, we should say dumps it) to go out and argue in the chaos (make chaos, it would seem).

When clinging upward, they cannot maintain lower body for long in same pose. The child we will be dealing has its upper leg 90-degrees to its hips and its knees 90-degrees to its hips for over a minute.

"My kid clings a lot, so if you do not have kids, you cannot comment or judge" style of objection:

 Just clinging? Is this normal clinging? Not when we get the consistent angle and unsupported nature of the legs.

Not from the front below the upper hip.

Not with a boot in mid-air.

Not with a swinging leg stuck out several times when there are rotations of lower body in how woman is holding the child.

Not without jumping down and restarting at some point in a slightly different hold.

If terrified, can even a muscleman maintain this? In different angles? For that is what we have here. A fully stiff lower half of the body, even hanging to the side. We even have a boot in mid-air at the end for some seconds when the woman seems to think she can relax as she goes into a building.

If you think this author or others "cherry picked these images" (just ones which happened to be odd), think again. The images are the only ones available from the footage and even if we had attempted to cherry pick them, remember, this child is never moving from this position in these "cherry picked images", so how did it happen to get into exactly a 90-degree-to-its-hip and 90-degree-to-its-knee position at all, without support, and always carried the same way?

Did it jump up and down every few seconds onto its mother and never fail to achieve a perfect pose of its own body again and again in mid-jump? No, the mother is carrying it this way.

In whole images (you will see 56 below) most of the images can be roughly timed, by the movements of others around the mother.

Here is a selection.



Here are some more.

Note that the child has swung out way far away from her at the end (right before the woman drops it off at a building, before she returns to the scene to complain and argue with people for some minutes, as we will later see).

The child is again quite counter to gravity.
It seems she thinks no-one will see her then, especially with her big bag and a new wave of smoke has enveloped the scene.

We must note about images 1 & 2, first:

In 1, she is holding with left arm but right arm is down. About a second later, she is raising her right, which she will cover her face with as she becomes overwhelmed by smoke. She has seemingly let go of the child figure with her left hand, overwhelmed by smoke, so her hip presses out the lower half of the putative doll as she steps, giving the child figure the swung legs look. She has her right to her face by the third image. The putative doll has, it seems, swung slightly free and out, pressed by her leg. But always that child figure has 90-90 degree relationships of hip to upper leg and knee to lower leg.

The final two images are also important. They will be discussed right below the image set.

Note the last two images, as the woman walks into a doorway (timing is approximated for you here by the big blue square where a column is in each case). The purple is to indicate that this part of the leg is is not visible, but is where it would be, according to the position of the boot and child figure's arms.

The child figure's boot is swung out in mid air.

Why? Well, if it is a dummy, she has relaxed and shifted it more to her right because the semblance of its consistent pose and protecting it from the camera seem less important. She thinks we cannot see her or is uncareful, it seems.

The child figure never changes pose noticeably over 90 seconds or 2 minutes the woman holds the child figure, except in its position as a whole, relative to the woman carrying it, and even that is only slight change to her side.

The upset-looking woman -- supposedly very upset, let us say -- is never enveloped by the legs. Nor is the teen girl, later.


"The child is in pure fight or flight response" as an objection claim:

You ask a muscleman or musclewoman to do what this child is doing while unsupported in the lower half -- and for so long.

For this image a link is available. The other images of children and parents were provided to this author without a source.

The legs are counter to gravity. This is no supported crouch. The woman's hip only seems to support the child figure. In fact, it rests just below her hip, at her leg join, roughly. It has only mid-back and its own arms for support if it is real. Various photos show the same pose (and at 90-degree lower leg angle to knee and same 90-degree upper leg angle to child figure's hip), though the child figure is oriented to the woman a little differently.

That these are "split-second" images caught on film and we cannot "make a determination"?

Given that in no image is the pose fully natural if all details are considered, including that all poses are the same for the body of the child, no matter how it is oriented, and the legs are against gravity while swung out and always hanging on the woman the same way for its weightlessness -- besides a mid-back grip (ouch! it could not breathe stretched like this for long or ever hold its legs so long) -- yes, indeed, we can make a determination. 

Given the consistency in the body of the child figure, we can fill in the gaps here: there was no jumping up and down and gripping the putative "Mom" in the few seconds between these pictures, ending up catching exactly the same body pose. By the way, the idea the child was doing all kinds of supportable things in between these shots is counter to the idea that it was simply frozen in mid-angle for its hips and legs, due to fear.

Let us remember what children do (or adults hanging on something):

Some people are already attacking this idea -- of course -- with the broad ideas that children cling. Of course they cling. When they do, for this size, they have to be supported by more than their mid-back and their legs must grip around the adult, or their weight will topple both. Otherwise, there is a mid-jump or mid-fall photograph one can take. Children cannot hang on one's neck after babyhood, very small childhood, without supporting themselves on one's hip or being supported under their butts.

Their leg cannot be out from the adult's body at maximal extension in their own pelvis while holding the lower leg at even more counter-gravity position -- and 90 degrees to their knee, as well -- without being swung around, and then that would be shown in other body movements and not maintainable.

When they cling they cannot maintain (no-one can) these 4 things, facing up and lower than the upper hip, without support or wrapping legs or changing position:

1. 90-degree angle of upper leg to hip (lower back and tailbone), with only difference being in upper back as their lower half stays constant (those are some muscles!). The child never grips with its legs. Its feet are always backward; only its mid-back it held and its arms are at maximum extension for 2 minutes. What looks okay in some angles is impossible to maintain as the child is swung around and always the same.

In fact, it is this point number 1 which is likely the hardest for superficial onlookers (debunker prejudice attempts) to grasp. The reason is that this child's leg spread is completely extended (and its feet not gripping around the woman's waist at the same time). This means the pelvis is the only support and the child's arms and lower back.

This could occur briefly, during shifting, but not be maintained. What is fooling some people is that there are photos of children in similar (not the same) poses, but they cannot maintain those poses. In detail, however, these poses below are not even natural for such similar, unmaintainable moments either: with legs out and no support, ever, to that lower half, and when seeming to have it from the hip of the woman, the actual leg grip would have to be solely through gracilis femoris muscles and similar musckles (the muscles on the inside of the leg).

The child figure is not exactly on the woman's hip, either, but over her upper leg.

Can you pinch a person only with your inner thighs, legs bent out at 90 degrees, with your mid-back up at an angle and arms outstretched, for two minutes, while they walk?

Think about this, before saying, "My kids grip me," or speaking to this author through your mind with a statement such as, "You've never carried a child".

When you see the images, look closely.
Think before you leap to a conclusion about the position you would like to think this child is in.

2. 90-degree angle of lower knee to upper leg (those are some muscles!). This is a stiff pose, to say the least, and stunning for its wonderful 90-degree consistency in all but a subtle situation (the adult having likely slightly kicked apart the legs more).

3. Maintain an unsupported lower-body pose for about 2 minutes in mid-air (those are some muscles!) This child has no movement of its lower legs; it is hanging on its arms (an armband and arms if it is a dummy). The woman holds only the lower mid back.

4. She also walks with the child figure, whose right leg stays swung out beyond her, always at 90 degrees to its own hip and 90 degrees to its knee, maintaining that also while she is walking. (Early on, the heels were closer, but the knees were still at almost 90 degrees to the lower leg on the right.)

Remember, these are only a select few from the total shots showing what happened.


Its own, its so-called "proper" or self-referential bodypart positions, such as the angle of its upper legs to its hips, its lower back and buttock area, its lower leg angle do not change appreciably for the whole period. (There is significantly more bend in the lower legs when the teen girl holds the child figure later, but still no basic change in the pose or ability for what should be a fairly heavy child figure to grip with knees only and legs flexed completely against gravity with no seeming effort in the rest of it.)

The "best evidence" or perfectionist interpretation wish:

The issue the perfectionist people will have is that the face itself of the child figure is mostly hidden. Having the face would be icing on the cake, but it is unnecessary.

The case below does not require facial movement changes to be true; it only requires that one recognize that lack of body movements is even more telling, given the mid-jump and 90-degree leg angle to hip which are maintained by this child no matter how frontal, swung out, or slightly to the side the child figure becomes on the woman's body (and later on the teen figure).

The basic hip to upper leg ratio and hanging lack of support for its lower body is evident, or where the woman's leg seems to give a tiny bit of support to the lower body, that lower body changes not at all from any other angle or supportless position.

Information on other aspects of a Boston crisis actor drill gone somewhat live:

** For more on medical arguments about other people as crisis actors, it would be needful to go to the following:


EMT (with proud right-wing language bias):


The woman hangs around with the child-figure after the bomb goes off (a psychological unlikelihood in a natural scenario). The woman then gives up the child figure inside a building. The woman then hangs around without the child figure, outside. Then later we see the woman and a teen girl who is now holding the child figure.

About the teen girl:

The woman then gives the child figure away inside a building and spends several minutes outside, arguing and screaming things to others, as part of the chaos.

There is a minutes-later set of images, after the woman gives the child to an interior building for some time.

In these images, a teen now holds the child figure, whose legs are bent more acutely and held in that position while the teen raises and lowers her own arm, screaming.

Of course, when picking up a child, our hips help support them. In mid-jump or if they are slipping, their back might also be bent back briefly a bit to hold on. But our hips and the child's legs must work in synch; very quickly, the child must be nearly completely supported under their bum (buttocks), by an adult arm if they are small, or supported on their back, with their back arched, not straight, as this dummy's is. A child cannot maintain the same look and knee grip. Of course, the pose is not maintained for long in the images with the teen, but the similarity and oddity of the pose and the fact that the girl is not really gripping this large child -- not much at all in the hand-up position we first saw with the teen -- shows the dummy continues in the same relatively light and same hip-to-upper leg ratio and spread as before.

The physical position of the child figure is physically impossible to maintain, though a momentary position could be so achieved. The child figure must thus be a dummy, for whatever reason.

The argument below and the fuller images below provide a common-sense, informed argument that there were at least two crisis actors at the Boston bombing main area -- the woman and the girl teen -- or they are ventriloquists, pranksters, or crazies carrying a roughly 400-dollar doll child around during a marathon and subsequent bombing.

This argument does not require us, technically, to posit that all putative injuries at the event were fake. However, it is a physical impossibility which is common knowledge that a child cannot maintain such a position, thus at least the woman and the teen are poseurs (or crazies) at the event, strictly speaking.


So, let us look at the fuller set of images:

Leg is swung out from body in same position

Leg is swung out 2nd time from body in same position

Leg swung out 3rd time, same position

Gap between dummy right leg and background, so swung out 4th time same position

Purse blocks our view; impression is that leg has straightened on dummy but it has not: we are in the perspective angle where the left knee is almost straight on to our view (the bend is foreshortened enough to seem straighter in outline) and the woman's purse cuts off our view.

You think the following leg of dummy is just child resting briefly on a mother's hip? Think again. Swung out and away from the hip, still using its  it is not only improbable, it is the same as it was -- eliminating momentary, ad hoc, bizarre angle for the leg:


Still in same position (and note the strange arms on dummy - a strap covered with shirt, more clearly seen in later pictures):

Leg swung out 5th time in same position:

Arms not holding doll child; boot of doll out to right, off body (note red boot), way out from woman's body:

There's the very strange arm with no hand - a bent strap covered by a shirt:

Boot still swung way out from body but in later frame; woman still not really holding it anymore; doll arm (shirt covering a strap) is clearly awkwardly long.

Having left the child doll inside, woman goes out to look busy and troubled and make noise.
Only much later do we see her with the doll again, but only in stills, and it's in the same position -- on a New Handler, a teen


Woman is facing us, at top centre of picture (belly and boots):

The woman has not had the doll for this whole time -- has dropped off the "child" which she was not smart enough to run away to safety with, if it were a child.

In the following stills from later, a teen screams for the camera, holding the doll, which is still in the same position