Monday, April 29, 2013

Subject: Rationalizing

The three images above are used by Professor James Tracy in his article "Witnessing Boston's Mass Casualty Event" to argue his conspiracy theory that the whole event was staged by "the government" and isn't what it appears to be.  Here's what Professor Tracy says about the whole event:
What exactly took place on April 15 at the Boston Marathon is unclear, yet what is now evident is a stark divergence between the narrative description of excessive carnage meted out as a result of the explosive devices and at least a portion of the video and photographic documentation of the bombing itself.

The corporate media proceeded in lockstep with dutifully propagating the authorized narrative of a combat-like environment at the marathon finish line.
Professor Tracy starts with a belief that the whole explosion event was faked and rationalizes that smoke going upward does not equal shrapnel moving parallel to the ground, therefore proving it's all faked:
Available video of the first bomb detonating at the Marathon finish line suggests a direct upward discharge rather than the horizontal dispersion that would have wreaked the havoc to lower limbs so widely reported in physicians’ statements.
He then rationalizes that the pieces of the pressure cooker the FBI found prove his theory of a conspiracy because the pieces prove what the police claim, not what Professor Tracy claims.  If something doesn't confirm his theory, Professor Tracy rationalizes that means it's faked, not that he's wrong. 
Moreover, the fact that whole pieces of the pressure cookers were produced by police further points to a more channeled dispersal of the bombs’ force–indeed, one that may not have involved a broad lateral distribution of shrapnel.
Professor Tracy claims it was all just a realistic drill, not a real event.
In short, the event closely resembles a mass-casualty drill, which for training purposes are designed to be as lifelike as possible. Since it is mediated, however, and primarily experienced from afar through the careful assemblage of words, images, and the official pronouncements and commentary of celebrity journalists, it has the semblance of being for all practical purposes “real.”
He also rationalizes that the absence of visible shrapnel is proof of his theory.  The shrapnel, of course, was tiny BBs and tiny half-inch brad-type nails, which wouldn't be visible as shrapnel even if the shrapnel wasn't moving too fast to be seen or was on the ground afterward.  And he even suggests that the video of the explosion may have been photoshopped:
Further, there is whispy smoke with no sign of any shrapnel piercing the smoke, the race sideline fabric, or anything outside of the sidewalk perimeter.

If this is the case the highly-circulated photo showing an orange-hued “fireball” explosion may have been embellished.
More of his rationalizing is about the pictures at the top of this thread, particularly the area enclosed in red boxes which show one man laying on his back with his head toward the camera, another man in a gray hat or "hoodie" sitting and bending over the first man, and a black woman sitting between them:
The photo[s at the top of this thread] shows what appears to be either a man with his legs blown off or an amputee with his stump curled around the head of a woman. A man in a “hoodie” jacket is also sitting upright behind the woman. The injured man or amputee, later identified in major media outlets as Jeff Bauman Jr. who also participated in helping the FBI identify the alleged bombers, appears preoccupied with something in his hands that are close to his face. This is unusual behavior for a man who has just sustained a severely traumatic and mortal injury.
The [first and second] photos show the man wearing the hoodie garment apparently helping the injured man/amputee with his right leg. Could he be removing this man’s prosthetic?
Note that Professor Tracy is asking a question.  If cornered, Professor Tracy will say he made no claim that the person in the photo was removing a prosthetic to feign a blown-off limb.  He was "just asking questions."  And he seems to believe he's an expert on what is "normal" in a chaotic situation.

Anthrax Truthers also constantly rationalize away facts which show they are wrong.

In a recent discussion, "Anonymous" rationalized that an adult will write in a way that will look just like a first grader's handwriting to me when learning to write in a new language. To him, that's why the writing on the anthrax letters and envelopes just looks like the writing of a first grader to me.

But, in reality, adults who already know how to write in one language, do not have to learn once again how to write small or when to use punctuation when learning a second language. I know that because I learned to write Japanese as an adult.  When an adult starts writing in a new language (even one as different as English is from Arabic or Japanese is from English) they already have the hand-eye coordination needed to write in the size of normal adult writing.  They already know about punctuation will incorporate it into the very first sentence they write.  And, they do not need to learn out to draw characters by first copying from a blackboard in kindergarten and then learning the correct way in first grade.  They start by learning the proper way to draw each character of the alphabet.

Likewise, R. Rowley rationalizes that the Assaad letter sent to authorities after 9/11, accusing Ayaad Assaad of being a "potential terrorist," is just another in a long list of letters sent by some mysterious criminal mastermind who Mr. Rowley believes was also behind the anthrax attacks.  If the letter bears absolutely NO resemblance to the anthrax letters, Mr. Rowley rationalizes that that could mean it was done by a henchman or that the mastermind deliberately made the writing look different.  He says the same thing about the St. Petersburg anthrax hoax letters, the Dallas anthrax hoax letters, the Goldman Sachs letters and anything else he wants to make fit his theory that the criminal mastermind was behind them all.

There's a BIG difference between looking at what the facts say and rationalizing things to make them fit a preconceived theory.