I mean, what are the odds that an already extremely unlikely event would occur in exactly the right way, and in exactly the right time to be leveraged most effectively?

For all of the talk you're doing about how thoughtful you are, you don't really seem to have put that much thought into this. Is this really exactly the right way to be leveraged most effectively? It's not like this even involved guns: if anything, it shows that guns aren't the cause of mass murders. What'd be much more "convenient" (your words, not mine) is if someone who would have failed a background check had shot a bunch of people, or if someone had shot a bunch of innocent people with an assault weapon because they thought they were stopping terrorists, or, you know, literally infinitely many other possible situations.

The most futile thing about all of these "not conspiracy theories," though, is that none of the people positing them have any idea who the bomber is.

He'll be white, right-wing, have a grudge with the government, have a problem with Obama in particular, be pro-second amendment, anti-abortion probably -- You know, basically a caricature of an extremist republican or tea partier.

Oh? You do know who the bomber is? Why didn't you say so?

The truth is that it could be a right-wing extremist, or it could be a left-wing extremist, or a whig extremist. it could be a white person, a black person, a middle eastern person, an asian person, a hispanic person, or someone from Jupiter. But one thing is almost certain: whoever the bomber is, someone out there armed with a conspiracy theory and a poor understanding of probability will have "eerily" predicted who it is, and that person will see that as conclusive evidence that their "suspicion" is justified.

The truth is that it could be a right-wing extremist, or it could be a left-wing extremist, or a whig extremist. it could be a white person, a black person, a middle eastern person, an asian person, a hispanic person, or someone from Jupiter

I don't know why you're so seemingly worked up about this Cows, but the argument is starting to take a personal turn that's really not warranted. I think I've been clear enough that I'm not claiming to be clairvoyant, and that I'm not connecting dots that aren't there. And even if I really did believe that this was some sort of conspiracy run by Lizard Men, it'd still just be one person's opinion. Ultimately, I'm making a guess and sharing my conjecture about what I think the implications are if my guess is right. I don't know who's behind it, or what their motives are, nobody does. I suppose its not productive to guess, but its hardly harmful if you're not claiming any authority over the situation, either.

At any rate, I can't have my conspiracy until the first domino falls, so you don't have a conspiracy to rebut yet. Aren't we all being premature?

I suppose its not productive to guess, but its hardly harmful if you're not claiming any authority over the situation, either.

I suppose its not productive to guess, but its hardly harmful if you're not claiming any authority over the situation, either.

Given that they already put one victim through the ringer for "being Saudi", I'm not sure I can a agree with that statement.

I'm sure your intent isn't to cause misdirection or panic - but neither was the guy who though "middle easterner == bad" and tackled some poor sod running from the scene.

Yeah, and the "Armchair FBI" nuts are doing a great job of being totally wrong. I've seen one guy flag six men as obvious suspects involved, all "not whites" males. Two photographers, three plain clothes officers, and one of America's top counter terror field agents. Already posts going on about how if those men aren't brought in, then it is proof that there is a government conspiracy going on. Idiots are ready to railroad the issue through social media to the point that they'll have a good chance of hurting if not ruining the careers of 4 men who work to keep people safe, and aren't going to help two photographers.

Reasoning? They're acting 'suspicious', they're all looking around at the crowds, not the race. The two photographers are 'seen without backpacks they were carrying', ignoring the fact that they have put the bags down between their feet. You know, acting like cops and photographers. Very suspicious behaviour...

The best part of their 'careful analysis' is a series of three photos in 'chronological order'. They ignore that one of the cameras was a whole hour off at least, and actually comes after the fact.

This article is a good example of what happens when people jump to armchair conclusions.

So is this one.

Reasoning? They're acting 'suspicious', they're all looking around at the crowds, not the race. The two photographers are 'seen without backpacks they were carrying', ignoring the fact that they have put the bags down between their feet. You know, acting like cops and photographers. Very suspicious behaviour...

How many photos of two middle-eastern guys carrying overstuffed backpacks/dufflebags, who happen to be standing near
"ground zero" have you seen lately on Reddit? There has to be more than one person involved, as there were multiple explosions
in different locations. A single guy carrying around a bunch of backpacks would look kinda suspicious, don't you think?

Why would you give infowars a press pass?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

The time and place for crazy people to scream and froth on themselves is in their bunker/mom's basement. NOT at a public press conference. You should not let infowars in on a public questioning about terrorism, the same way the NAACP shouldn't invite George McGovern to give a speech on diversity.

Reasoning? They're acting 'suspicious', they're all looking around at the crowds, not the race. The two photographers are 'seen without backpacks they were carrying', ignoring the fact that they have put the bags down between their feet. You know, acting like cops and photographers. Very suspicious behaviour...

How many photos of two middle-eastern guys carrying overstuffed backpacks/dufflebags, who happen to be standing near
"ground zero" have you seen lately on Reddit? There has to be more than one person involved, as there were multiple explosions
in different locations. A single guy carrying around a bunch of backpacks would look kinda suspicious, don't you think?

Being a photographer, knowing dozens of photographers, and often carrying around large and bulky gear for perfectly sane and legal purposes... No. I don't see anything suspicious about that in and of itself, regardless of race, gender, religion, etc.

With the number of people carrying changes of clothes, extra food, water, medical supplies, etc, frankly the people Not carrying stuff around all day are more suspicious.

Where are all the people pointing out the White men and women carrying gear bags around? Why aren't they 'acting suspicious'?

Why would you give infowars a press pass?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

The time and place for crazy people to scream and froth on themselves is in their bunker/mom's basement. NOT at a public press conference. You should not let infowars in on a public questioning about terrorism, the same way the NAACP shouldn't invite George McGovern to give a speech on diversity.

I'll agree that the Infowars shenanigans in the past days have been outlandish, but regardless of what you believe of these people, you can't possibly be suggesting that a government should get to decide who gets access to press conferences. The reasons should be obvious, it would be like allowing the defense to choose their own jury. The explicit purpose of a *free* press is to help keep government transparent and honest. The government already wields tremendous power over the larger media outlets through the Whitehouse press corps.

And for all of their "frothing" there have been a number of stories broken by non-mainstream media outlets like Zero Hedge, Drudge, New Russia, and yes, even Infowars, that mainstream media was then forced to acknowledge and report on.