So?
So?
And so?
What exactly does that prove? Especially in the face of the evidence that they did look like bombs to more than one person.
So what’s it like in your universe?
Ex-Army EOD (explosive ordinance disposal) tech checking in here. Granted, it’s been more than 15 years since I served, so I’m sure just about every procedure has changed since 9/11, but I can tell you what I think we would have done back then.
First, on receiving a call from local law enforcement we would have had them evacuate the immediate area as we were in route. On arriving, we would have taken a look at it.
Power source, check. Wires, check. Hmmm… not much room for explosives.
Who’s this guy supposed to be and why is he flipping us off?
I think the next step would have depended on the individual team leader, but I think some would have pulled it off the wall and laughed when the local cops jumped. This would probably be a smaller percentage of team leaders though (maybe 20-40%). The rest would have broken out the x-ray gear to see if they could detect any movement sensitive switches (ie. something like a mercury switch or trembler). Finding none of those, another decent percentage would have then yanked it off the wall. The last holdouts at this point would have sandbagged it (if possible) and then shot it with a dearmer to blow any possible triggering mechanism apart. At that point we would have laughed about blowing apart a Lite Brite.
Concurrent to these operations, we would most likely have the local PD trying to pin down any information on people having seen this (when was it first noticed) and if there was any possible message intended by the cartoon character (besides “fuck off”).
All that said, my opinion on this is that the Boston authorities have egg on their collective faces and instead of sucking it up, they started spouting shit about bomb hoaxes and making arrests. Good luck trying to prove intent there. The whole hoax thing makes them look like complete idiots. Before that they maybe did look a little foolish, but if they were backed up by procedure, who cares? They were showing concern. Now they’re idiots.
Regarding punishment of those who planted the devices… err, stuck the Lite Brites to walls, I have no problem with them being punished the same as someone caught spraying graffiti or littering. I’m not sure what punishment would be appropriate for the ad agency. They did plan to deface property, so there should be some punishment. It certainly should be nothing like what the mayor seems to be drooling over.
That’s putting it mildly. The things ware about 14" square with no thickness to speak of. Seems to me the only way for them to contain explosives it would have to be in the circuit board itself.
It wonder if the lack of any brand markings or other identification added to the suspicion. I mean, you’d expect to find something on them–a phone number, a trademark, a website. It would both legitimize them (somewhat) AND give the authorities an initial avenue for investigation. I’ve seen odd billboards and signage before, for example, but there’s usually some fine print somewhere so you can try to figure out where it came from, who sponsored it. I can see why in a guerilla insider marketing campaign like this, a firm might not want to do this (it’s cooler that only people who know the show know what’s being promoted) but if you’re an public safety authority figure used to finding “legitimate” promotional items tagged, lack of such might up the paranoia quotient.
I’m not taking sides, here. I just can’t believe there wasn’t something on them. A “Congratulations! You’ve scored an ATHF sign!” or a promotional website address for the two follicularly-interesting gurus who put them up.
Brilliant analysis, IMO.
Maybe they should get whatever this guy got, which, as far as I know, was nothing.
It proves that the vast majority of people thought something like “Look a cartoon character is flipping me the bird”, while a very small minority went “OMG BOMB!”. Thus by any reasonable standard these did not look like bombs.
Even if? They had no intention of causing a bomb scare. Period. Anyone who thinks otherwise should have their head examined.
The inconvenience and expense were the result of the mayor and police overreacting. Let’s face it, there was a right and a wrong way to handle the situation. I of course have no problem with Boston authorities being vigilant, but at this stage of the game to continue using language such as “bomb like” and bringing these guys on trumped of charges makes the city look pretty stupid.
I think the city should be laughed out of court. Trying to recoup their losses by shelling out piles of cash on legal fees? Classic!
The real tragedy of course is that we’ve tipped our hand to those that would really do us harm.
Thanks for an actual expert opinion RougeRacer.
Trion, thank you for defending my position earlier in the thread. Please note that I am male. It is a distressingly common mistake.
Sal, give it up man. Clearly the Mooninites’ advanced Moon advertising techiques are too advanced for mere Earth mayors. In order to be completely safe and prudent, the city of Boston should surrender immediately and throw themselves on the mercy of the Mooninites. I suggest a large lighted sign, visible from space, to communicate your submission to your new fictional LED Moon masters.
Ed Clark, former director of the Homeland Security Threats Office, says Boston overreacted.
Note the picture on the top of that article: they called out the dogs!
By the way, Ted Turner is undoubtedly laughing all the way to the bank. He hasn’t paid a cent for all this publicity. Too bad ATHF is such a crappy cartoon.
:rolleyes:
So you are mostly expelling hot air.
As your quote showed, you did not read what I posted before, (that others did see them and did not panic) and it also showed that your complaints that other poster did not read the thread are silly.
OK, I’ll play.
Hyperbolize much? And I must say that a doctor who speaks in all-caps is not doing much for my achy head.
But besides that, now I’m in a bit of a panic. This is assuming, of course, that the doctor diagnosed me rather than jumped to a conclusion. Yes, you’re saying, but that’s exactly what the police did. No, not really. So let’s change your story a bit: I come in with a headache and say that I’m afraid of brain cancer. The doctor says “Let’s do some tests to rule that out.” Better?
Has he taken my vitals? Or done anything? If not, I’d say he’s a dangerous quack. But let’s say he has, as we have assumed with Doctor 1. My aching mind has not been put at ease. I may want to believe it’s just dehydration, but with two conflicting diagnoses, it would be smart of me to ask for more tests, don’t you think? Why put myself at risk?
The police should have at least investigated, instead of dismissing the “bombs” out of hand.
Why is my friend just now saying that? Some friend. 
But in that case, I would expect both doctors to take that into account. While we are pretty sure of the cause of my headache, we still want to make sure it’s not brain cancer. And since my friend didn’t say anything until after tests were run, I can’t really begrudge the doctors for running the tests in the first place, can I?
That would be a dick move, unless the doctor incurred great personal expense to diagnose me.
I’d rather go back to a doctor who diagnosed a false positive – out of caution – than I would let a bunch of strangers on the Internet diagnose me.
So would it be your position that everything these vandals did was okay, aboveboard, peachy-keen with you?
You guys who agreed with RogueRacer should read his post more carefully. He acknowledges that to initial inspection, this thing looked like a bomb, and that a certain percentage of the bomb-disposal people on his team would take the prudent step of shooting it with a disarmer – which is what the Boston police did. Fortunately, they have to be a little more prudent than Joe Internet who thinks it’s not a bomb because he happened to see a picture on the Internet of something else.
If their prudence causes a highway and subway line to be closed, it’s a massive inconvenience to thousands, and the mayor is right to be mad. And you can better believe they’ll get money out of the Cartoon Network on this account – which is better proof than I can offer of their wrong-doing.
Don’t you guys have bomb sniffing dogs?
I’m doing just fine, thanks for asking.
True. Nor does it mean it doesn’t. Some people thought that it did. Wouldn’t you agree that it would be wise to find out?
That’s not PROOF of anything.
This the point you said you wanted to argue – and I said I still might be sold on it.
Rational. You should visit some time. 
Hindsight is good.
Common sense is useful, too.
I saw one of these things a couple of weeks ago on an overpass in Atlanta. (Within a block of a police station, by the way.) My reaction? “Cool!”
It looked nothing like a bomb.
It was on the face of the overpass, where it would be highly visible to traffic (you know, like an advertisement). It was not underneath the overpass, where you would plant a bomb if you were looking to blow something up (as any cop with sense should realize).
It was obviously either art or an advertisement.
Sal, face it. The Boston authorities overreacted in a big way.
That’s actually a very good idea. If that was a dog trained to detect explosives, a lack of a positive response should have made their diagnosis that much quicker and easier.
That’s pretty much how I saw it too, but having not seen one up close and personal, it was hard to tell the exact thickness. It was certainly nothing that would bring down a bridge. However, we were concerned about things like letter bombs too. Almost by definition, they’re not very thick.
They did a bit more than that, don’t you think? RougeRacer didn’t say a thing about bringing a city to a virtual standstill while carrying out his investigation.