Actually, the photo supports the idea that the blood flowed under the spent shells. Had they
been ejected onto the blood, it is much more likely that there would be blood on the top
when they bounced and rolled.
And nobody in a trailer park can afford $400 tattoos, so they don't have any.
Assume we prevented an attack because of the publicity. That's a good thing.
The problem is we'll be seen as a modern-day Jeanne Dixon. She was a
"psychic" who predicted hundreds of things, then declared proof when one
of them happened to come true. Might we fall into the same category?
And, even if we do, is it not still worth it to publicize and prevent
attacks that would have occurred had we not publicized them?
Watch the water.
blogs.harvard.edu/h2oharvard/
Harvard's H2O program for online learning. I don't know if it applies, but when I saw it,
I thought it might be worth digging. I am working on something else right now, but
if another anon wants to take a look, feel free.