Quote from Boris Lozac :

Gotta say you're looking too much into it It took me ages to even spot the yellow scarf in half of those images. I really don't see nothing strange there, the man helps the woman, they move back, he goes back to save a random child.
As for the obese woman, it's the shock man, i bet 90% of them didn't help anyone cause of the shock, or selfishness.

Well, maybe in your opinion but I don't watch TV so have time to actually look at and analyse this.

I read about the obese lady then decided to look at others at the scene and found these two, who's movements didn't seem to make sense. Bomb goes off, gets his wife and runs back to sit down. No sign of worry about a child at that point. They decide to run off then and seem to stop, only then thinking of the child perhaps, about 30 seconds after the bomb goes off, but continue running. Then later she appears at what seems like the second bomb site helping a lady on the ground. Doesn't make sense to me. It just adds another oddity to the situation. I've seen plenty of bombs and shit going off in vids from the war in the middle east and other places to have a good idea of how people react to these situations, these two acted strange in my opinion.

90% is a bit of an exaggeration though, yea? In my opinion 99% of the people at the scene when the bomb went off either got "injured" by the blast, fled or did something, 1% hung around to have a look. Nobody moved around the bomb site like the obese lady. I noticed one chap hanging around with a luminous green cap on but he eventually rolls up his sleeves and does something.

Quote from Boris Lozac :

I'm trying to get your point with the yellow scarf woman, what's strange there?

Ok...

First image after the bomb...
http://www.flickr.com/photos/h ... 653921886/in/photostream/
Her husband is only in this image, he's wearing all black and runners with green soles, he's running(right to left) towards the guy lying on the ground in the yellow coat.

In the next image, from the image description it's 2 seconds later, he meets up with his wife. Then, in the next image, they are on the ground roughly where the husband ran from, next to the guy in the red jacket, you'll see the woman's head scarf a couple of images later. Why run off, get your wife and run back to sit down. Crazy, but there's more.

They head off then running towards the camera, they pause to look back and then after the close up shots of the scene there's this image: http://www.flickr.com/photos/h ... 652845861/in/photostream/ - the woman is on the left near the shelter and the husband is coming from the top of the screen holding a child with the same coloured bottoms as the mothers head scarf, the following image is clearer. Seems crazy that about a minute passed after the bomb went off and only now he gets the child.

Then she appears in the photo from an unknown area, but it looks more like the second site because of the concentration of people in the area, how close to the road they are treating her and the lack of barriers seen at the finish line bomb site. So she ran from the first bomb to go help a victim the second bomb, makes sense yea, lol.

A whole load of crazy shit going on in there. Another is the obese lady with the brown huddy on, she's first appears in this sequence of image here http://www.flickr.com/photos/h ... 652825435/in/photostream/ - she's running right to left past the chap lying on the ground at the top of the image. She's there from the beginning, moving around the bomb site and doesn't help one person, she even gets a phone out at one stage.

lol Mike, come on, add something, don't just take the piss, it solves nothing...

I'm not as narrow minded as you think... seems like you're afraid to have questions outside the box... I have questions and I'm getting involved in a discussion, what's the problem? It looks suspicious to me. And there's no "established, eyewitness record" of what they were up to. If you have that I'd like to look at it. The only evidence are the photos and videos taken from multiple angles and vantage points and that's what I'm going by. You can't deny what's in the photos... "a picture says a thousand words" and all that. What people say can, and should, always be questioned in times like this.

Well, when I look at something like this I'm not looking for a conspiracy, I'm looking to make sense of it all. Wtf is that sunglasses dude doing? One minute on his knees doing something at the ass of the amputee while the black woman is in between them, next minute he's lying on the ground as if his legs are too injured to stand, it doesn't make sense to me. So that's when I smell something fishy, do you not think that there's something not right with that sequence of images? I have found other things too in other people images from the same time, just different angle. A couple who go to run off but then sit where all the injured people are, there's loads of inconsistencies.

Look here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/h ... 652833509/in/photostream/

Now, look at the woman in the yellow head scarf thing, if you go through the images from right after the blast just watch her and her husband, seems odd to me. Then I found this from what looks like the second blast site: http://cryptome.org/2013-info/04/boston-bombs/pict47.jpg

It's doesn't make sense to me, all of it.

I'm not sure what to think to be honest, still investigating everything but it's not looking good for the official story once again. If he wasn't an amputee, where are his feet and shoes? Vaporised? I think not... and if the blast did amputate his legs then the sunglasses dude should be covered in blood but he's not, you can see his upper body is clean in the pics of him lying down, he had the amputated leg pointed straight at him at one point... Why would any trained medic take an able bodied female over a double amputee? He was just left there holding his thighs while others got stretchered away, why?

That's not a ISP address, it's an IP address given by the router. I never saw one with 0 in it, mine were always 1. I thinks it's to do with the new Windows(7/8), not sure. I'm no expert so...

Well since you have most of it done, a step by step isn't needed, you just need to find your PC's IP address.

Lets try this, change your ip address for the ports to 192.168.1.2 and see does it work, if not change the 2 to a 3.

Is there a reason you have 192.168.0.150? Seems odd to have a 0 there.

Your ports should be opened for one ip address, not two. So change both ports to ...0.150 or ...0.159

EDIT: Are you sure your PC's ip address is one of them? Seems odd your PC would be 150 or 159.

An interesting read and analysis of some photographs taken seconds after the blast: http://buelahman.wordpress.com ... believer-or-do-you-think/

When I set up my dedi server I set the ip address to auto in the setup file: ip=auto, I set the port to 61666: port=61666, then opened that port in my router. I also opened the Master port, 29339, in my router. You will need to find out your PC's ip address in your LAN(Start>Run>cmd>ipconfig), mine was 192.168.1.3, when opening both ports. I think that's all you need to get the LFS Master Server to recognise your dedi server.

You can choose any game port below 65536, but it must be the port you open in your router for it to work.

Last edited by U4IK ST8, Tue, 7 May 2013 14:04.

Oh it can definately be done, there are races that run on autox layouts.

Have a look at the attachment to make sure your layout has each item placed correctly... I just did a 3 lap race on that little layout. Notice the checkpoints, they must be placed so you drive "into" the bracket shape.

EDIT: And the start point is irrelevant once you hit checkpoint one, so the start point can actually be off/outside the track.

EDIT: I made a few cone challenge layouts you might be interested in (here's a vid of #5), they are made on existing tracks, not car park or the autocross. http://www.lfsforum.net/showthread.php?t=60069 They're not as technical as the FSAE layouts but they're a challenge.

Last edited by U4IK ST8, Thu, 12 Jul 2012 11:36.

Ah yes, that would be the problem, sorry about that. It must have caused a lot of confusion during the race. It never even entered my mind about cars pitting during a race. I'll edit and re-upload, thanks for the notice.

Just checked the layout and the finish line goes into both barriers so I don't think that was the problem. I checked the other checkpoints and checkpoint 2 may be the problem, see attachment, it doesn't cross the barrier fully. Checkpoint 3 might also be a problem as it is in the air because of the banking, I never had problems when testing so can't be certain what the problem is.

Did everyone's lap times get effected?

Are you using an edited version or original?

No...

Seen something similar to this a few years ago...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nWTSzBWEsms

Quote from DarkTimes :

OK, well... I can't think of anything to say back to that. It would be nice if you would learn about the different cultures and religions of the world, about what they think, how they dress and why they believe the things they do. Seven billion people in the world, you know, might be nice to find out who you share a planet with. You might be like me and figure out that they're actually OK really.

LOL, I believe most ordinary people are OK no matter what their beliefs. I also believe religion stops people from integrating, I believe religion is the cause of most conflicts too, so I'd rather get to know the person before their beliefs. And I wouldn't dismiss anyone just because of what they believe in. IMO religion is there just to mislead people and it's just another "tool" to divide and conquer us all.

Quote from thisnameistaken :

You don't understand the law.

Obviously...

Quote :

It's perfectly legal for that man to be carrying a kirpan, it's a requirement of his faith that he carries one at all times in case it needs to be used to protect the innocent against tyranny.

The law explicitly allows Sikhs to carry it. AT ALL TIMES. Please read and comprehend.

Just seems crazy that he be allowed to carry that around with the way things are going over there. So if people started attacking their temple he could legally start chopping people up? Madness, imo.

Quote from P5YcHoM4N :

...And you'll find if you ever get a look at a Kirpan being carried in the UK is they are duller than dishwater. I've yet to talk to anyone who carried one (I lived in a Sikh neighbourhood) who had it sharp enough to cut anything but air....

Ok, obviously not sharp enough to do anything with.

Quote from P5YcHoM4N :

...I carry my fists at all times, they can be used in self defence, does that mean my fists are illegal? Shit I was wearing boots today too, size 10 boots are quite dangerous, that must be doubly illegal...

You are getting childish now, wtf.... Nowhere in your criminal justice act does it say any part of the human body is a weapon, nor does it say footware can be used as a weapon, wtf is going on here...

Sharp objects(swords/daggers) can be deadly and unless they are being used in a religious act they are illegal. The person in question was not performing any part of a ceremony so it is illegal for him to carry it in a public place, simple as that.

Quote from DarkTimes :

No, he's a Sikh, possibly an elder, who wears a sword as part of his ceremonial dress (similar to the way highlanders wear a dirk as part of their dress). The fact that you originally couldn't tell the different between a Sikh and a Muslim shows that you really have very little idea what you're talking about.

Wha..? I watched the clip I linked to as it happened on Sky and they were interviewed and one of them said they were defending their mosque, I will admit I have no clue about the different religious beliefs of people who dress like that and I don't want to know tbh.

There was no ceremony going on on the street where he was. They were obviously defending the building and he was obviously using his ceremonial sword as a deterrent to the rioters which is not legal, simple.

Quote from P5YcHoM4N :

....There is a difference between carrying a weapon for decoration and carrying a weapon with intent to use it.

Well imo he is carrying that sword as a deterrent to the rioters, which implies he's using it for self defence, which is illegal.

Fu*k sake, people on this forum annoy me, why not say how you feel or discuss this instead of taking the trouble to hotlink poxy images...

So, I wouldn't complain about people using daggers / swords as part of a ceremony. People aren't legally allowed to possess a weapon for self defence, simple....

Quote from P5YcHoM4N :

When someone is wrecking your neighbourhood just for shits and giggles, you'll change your tune. They are doing what the Police have been unable to do and it isn't the first time the UK and her Empire has depended on the might of the Sikh warrior. You'll notice the British Military (and Police force) allow them to wear turbans and not a helmet. This change of dress code goes back many many years (back when we fought in red coats) and was to keep them fighting for us. It seems history has a habit of repeating itself.

Still doesn't give him, or anyone, the right to openly carry a deadly weapon in a public place.

Last edited by U4IK ST8, Tue, 9 Aug 2011 22:37.

Quote from P5YcHoM4N :

Sikhs carry their Kirpans for religious reasons at all times. In the UK/Canada they tend to carry a small blunt dagger, rather than the full length article. It is as important to their religion as the turban.

That's fair enough but when people are out defending something while in the possession of a deadly weapon it's a total different story. No ceremonies going on there so why feel the need to have it?

Quote from DarkTimes :

Well then why complain about a Sikh carrying his ceremonial sword? If a Scotsman is allowed to carry a ceremonial sword, then why shouldn't a Sikh?

Because there's no ceremony taking place here!

He is obviously using it for self defense, which is illegal.

And I would say the same if I thought a Scotsman was using his dirk for self defence, I'm not being discriminate here just so you know.

Last edited by U4IK ST8, Tue, 9 Aug 2011 22:29.

Why would anyone complain about that?

Quote from P5YcHoM4N :

Maybe you should have read on a few lines.

So he was out there for religious reasons? My arse...

As Bean0 said, it's a ceremonial sword, not for self defence.