Death of Pat Tillman, a complete fairytale that was carefully packaged by the mass media so as to elicit a resurgence of support for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan at a time when public sentiment had begun to turn against the occupations. During Tillman’s second deployment to Afghanistan he was killed by what the U.S. military initially claimed was a Taliban ambush, but later emerged that the ambush story had been concocted by the Pentagon in an attempt to exploit Tillman’s death for pro-war propaganda. Subsequent investigations claimed that Tillman was killed as a result of a friendly fire accident. However, in July 2007, the results of an Army medical report found that Tillman had been shot three times in the head with an M16 from a mere 10 yards away, clearly suggesting that the incident was a targeted assassination.
Infowars Paul Joseph Watson reports:
Tillman sacrificed the good life and a multi-million dollar football career in the belief that he was defending his country from outside enemies, and soon after 9/11 turned down a contract offer of $3.6 million over three years from the Cardinals to enlist in the U.S. Army.
It was during Tillman’s second deployment to Afghanistan, after previously serving in Iraq, that he was killed by what the U.S. military initially claimed was a Taliban ambush. It later emerged that the ambush story had been concocted by the Pentagon in an attempt to exploit Tillman’s death for pro-war propaganda. Subsequent investigations claimed that Tillman was killed as a result of a friendly fire accident.
However, in July 2007, the results of an Army medical report found that Tillman had been shot three times in the head with an M16 from a mere 10 yards away, clearly suggesting that the incident was a targeted assassination.
“Army medical examiners were suspicious about the close proximity of the three bullet holes in Pat Tillman’s forehead and tried without success to get authorities to investigate whether the former NFL player’s death amounted to a crime,” reported the Associated Press.
“The medical evidence did not match up with the, with the scenario as described,” a doctor who examined Tillman’s body after he was killed on the battlefield in Afghanistan in 2004 told investigators. “The doctors – whose names were blacked out – said that the bullet holes were so close together that it appeared the Army Ranger was cut down by an M-16 fired from a mere 10 yards or so away.”
The report also states that “No evidence at all of enemy fire was found at the scene – no one was hit by enemy fire, nor was any government equipment struck.” The article also reveals that “Army attorneys sent each other congratulatory e-mails for keeping criminal investigators at bay as the Army conducted an internal friendly-fire investigation that resulted in administrative, or non-criminal, punishments.”
The doctor who autopsied Tillman’s body tried to pursue an investigation into the question of whether Tillman was murdered but was prevented from doing so by higher-ups at the Army’s Criminal Investigation Division.
In September 2005, the San Francisco Chronicle reported that a friend of Tillman had set up a meeting with author and prominent war critic Noam Chomsky, which was scheduled to take place after Tillman’s return from Afghanistan. Chomsky confirmed that the meeting was arranged.
As far back as March 2003, immediately after the invasion of Iraq, Tillman famously told his comrade Spc. Russell Baer, “You know, this war is so f###ing illegal,” and urged his entire platoon to vote against Bush in the 2004 election.
During a July 2007 appearance on Keith Olbermann’s MSNBC show, four star General Wesley Clark stated that “the orders came from the very top” to cover-up the nature of Tillman’s death as he was a political symbol and his opposition to the war in Iraq would have rallied the population around supporting immediate withdrawal.
Jim Fetzer, editor of Veteran;s Today, wrote a report on his investigation and below points out some of the conflicting reports:
According to Wikipedia’s entry about him, Tillman was redeployed to Afghanistan and, on 22 April 2004, he was killed. The Army initially claimed that he and his unit were hit by an ambush on a road outside a village not far from the Pakistan border. The Army Special Operations Command initially claimed that there was an exchange with hostile forces, but an investigation conducted by the U.S. Department of Defense concluded that his death was due to friendly fire “aggravated by the intensity of the firefight”. Another, more thorough investigation, concluded that hostile forces had not been involved in the firefight and that two allied groups—the platoon of which he was a member had been divided in two—fired on each other in confusion after a nearby explosive device was detonated. But it also makes these significant points:
- No evidence of enemy fire at the scene has ever been produced;
- The lieutenant general who withheld details of Tillman’s death from his parents for months told investigators “he had a bad memory, and could not recall details of his actions” on more than 70 occasions;
- According to The Washington Post, on May 4, 2005, the Army’s own investigators were aware that Tillman had been killed by being shot three times in the head;
- Senior Army commanders, includingGen. John Abizaid, knew of this fact within days of the shooting, but nevertheless approved him for the Silver Star, the Purple Heart, and a posthumous promotion;
- Army doctors told the investigators that these tightly-grouped wounds suggested murder and urged them to launch a criminal investigation, which would not be pursued; and
- Army attorneys congratulated each other in emails for impeding any criminal investigation as they concluded that Tillman’s death was the result of friendly fire, and that only administrative, or non-criminal, punishment was indicated.
Jim Fetzer is a Phd. and has spent years and years investigating major cover ups such as the JFK assassination and 9/11 and has implemented scientific methods into his investigations to determine truth. He used this same logic with the Pat Tillman case. Below, he scientifically postulates the most likely hypothesis based on the available evidence (listed above):
When we consider the alternatives of an accident or of an assassination in this case, we have to compare the likelihoods as measured of the strength of their evidential support in relation to the available evidence, where the likelihood of an hypothesis (hi) relative to the available evidence, e, is equal to the probability of e, if (hi) were true. When we compare hypotheses, therefore, the hypothesis with the higher likelihood, given the available evidence, is the better supported of the two, where, when the evidence has “settled down” and points in the same direction, the hypothesis with the higher likelihood is acceptable as true in the tentative and fallible fashion of science. Here we compare (h1), that it was an accident, with (h2), that it was not, as follows:
(h1) If Tillman had been killed accidentally, even by “friendly fire”, then what is the probability that no evidence of a bona fide fire-fight would be produced, that the Lt. General would suffer 70 “memory lapses”, that the corporal would have been shot three times in the head, that honors would be bestowed upon him, that the doctors would have suspected he was murdered, and that Army attorneys would impede criminal investigations? The likelihood of this evidence, given (h1), would have been very low.
(h2) If Tillman had been killed intentionally, using “friendly fire” as the cover story, then what is the probability that no evidence of a bona fide fire-fight would be produced, that the Lt. General would suffer 70 “memory lapses”, that the corporal would have been shot three times in the head, that honors would be bestowed upon him, that the doctors would have suspected he was murdered, and that Army attorneys would impede criminal investigations? The likelihood of this evidence, given (h2), would have been very high.
You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to conclude that something is very wrong here. The probability of these effects would have been very high if he had been deliberately taken out, as (h2) maintains, and very low if his death was accidental, as (h1) maintains. Since an hypothesis with high likelihood is preferable to one with low likelihood, hypothesis (h2) is clearly preferable to hypothesis (h1), which makes it the preferable hypothesis. But has the evidence “settled down” such that we are entitled to accept (h2) as true in the tentative and fallible fashion of science?