New Evidence suggests Pat Tillman may have been executed

http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2007/07/26/ap3958728.html</p>

<span class="subhead"><font face="Arial" size="3">Army medical examiners concluded Tillman was shot three times in the head from just 10 yards away, no evidence of "friendly fire" damage at scene, Army attorneys congratulated each other on cover-up.Did orders came from the very top to murder pro-football star because he was about to become an anti-war political icon?</font></span></p>

<span class="subhead"><font face="Arial" size="3"></font></span></p>

<span class="subhead"></span></p><div><object classid="clsid:d27cdb6e-ae6d-11cf-96b8-444553540000" codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=6,0,40,0" width="425" height="350"><param name="width" value="425" /><param name="height" value="350" /><param name="wmode" value="transparent" /><param name="src" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/jbQVGcBmyu0" /><embed type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="425" height="350" wmode="transparent" src="http://www.youtube.com/v/jbQVGcBmyu0"></embed></object></div>

 

<font face="times new roman,times" size="3" color="#800000">I recall listening to the Dan Patrick show earlier this year when DP & Keith Olbermann were interviewing Pat's mom. She implied as much.The You tube clip is from Countdown about that same time.</font></p>

<font face="times new roman,times" size="3" color="#800000">What struck me then was; <u>The Army confiscated and burned Pat's clothes, journal, & personal effects rather than return them to his wife</u>. </font></p>

<font face="times new roman,times" size="3" color="#800000">Pat had read Noam Chomsky and was opposed to the invading of Iraq and felt it was unjustified.</font></p>

<font face="times new roman,times" size="3" color="#800000">Recently, the current administration has claimed Executive Privilige on this matter. We'll probably never know if Pat was murdered to shut him up, but, the cover up is very interesting.</font></p>

 

<font face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif" size="3">In my day (Vietnam) they called it fragging. This kind of stuff has been going on since the invention of "armies".</font></p>

<font face="Arial" size="3">If you were an enlisted man, and you had political views, chances are you were walking point!</font></p>

<font face="Arial" size="3">If you were an officer who wanted to get "famous", somebody might roll a grenade into your hooch!</font></p>

<font face="Arial" size="3">No matter how Tillman got killed it's a damned shame. If all the above is indeed true, I have no adjectives for it.</font></p>

 

I think the idea of him getting killed on official orders is pretty unlikely, but the needless cover up is certainly making things look as bad as possible.

 

Possible? It's got to be freaking true! Everyone involved has been caught changing there stories around, from top to bottom on this. For the first 5 weeks, they told everyone he died a hero while getting killed by Taliban forces. 800 revisions later, the story is that there was zero enemy fire anywhere in their area, and that he must have gotten shot at very close to point blank range.....by friendlies!!!!!!! WTF is going on here? One or more of our armed forced *executed* Pat Tillman. The guy was probably just standing up for something that he believed in, and someone was trying to cover their own ass. I'm probably going to get snuffed for even bringing this up.</p>

</p>

 

I hope this isnt ture, but something else is going on that we dont know about. The Tillman family has been extremely suspicious and probably for good reason. I just hope something liket his didnt really happen.

 

I don't think Tillman was killed purposely. I think his death was covered up. I think that's pretty obvious. I think someone covered his death up to try and achieve their own goals. If you really want to start a conspiracy. How about he was killed because that way he could be made into a ICON and could be used as a recruiting tool. That would really be something eh? I personally don't believe that but I know it's been mentioned.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (porky88)</div><div class='quotemain'>I don't think Tillman was killed purposely. I think his death was covered up. I think that's pretty obvious. I think someone covered his death up to try and achieve their own goals. If you really want to start a conspiracy. How about he was killed because that way he could be made into a ICON and could be used as a recruiting tool. That would really be something eh? I personally don't believe that but I know it's been mentioned.</div>Tillman was killed on purpose. You dont' get three bullet holes that close together by accident, and certainly not at that range and not know WTF you are shooting at. The medical examiners have had the balls to bring this out, and the millitary has dne all they can to suppress the truth.

 

<span><font face="Verdana,Sans-serif" size="2" color="#000000">Tillman Comrade Recalls Final Moments</font><font size="1">
</font></span></p>

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070729/D8QM1Q380.html</p>

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (The Return of the Raider)</div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (porky88)</div><div class='quotemain'>I don't think Tillman was killed purposely. I think his death was covered up. I think that's pretty obvious. I think someone covered his death up to try and achieve their own goals. If you really want to start a conspiracy. How about he was killed because that way he could be made into a ICON and could be used as a recruiting tool. That would really be something eh? I personally don't believe that but I know it's been mentioned.</div>
Tillman was killed on purpose. You dont' get three bullet holes that close together by accident, and certainly not at that range and not know WTF you are shooting at. The medical examiners have had the balls to bring this out, and the millitary has dne all they can to suppress the truth. </div></p>

Have you ever fired a semi-automatic or automatic weapon? It's really quite explainable.</p>

The M-16 in full auto mode fires something like 750 rounds a minute. That's 12 bullets flying out of the muzzle of the gun in 1 second. You empty your 30 round clip in less than 3 seconds of squeezing the trigger on full auto.</p>

It's for that reason that most of the time in the field the M-16 is set to fire off a 3 round burst when you squeeze the trigger. That sends off 3 bullets in a fraction of a second.</p>

If you hit a target in close proximity, all three bullets are going to hit in very close to the same place.</p>

Now, 30 feet (10 yards) is definitely close proximity. The suspicion here is how the hell did the soldier not know it was a friendly if he was only 30 - 50 feet away.</p>

Well, I've never been in combat or anything, but my understanding is that when you've got people shooting at you and shit blowing up, you don't always make good decisions. </p>

That seems like the most obvious... and in fact a very obvious explanation.</p>

A couple things that don't make sense to me about the idea of him being murdered. In most cases I've read about where a guy gets fragged, it's done in a very non-traceable way. Why not just lob a grenade at him? And if you don't care about leaving those nasty, very obvious and traceable bullets around, why let your victim be armed and some distance away? Again, I don't know how many folks have actually fired a gun of any sort, but unlike in the movies, hitting something 30 feet away, especially, I'd imagine, in the heat of a battle, is easier said than done.</p>

Another thing that's lame about the article is it somewhat ominously and very misleadingly mentions there were snipers about... as if they might have been lurking to take out Tillman. Well, that again is exceedingly unlikely. Not that Snipers were giving cover to the convoy, but that they had anything to do with Tillman's death. The whole point of being a sniper is to shoot from a distance... they wouldn't bother getting 10 yards away, and they wouldn't bother blasting someone with an M-16 on semi-auto because they'd be carrying around M-24s and they would only need one shot to do it. </p>

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (MikeDC)</div><div class='quotemain'>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (The Return of the Raider)</div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (porky88)</div><div class='quotemain'>I don't think Tillman was killed purposely. I think his death was covered up. I think that's pretty obvious. I think someone covered his death up to try and achieve their own goals. If you really want to start a conspiracy. How about he was killed because that way he could be made into a ICON and could be used as a recruiting tool. That would really be something eh? I personally don't believe that but I know it's been mentioned.</div>Tillman was killed on purpose. You dont' get three bullet holes that close together by accident, and certainly not at that range and not know WTF you are shooting at. The medical examiners have had the balls to bring this out, and the millitary has dne all they can to suppress the truth. </div></p>

Have you ever fired a semi-automatic or automatic weapon? It's really quite explainable.</p>

The M-16 in full auto mode fires something like 750 rounds a minute. That's 12 bullets flying out of the muzzle of the gun in 1 second. You empty your 30 round clip in less than 3 seconds of squeezing the trigger on full auto.</p>

It's for that reason that most of the time in the field the M-16 is set to fire off a 3 round burst when you squeeze the trigger. That sends off 3 bullets in a fraction of a second.</p>

If you hit a target in close proximity, all three bullets are going to hit in very close to the same place.</p>

Now, 30 feet (10 yards) is definitely close proximity. The suspicion here is how the hell did the soldier not know it was a friendly if he was only 30 - 50 feet away.</p>

Well, I've never been in combat or anything, but my understanding is that when you've got people shooting at you and shit blowing up, you don't always make good decisions. </p>

That seems like the most obvious... and in fact a very obvious explanation.</p>

A couple things that don't make sense to me about the idea of him being murdered. In most cases I've read about where a guy gets fragged, it's done in a very non-traceable way. Why not just lob a grenade at him? And if you don't care about leaving those nasty, very obvious and traceable bullets around, why let your victim be armed and some distance away? Again, I don't know how many folks have actually fired a gun of any sort, but unlike in the movies, hitting something 30 feet away, especially, I'd imagine, in the heat of a battle, is easier said than done.</p>

Another thing that's lame about the article is it somewhat ominously and very misleadingly mentions there were snipers about... as if they might have been lurking to take out Tillman. Well, that again is exceedingly unlikely. Not that Snipers were giving cover to the convoy, but that they had anything to do with Tillman's death. The whole point of being a sniper is to shoot from a distance... they wouldn't bother getting 10 yards away, and they wouldn't bother blasting someone with an M-16 on semi-auto because they'd be carrying around M-24s and they would only need one shot to do it. </p>

</div></p>

</p>

Yes.</p>

How do you know it was on full-auto? Was that mentioned anywhere in the report? M16's are not always set to full auto. </p>

As for the decision-making ability of the shooter, they didn't have enemy or friendly fire on them. They were the only ones shooting. </p>

</p>

"If you hit a target in close proximity, all three bullets are going to hit in very close to the same place."</p>

then you say:</p>

"I don't know how many folks have actually fired a gun of any sort, but unlike in the movies, hitting something 30 feet away, especially, I'd imagine, in the heat of a battle, is easier said than done."</p>

</p>

So after reading the accounts of the soldiers, the chaplain, the army doctors, and your observations, I am left to assume that the shooter was less than 30 feet away, with no one firing at him, and was able to aim with some precision to hit Tillman in the forehead, 3 bullets, close together. </p>

Otherwise, there he had to have been sniped at longer range, which also means that the shooter had identified his target before shooting. While it's physically possible to do this with an M16, it is highly unlikely. </p>

Then again, all the accounts of what happened have been changed, retracted, and covered up so far. Who really knows what to believe at this point. It still smells of foul play anyway you look at it.</p>

</p>

 

I just feel for his family.

 

[quote name='Denny Crane'][quote name='The Return of the Raider'][quote name='MikeDC']

[quote name='The Return of the Raider'][quote name='porky88']I don't think Tillman was killed purposely. I think his death was covered up. I think that's pretty obvious. I think someone covered his death up to try and achieve their own goals. If you really want to start a conspiracy. How about he was killed because that way he could be made into a ICON and could be used as a recruiting tool. That would really be something eh? I personally don't believe that but I know it's been mentioned.[/QUOTE]
Tillman was killed on purpose. You dont' get three bullet holes that close together by accident, and certainly not at that range and not know WTF you are shooting at. The medical examiners have had the balls to bring this out, and the millitary has dne all they can to suppress the truth. [/QUOTE]</p>

Have you ever fired a semi-automatic or automatic weapon? It's really quite explainable.</p>

The M-16 in full auto mode fires something like 750 rounds a minute. That's 12 bullets flying out of the muzzle of the gun in 1 second. You empty your 30 round clip in less than 3 seconds of squeezing the trigger on full auto.</p>

<font size="4">It's for that reason that most of the time in the field the M-16 is set to fire off a 3 round burst when you squeeze the trigger. That sends off 3 bullets in a fraction of a second.</font></p>

<font size="4">If you hit a target in close proximity, all three bullets are going to hit in very close to the same place.</font></p>

Now, 30 feet (10 yards) is definitely close proximity. The suspicion here is how the hell did the soldier not know it was a friendly if he was only 30 - 50 feet away.</p>

Well, I've never been in combat or anything, but my understanding is that when you've got people shooting at you and shit blowing up, you don't always make good decisions. </p>

That seems like the most obvious... and in fact a very obvious explanation.</p>

A couple things that don't make sense to me about the idea of him being murdered. In most cases I've read about where a guy gets fragged, it's done in a very non-traceable way. Why not just lob a grenade at him? And if you don't care about leaving those nasty, very obvious and traceable bullets around, why let your victim be armed and some distance away? Again, I don't know how many folks have actually fired a gun of any sort, but unlike in the movies, hitting something 30 feet away, especially, I'd imagine, in the heat of a battle, is easier said than done.</p>

Another thing that's lame about the article is it somewhat ominously and very misleadingly mentions there were snipers about... as if they might have been lurking to take out Tillman. Well, that again is exceedingly unlikely. Not that Snipers were giving cover to the convoy, but that they had anything to do with Tillman's death. The whole point of being a sniper is to shoot from a distance... they wouldn't bother getting 10 yards away, and they wouldn't bother blasting someone with an M-16 on semi-auto because they'd be carrying around M-24s and they would only need one shot to do it. </p>

[/QUOTE]</p>

</p>

Yes.</p>

How do you know it was on full-auto? Was that mentioned anywhere in the report? M16's are not always set to full auto. </p>

As for the decision-making ability of the shooter, they didn't have enemy or friendly fire on them. They were the only ones shooting. </p>

</p>

"If you hit a target in close proximity, all three bullets are going to hit in very close to the same place."</p>

then you say: </p>

"I don't know how many folks have actually fired a gun of any sort, but unlike in the movies, hitting something 30 feet away, especially, I'd imagine, in the heat of a battle, is easier said than done."</p>

</p>

So after reading the accounts of the soldiers, the chaplain, the army doctors, and your observations, I am left to assume that the shooter was less than 30 feet away, with no one firing at him, and was able to aim with some precision to hit Tillman in the forehead, 3 bullets, close together. </p>

Otherwise, there he had to have been sniped at longer range, which also means that the shooter had identified his target before shooting. While it's physically possible to do this with an M16, it is highly unlikely. </p>

Then again, all the accounts of what happened have been changed, retracted, and covered up so far. Who really knows what to believe at this point. It still smells of foul play anyway you look at it.</p>

</p>

[/QUOTE]</p>

Sounds to me like MikeDC was suggesting that the gun was in 3-round fire mode, which explains why he'd be hit with three bullets close together. The gun fires rounds so fast, that all three would naturally hit close together if the first hits.</p>

</p>

[/QUOTE]</p>

</p>

Yes, exactly!</p>

 

This gets fishier by the story, I don't know what to believe, this is going into the "american mystery/conspiracy" column.</p>

 

Right. Someone squeezed off three rounds into someone's head. Who did he aim for? no one was firing at the shooter. He was aiming at Tillman. Does anyone have an ID on who the shooter was?

 

"Sounds to me like MikeDC was suggesting that the gun was in 3-round fire mode, which explains why he'd be hit with three bullets close together. The gun fires rounds so fast, that all three would naturally hit close together if the first hits."</p>

Yes but all gunshave recoil and the shots are not going to go precicely at the same spot even in 3-round mode unless you are very close. He was wearing a helmet and these shots hit right below the rim of the helmet.</p>