Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by nenothtu
Depends on the type and extent of the injuries, adrenaline, and the basic constitution of the driver.
The drivers statements and actions are all over the place..
He said he was forced to evacuate the area yet we see him on his phone near the bus.
He said the tires blew yet we see no sign of that.
He said he carried the boy over his shoulder and that he was covered in blood yet we see none on his shirt..
Oh, OK. I thought that we were questioning whether or not he had any injuries, because he was still operating under his own power, and was just
observing that sort of thing isn't as unusual or superhuman as many folks assume it is.
We've recently had a spate of weather here, where something over 300 people have been killed. Two weeks ago, before this most recent bit of weather,
we had another blow through that killed 22 people between here and the ocean - maybe 300 or 400 miles or so. When I'm at work, I'm out in that, and
have people trying to pester me on the phone when I've got things to do, just because funnel clouds are forming directly over my head (and I mean that
literally - I've got video), so the fact that he'd be on the phone after everything was pretty much over (explosion done, fires out, medics on the the
scene, etc.) letting folks know he wasn't killed really doesn't surprise me. Some concerned folk will ring that phone right of the hook right in the
thick of things!
Memories of traumatic events are not always the most reliable in particulars, either - especially a few days after the fact, when it's had time to
gnaw on the mind and grow a little. Obviously the tires didn't blow, nor is there any particular reason that they would have had to, although they
certainly could have. His "memory" of events can't contradict objective observation at the scene, but they are his memories to deal with. That's why
it's best to record those memories just as soon as practicable after the event - so that you have something a bit more objective to fall back on after
they've been allowed to grow and grow in the mind.
He certainly was forced to evacuate the area - we've seen the photos of him being dragged away, by force, and they have come under some particular
scrutiny as to why he was being hauled off like that. That part really can't be contested, we have the photos right in this thread of it. Speculation
as to the reasons for that is unwarranted at this point, and irrelevant to the facts of this particular incident. What speculations I've seen here,
wild and unwarranted as they are, should belong properly to another sort of investigation altogether. The facts as demonstrated here are that he was
"evacuated", or "hauled off" if you prefer, after Hamas sent something explosive at the bus. Whether he was involved in any sort of criminality
probably didn't influence Hamas to blow the bus up, and it probably didn't instigate Hamas to become an organ of the Mossad, or any of the other
speculations going on. It's irrelevant to the case at hand.
In other words, allegations of criminal activity or impropriety on the bus driver's part are to my mind nothing more than a speculative attempt to
smear and obfuscate, remove attention to the examination at hand concerning an attack on a school bus, with no evidentiary basis or relevance
Now, the shirt is a problem to be explained. It is especially so in light of the fact that his pants ARE covered in blood, yet his shirt is pristine.
I watched the videos yet again, and it's laundry fresh, front and back. Now, if you or I were going to stage an event, would we really cover the main
player's pants in blood, and neglect his shirt altogether? I believe that if we thought of one of those details, we'd not neglect the other. Because
of that, I'm willing to entertain explanations of that discrepancy. Was he wearing a jacket during the event? Was there some reason that he changed
shirts, maybe after medical examination? If so, where would the new shirt have come from? Was it staged by truly sloppy and inept provocateurs? Was he
wearing it as an overshirt on a chill morning, and had taken it off because it had gotten warm on the bus, and so wasn't wearing it during the
emergency - but retrieved it after the explosion? I don't know those answers, or indeed if there is some other reason for the discrepancy that we've
not accounted for or brought up, but in any case the discrepancy is there.
edit on 2011/4/30 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)