I've seen no one addressing some other holes in the official story that occurred in real time. They could have been whitewashed, or disinformation
from the very beginning. In any case, I'm going to list what I think are the three biggest "Read between the lines" indicators of a possible cover
1. There were initial reports of someone attempting to get out the back door and being shoved back inside the cabin. Do a search for "*U.S. Marshals
Service district chief Kurt Ellingson told CNN’s Brian Todd." to see for yourself the fringe occurrences of this report on the internet. This is
hearsay, and even worse, they backpedaled on that less than 45 minutes later. If you read between the lines, though, you'll see that evidence is
stacked a particular way. For one thing, the backpedaling by the reporting was ONLY to report that other "authorities" disagree with that ever
happening, but not to firmly assert that it didn't, nor to report that the district chief retracted it.
As if that wasn't vague enough, no one is cited to back up that fact, whereas there's a clear source for the initial report. Who disagrees with the
U.S. Marshals Service district chief? Why wouldn't they claim credit for having the more 'trustworthy' intel? Why didn't the district chief retract
It's this poster's opinion that the initial report is more likely to be factual, and the flimsy whitewashing afterward was damage control. There's far
more citation and "before we've all agreed on the story" aspect to the initial report, due to it having been reported by someone who is a bit more of
an outlier to the wall of blue, and much sooner than the counter-report.
The damage control may not have even come from the authorities, but from the news media itself! After all, when they don't cite their sources, one
could happily claim that "Authorities" could mean the persons paying you to inject propaganda and delete inconvenient facts from inside the news
company. This, however, just serves to illustrate how vague the counter-claim is, than any kind of attempt to explain it as being the case.
1a. If this in fact happened, then the cabin was nothing but a funeral pyre and any calls for him to surrender were intentional "signals" to those who
may have been inside the cabin that they were not going anywhere. This subtle communication may have been a ploy to incite suicide, but this runs in
opposition of the very real fact that not only was a fire started in the cabin, but that the cabin was also allowed to burn down.
2. The fire started from some time in 7:20 to 7:22 (7:20 is exactly when the assault started, and by 7:22 black smoke rising from the cabin was
reported from the CNN helicopter that was still close enough to the scene to see it.) and by the midnight briefing was still smoldering and
('authorities claim') too hot to enter.
The ambiguity of when the fire actually ceased, or when the fire fighters were allowed to begin to put it out concerns me, though they are reported to
have begun clearing the road for fighters to arrive at 8:44, there's nothing to assert when the effort to put it out actually began. If we assume
instantaneous teleporting fire fighters, then by their own admission, they sat there and watched the cabin burn for at least 1 hour and 22 minutes
before even beginning the process of trying to put it out. Any assertions that the authorities did not intend to start the fire are simply misleading,
as it's quite possible to burn someone alive through inaction.
3. They had no idea who may have been in there. Perhaps they used a heat signature measurement device to ascertain that it really was only one person.
But, if that were true, would they not want to report that to come off looking at least a bit more respectable? No one ever reported the amount of
people inside the cabin, but only that they were not aware of anyone else being in there.
What they want us to believe is that the absence of evidence is the evidence of absence needed to watch a fire burn this cabin down, and that only in
the aftermath will the evidence of their suspicions out. Even if they internally know better, and they know that he was the only one in the cabin, and
that it was indeed the one they were looking for, and they neglected to tell us all of that, what purpose does it serve? In what looks like an effort
to not admit they intentionally burned a man alive, they admit to much more heinous possibilities of incompetence.
In summation, I can only say that these are just the problems I see with the reporting of the events, more than any kind of claim on my part of
knowing what really happened. I would be willing to bet that if I began to dip deeper into this, I would find more than I bargained for.
Where there's smoke, there's usually some kind of volatile chemical reaction.
edit on 14-2-2013 by OminousZ because: Grammatical edit:
"Starting from" -> "The fire started from"