On January 30, the CCTV "Focal Point Interview" provided a detailed account regarding the "Self Immolation Incident" in Tiananmen Square.
1. There was a scene in the Focal Point Interview: A person on fire was staggering forward. Three policemen were positioned on the left, right and in front of this person, holding fire extinguishers. The policeman on the left started his fire extinguisher. Virtually simultaneously, the policemen in front of and on the right started their fire extinguishers. From the start to finish the entire process took about 2 seconds.
Let us analyze this scene. There are no fire extinguishers in Tiananmen Square. Fire extinguishers can only come from two conceivable sources, 1) The IVECO police patrol cars equipped with fire extinguishers; 2) The fire extinguishers in the People's Great Congress Hall building. Usually a small sedan is equipped with one fire extinguisher, the small variety. A larger car will have two of them. A single INVECO patrol car is never equipped with 3 fire extinguishers. Therefore these 3 extinguishers must have been obtained from different places.
Imagine the situation at that time. When the person started pouring gasoline over his body, the police would not have immediately run to the squad cars to get the extinguishers as there had never been a self-immolation precedent in Tiananmen Square. Therefore chances are the police wouldn't have caught on to it and tried to get the extinguisher right away seeing someone pouring liquid over him or herself. Only after the person ignited the fire, would the three policemen begin to react and hurry to their patrol cars located at various places some distances away. They would have to pull the fire extinguishers out from under the seats or detach it on the side of the vehicle. They could also get extinguishers from the People's Great Congress Hall. As they ran back towards the person on fire, they could pull off the safety pin, get close to the person and start putting out the fire. The policeman who got there first would start first; followed by the other two who arrived separately to extinguish the fire. When one is on fire, he would fall down quickly and be unable to move too far due to severe pain caused by the burning fire. Yet the cctv footage showed that the person on fire was still staggering forward.
That is to say, from the time when 3 policemen first reacted to the fire, getting extinguishers from the car[s], racing for tens of meters to get to the fire, all in less than 10 seconds; and with all three policemen from varying distances arriving at the scene virtually simultaneously. Yet the TV footage showed that the nearest patrol car was located about 10 meters away, with other patrol cars further away several times over. It was rather strange, then, that the TV footage showed all three of them standing next to the person on fire, took their respective positions, timed it just right to start extinguishing the fire together, and put out the fire in two seconds; rather than as one would expect, the first policeman to arrive at the scene started to put out the fire first, to be followed by others from different directions and different distances away.
A more plausible explanation would be that the policemen first took up their positions, and with the camera ready to roll, the person is then cued to set himself on fire.
2. There were two fire extinguishers in the scene, with one more facing away from the camera and could not be seen. I recall that the extinguishers were the types similar to those larger ones used within a building, with the size of about an adult arm's length. Extinguishers found in the IVECO patrol car should be the smaller type, about the length of an adult's forearm. Then where could these fire extinguishers have come from? Possibilities are a). The Great Congress Hall of the People or other buildings along side Tiananmen Square; b). They were brought ahead of time by police in preparation for the incident. If the answer were a), then based on the scene described above the contradiction would be even greater. So very likely these extinguishers were brought there ahead of time in preparation for the staged incident. Even if the police knew about the incident ahead of time, it still could not explain why the three policemen must take up their positions first before extinguishing the fire unless it was all staged.
3. CCTV reporter had to be extraordinarily fortunate. They actually were able to capture on tape such a sudden and fleeting moment of the burning. I am not referring to those shots taken by remote cameras, but those taken on the ground in close proximity. Even chancier is that the camera was no more than 20 meters from the scene. Recalling a picture in the "June 4" incident of a man standing in front of the tanks. The tanks were trying to maneuver around him. The shots were taken from the top of a building quite far away and the pictures were not very clear. At the time, the reporters always said before showing that video clip: "please pay attention to the following precious footage." They knew too well it was not easy to capture such a fleeting live scene.
Yet, by such co-incidence the "Self Immolation Incident" cinematographer was at the Square at that very moment, no more than 20 meters from the person on fire, and with the camera ready on standby (otherwise within the few seconds of setting on fire to the fire being extinguished, the cameraman could not possibly have time to adjust his camera).
The more plausible explanation is that the cameraman was prearranged to film this scene at the Square.
4. The Focal Point Interview showed several doctors describing the burned status of the immolators. They told the audience that the tracheas and bronchi were badly burned and would require tracheostomies. As most people know, when one's body is on fire, the surrounding air temperature would be extremely high. When one breathes such hot air, it would cause burn injury to the tongue, the vocal cords, and even the tracheo-brochial tree. The doctors were therefore correct. However, the TV footage showed "Wang Jindong" [one of the immolators] sitting in the Square, with fire extinguished, able to yell loud and clear as a bell: "The Law of the Universe is the Great Law that everyone must experience". (Note: these are not the words of Falun Dafa. On the contrary, Master Li Hongzhi said that it would not be possible for everyone to obtain the Tao.)
The little girl lying on the ground also had a clear voice. From all the shots shown including the later scenes at the hospital, both Wang Jindong and the little girl have full, clear and loud voices. They showed no sign of any vocal cord or tracheo-bronchial damage. After suffering large area burns they were fully alert, with a healthy and vigorous voice, isn't that extraordinary?
5. There was another scene at the hospital. It was a close up view of the burnt left hand of the little girl. The footage lasted for several seconds. It showed a "hand" burned beyond recognition, showing grayish black coloration. Just think about it, everyone, when a burn victim was sent to the hospital, usually they would receive immediate attention and treatment before allowing reporters to interview. At the Jishuitan Hospital the doctors there did not wrap up this severely burnt hand and let it exposed to infection. From the wrist up it was wrapped heavily to the elbow, it was thick and bulging.
A logical explanation for this scene is that the badly burnt hand on TV was a faked hand. The little girl's real hand was hidden behind the wrist wrapped in layers of gauze.
Additionally, there were several closed up views of the little girl lying in the Square, showing her face with black or white colored patches. This would suggest that some parts of the face were burned to charcoal, while [amazingly] the adjacent parts were totally undamaged and showing soft, white skin. There was neither erythema nor telangectasia. These are not what one would expect in burn cases.
6. We can be sure that the plump, middle-aged woman who appeared frequently on the TV segment did not understand Falun Dafa. She was obviously a hired gun. She said that she saw others started the fire first, producing black smoke. Yet she felt that when "De" is burned it should produce white smoke, since "De" is a white substance. Only when burning "Karma" should it produce black smoke since "Karma" is a black substance. There is not a sentence in Falun Dafa stating that burning "De" will generate white smoke; nor that burning white smoke is "De" and burning black smoke is "Karma." Dafa does not say a burning person with more "De" will generate white smoke, and one with more "Karma" will produce black smoke. As a matter of fact, Dafa has not linked "De" with combustion. This is ludicrous logic. Even in ordinary society we cannot find such a deduction that white material produces white smoke when burned and black material produces black smoke. This poor woman totally repudiated her faith that she nearly paid with her life just a few seconds earlier, simply because of this laughable and absurd logic that can not be established anywhere!
7. The woman also claimed that before setting herself on fire she first opened the bottle and "drank some of the gasoline!" To set fire to oneself, one needs to pour gasoline onto the body. I am lost as to how low someone's IQ must be to think that she could burn herself by drinking half a bottle of gasoline.
Besides, years ago Falun Dafa clearly established that "Killing" and "Suicide" were both considered significant sins. Dafa practitioners will never do this. The following is the original statement from Master Li:
"The issue of killing is very sensitive. For practitioners, we have set the strict requirement that they cannot kill lives. Whether it is of the Buddha School, the Tao School, or the Qimen School, regardless of which school or practice it is, as long as it is an orthodox cultivation practice, it will consider this issue very absolute and prohibit killing - this is for sure."
