Re: Waco FLIR Update

From: Joe Dees (joedees@addall.com)
Date: Thu May 18 2000 - 02:18:45 MDT

('binary' encoding is not supported, stored as-is) >Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 23:04:47 -0400
>To: extropians@extropy.com
>From: Ian Goddard <Ian@goddard.net>
>Subject: Re: Waco FLIR Update
>Reply-To: extropians@extropy.com
>
>At 09:01 AM 05/17/2000 -0700, hal wrote:
>
>>Ian writes, regarding the Waco report from Vector Data:
>>
>> > IAN: What the VDS report fails to address is
>> > the multiplicity of flashes in fixed locations,
>> > which is the linchpin of the "gunshot" diagnosis.
>> > In one rotation of Mt Carmel by the FLIR aircraft,
>> > around 20 shots can be counted in one fixed location.
>>
>>If there were some broken glass at that fixed location, you might well
>>expect to see multiple flashes as you move around it. This seems to be
>>what the VDS report describes.
>
>
> IAN: Rather than reiterating Part II:
> http://Ian.Goddard.net/waco/flir03.htm
>
>
>
>> > Bursts of flashes occur in a mechanical rhythm of 7
>> > to 10 times per second, like the cyclic rate of a
>> > machinegun.
>>
>>VDS does not discuss this phenomenon, and I'm not sure why. It is
>>possible that the pattern is not as rhythmic and mechanical as some
>>have led us to believe. There could also be artifacts introduced in
>>the processing, copying and digitizing of the tape.
>
>
> IAN: I could just as well argue that whatever
> gets the Govt off is an artifact of processing.
> I have the FLIR, flash patterns are rhythmic.
>
>
>
>> > They are also linear and pointed toward
>> > Mt Carmel.
>>
>>I don't think so. The pixels are very wide, either due to image
>>degradation or the behavior of the camera. From certain angles, this
>>makes the pixels appear to be linear and oriented toward the compound.
>>And for some reason the flashes are mostly seen from those angles.
>>Are there any instances where there are linear flashes which are in the
>>vertical direction on screen?
>
>
> IAN: Observe the distribution of the
> points where these shots are visible:
> http://Ian.Goddard.net/waco/flir03.gif
> The linear shape of the flashes point
> at Mt Carmel consistently throughout
> the aircraft's motion, so the shape of
> the first shots are just about at 90
> degrees on the screen to the shape of
> the last shots. This indicates that the
> shape is not an artifact of the monitor.
>
> Also, hot embers flying off Mt Carmel
> are seen on the screen as circular,
> indicating again that the elongation
> of the flashes is not a distortion, or
> the embers would also be elongated, and
> therefore the FLIR is true to the shape
> of things down to the very smallest dots.
>
>
>
>> > The VDS report fails to include the rate
>> > of flashes in fixed locations as a critical flash
>> > attribute in their attribute comparison of the test-
>> > FLIR to the 1993 FLIR.
>>
>>This is true. However we would need to see the test footage shot last
>>month to see whether this is actually a gunfire attribute. VDS used
>>this footage to establish their criteria. Maybe real gunfire does not
>>show such patterns.
>
>
> IAN: Think about it, one gunshot will show
> up as one flash (this is no longer disputed),
> thus two shots will show two flashes, and thus
> a series of shots will be a series of flashes.
> I would also like to see the VDS tape, but it
> seems that reliable science needs to be secret.
>
>
>
>> > VDS
>> > also fails to offer any explanation for how there
>> > could be multiple solar reflections in fixed locations.
>>
>>On the contrary, this is one of their biggest arguments in favor of
>>the sun reflection theory. In some cases there are multiple flashes
>>in fixed locations over a prolonged interval (many minutes) while the
>>visible light images show reflective material at that exact location.
>
>
> IAN: Can you show me those visible-light
> images that show reflective material in
> the locations? Flashes are separated by
> many minutes but by fractions of a second.
>
>
>> > However, in my recent report on the Waco FLIR I do
>> > explore several explanations for how solar reflections
>> > might duplicate the rapid flashes seen on the FLIR,
>> > and one just might do it. But counter explanations
>> > either fail or are far less likely explanations for the
>> > rapid flashes on the FLIR than that they are gunshots,
>> > which is further supported by whistle-blower testimony
>> > that there was a gunfight around the back of Mt Carmel.
>> >
>> > See why the rapid flashes are most logically gunshots:
>> > Part I: http://Ian.Goddard.net/waco/flir02.htm
>> > Part II: http://Ian.Goddard.net/waco/flir03.htm
>>
>>I think if you look at the last figure in your flir02 URL above,
>>you see right there a strong argument for the sun reflection theory.
>>All the flash observations are clustered together in the left side of
>>the diagram. It's true, they aren't right on top of each other, but
>>you'd expect some variation due to uneven ground. This clustering is
>>hard to explain if it is gunfire.
>
>
> IAN: I reject the idea that about 20,
> 1-by-3-foot pieces of glass laying at
> angles that would allow their beams to
> strike the plane one after the other
> could also occupy the same location.
>
> Furthermore, those shots appear to be
> in the shadow of the building. I'll
> check this detail again to see if so.
>
>
>>(I believe you suggested that the building would have blocked view of the
>>"shooters" from other directions, but it didn't look to me like there
>>was that much obstruction. The camera was high overhead and looking
>>down at a steep angle.)
>
>
> IAN: There are dozens of rotations of Mt
> Carmel, there is never a view of the spot
> in question from the other side. Here's
> a view of Mt Carmel from the other side:
> http://www.erols.com/igoddard/fire01.jpg
> which is the east side. Notice that the
> aircraft is looking at Mt Carmel from an
> angle. Now, pieces of glass could lay on
> the ground such that they refelect solar
> radiation back toward the sun, and thus
> virtually no angle need be immune from
> the possibility of seeing a reflection.
>
>
>>Keep in mind, too, that VDS also attributed a number of flashes to heat
>>from the hot underside of the tanks reflecting from debris on the ground.
>
>
> IAN: Ya, and Vector Data also implies
> they have no conflict of interest since
> their British office never contracted
> directly with the US Government, even
> though Vector Data Systems, which is
> headquartered in Alexandria, VA, works
> for US military intelligence and is a
> member of the National Military Intelligence
> Assocation: http://www.rmionline.com/afion_corp
>
The speed of the sucession of flashes (repetitive flash rate) did not match the speed of the guns which could have been present, or for that matter any guns. It's just like I said; whichever side's view prevailed, the other side would immediately question the integrity, impartiality and or competence of the reviewers.
Tolja So!
>
>
>============================================================
> If the axiom "power corrupts" is a reliable axiom,
> then the Official Story must be suspect on its face.
>------------------------------------------------------------
>GODDARD'S JOURNAL: http://www.erols.com/igoddard/journal.htm
>____________________________________________________________
>Asking the "wrong questions," challenging the Official Story
>
>To subscribe send email with "subscribe" to Ian@Goddard.net
>
>
>

------------------------------------------------------------
Looking for a book? Want a deal? No problem AddALL!
http://www.addall.com compares book price at 41 online stores.

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:28:41 MST