('binary' encoding is not supported, stored as-is)
>From: James Rogers <jamesr@best.com>
>To: extropians@extropy.com
>Subject: Re: Waco Test Shows "OBVIOUS GUNFIRE"
>Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 11:39:01 -0800
>Reply-To: extropians@extropy.com
>
>On Mon, 20 Mar 2000, Michael S. Lorrey wrote:
>> Joe Dees wrote:
>> > The test actually works AGAINST the agent-firing hypothesis, as in
>> > the FLIR recreation, people are visible next to all the fired weapons,
>> > whereas in the original FLIR, no contiguous people are visible. Guns
>> > do not kill people unless other people are firing them, and such people
>> > being visible in EVERY instance of the "recreational" gunfire, but in
>> > NO instance of the original glints, the test results do not bode well
>> > for the contentions of the Branch Davidians' attorney that such glints
>> > represent gunfire.
>>
>> Another reason why the people may show up in this footage and not in
>> the original footage is that the ambient temperature and ground
>> temperature on the day of the original incident were very close to human
>> body temperature, while the recreation film was shot at temperatures of
>> 69 degrees, a 30 degree difference. Additionally, there was not a fire
>> going in the recreation to dampen the sensitivity of the FLIR at low
>> temperatures.
>
>
>Michael is right on the money for this one. Humans and other animals will
>quickly disappear into the ground clutter as the ambient temperature
>approaches their normal body temperature, particularly if they are
>stationary. The practical effect is that the effective resolution of
>human objects drops as the ambient temperature increases. In other words,
>while it is easy to resolve a person a quarter 400m away when the ambient
>temperature is 60F, you have to be practically on top of a person to
>resolve them when the temperature is 90F. In my own experience (using IR
>in a search mode), IR is almost useless on warm summer days because you
>have to get so close that you can see what you are looking for without the
>IR. It works great at night, though.
>
>Gunfire on the other hand, is always much hotter than ambient.
>
>
>> All of these factors, as well as the use of dyes and starches in
>> clothing could be contributing factors in why the people's bodies showed
>> up in the recreation, but not the original incident.
>
>
>I don't think this is a factor, since FLIR is a passive technology.
>
>As I understand it, the fabrics/dyes used in BDUs are non-reflective in the
>IR spectrum so that you don't stand out when painted with an IR beam
>(e.g. from near spectrum devices like night vision). You can't effectively
>shield a person against far infrared e.g. FLIR. For hunters, there is a UV
>issue with some detergeants and brighteners, since certain animals can see
>into the UV spectrum.
>
CNN is giving a good deal of info on the test. One result was that when the FLIR was flown over a human-and-gun-empty debris field comprised of the same kind of stuff outside the mount carmel compound on that day, the same kinds of rhythmic flashes were noted. Another was that the great majority of fired weapons in the recreation did NOT produce flashes. If there is any credence to the idea that the blaze or the ambient temp would interfere with sighting humans, it would also have to obscure not only muzzle flashes (which it apparently didn't, as they were not in great evidence anyway), but also the rhythmic flashes from ground clutter. The fact that these were reported to be EXACTLY THE SAME as in the original FLIR indicates that in the absence of a Occam-stumping anomaly, the other things being checked (possible muzzle flashes, presence of agents) would be unaffected as well.
>-James Rogers
> jamesr@best.com
------------------------------------------------------------
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 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:05:59 MDT