Ian Goddard, <Ian@Goddard.net>, writes:
> IAN: The shots appear to be visible only from one
> side of the building, which is because the primary
> indicated sniper location is behind the building
> when viewed from the other side -- I'm looking
> at the video now. From the visible side, the shots
> are visible across a range of angles to the left
> of the indicated gun muzzles. I don't believe any
> shots are seen from the angle that would be viewing
> the guns from the rear.
What I noticed was that, from the point of view of the gunmen, facing
the compound, the camera was always off to their right. There were never
any flashes as you say with the camera behind the gunmen, nor are there
any with the camera to the left of the gunmen.
You suggest that the building would obstruct the views if the camera were
in front of the gunment (on the other side of the compound from where
they are). Possibly true, but it looked to me like the camera had a
relatively steep view downward, and so unless the gunmen were very close
to the walls of the building, they should still be visible. Most of
the flashes pointed out by Allard came from different locations around
the compound (one on the tank, one an infantry-tank maneuver outside
the building they were demolishing, a pair of bursts from within the
courtyard, and flashes from outside the burning building that was near
the pond). Given that gunfire is occuring from a variety of positions
we might expect some shots to be detected with the camera coming from
a drastically different angle.
The fact that all of the flashes are seen from off to the right side
is evidence in favor of the reflection hypothesis, depending on the
orientation of the building. In the late morning, the sun should be
in the southeast, meaning that reflections should be most visible when
the plane is northwest of the building. This would mean that the large
water pond or pool in the corner of the compound should be generally
on the north side, so that as the plan "turns the corner" around that
point it is in position to see reflections. If you look at the reference
Ian lists below, http://www.rolandresearch.com/SRGv1/Figures/Fig02.jpg,
you see that this is exactly the orientation of the compound. In short,
every one of the flashes seen is with the plane in the approximate
position where a reflection would be likely to occur.
This stretches the bounds of coincidence, since we have at least 5
flashes, all seen from this same angle. If we divide the circle into
quadrants, with reflections only visible from the northwest quadrant,
the chance that the plane would have been in that section for all five
flashes purely by coincidence is one in 1000.
> The question then is: are these flashes on the FLIR
> the reflections of sunlight off debris on the ground?
> That was a big debate that the FBI abandoned not too
> long after it was decisively proven by Maurice Cox,
> a retired IR-imagry analyst, that the flashes can't
> be sunlight reflections. His fairly simple analyses
> in "The Sun Reflection Geometry Report" show several
> (http://www.rolandresearch.com/SRGv1/B9-Report.htm)
> reasons why the flashes cannot be sun reflections.
I don't think the FBI has fully abandoned this theory. They did require
that the test be conducted over ground that had been scattered with
debris and glass, obviously hoping that this would in fact produce
flashes and reflections. According to some reports, they got some
flashes, although whether they had the characteristics and appearance
of the Waco flashes remains to be seen.
I didn't find Cox's analysis very convincing. He sets up all
these assumptions but doesn't indicate the limits of his reasoning.
For example, he describes "misses" in azimuth, where the plane isn't in
the right position to have seen a reflection. He describes "large" and
"small" misses, but never says what these mean quantitatively. We need
to know these values, plus the uncertainty which would be caused by
tilted ground, etc.
Then in analyzing misses in altitude, he assumes the plane is at 9000
feet! Oops, as the recent news stories have made clear, the plane was
at 4500 feet. This not only eliminates this objection, it casts doubt on
his azimuth calculations since the plane wasn't where he thought it was.
It also makes you wonder about the thoroughness of his investigation.
> IAN: The video, "Waco: The Rules of Engagement"
> is available in some video stores, like Blockbuster.
> It shows some of the gun shots. It's regrettable
> that we all don't see this at the same time. I
> hope that those answers address your questions.
Yes, thanks for your comments.
Hal
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:06:03 MDT
