From: Ian Goddard (Ian@goddard.net)
Date: Thu May 18 2000 - 10:10:06 MDT
At 01:18 AM 05/18/2000 -0700, Joe Dees wrote:
>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.
IAN: They only tested a few guns, so you
can't claim that flash durations were not
consistent with "any guns." All we know
from the VDS report is that some of the
test-gun flashes lasted "for as little
as 0.20 second" (I assume that's a type
http://dallasnews.com/waco/78737_report12.html
error, since the duration was reported to
be .02 second), which indicates that not
all the test-gun flashes were that fast,
since they say "for as little as 0.20..."
This tells us that they are not revealing
the average duration. Instead they selected
the fastest duration they got and then they
us it as the exclusive benchmark, which has
a deceptive appearance. Allard and VDS found
some of the 1993 flashes to last .03 second.
I noted the conflict of interest simply to
point out that their effort to imply that
there was no such conflict is a deception,
which makes all their other claims suspect.
------------------------------------------------------------
GODDARD'S JOURNAL: http://www.erols.com/igoddard/journal.htm
____________________________________________________________
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:28:41 MST