From: Ross A. Finlayson (raf@tiki-lounge.com)
Date: Thu May 18 2000 - 14:22:28 MDT
hal@finney.org wrote:
> Ross A. Finlayson, <raf@tiki-lounge.com>, writes:
> > Consider this hypothetical situation: group A and group B have a dispute.
> > After the fact, group A is dead, while at some point when they more alive
> > group B was armed with armored tanks and automatic weapons and was in
> > the state of assaulting group A. The consistency of group A was a set
> > of civilians and group B military.
> >
> > Later some people who are still alive decide to have a simulation and
> > see what they can determine about the facts as they occurred. Group B
> > runs all aspects of the simulation without oversight, where group B's
> > goal is to show certain things. What conclusions do you expect to be
> > apparent from group B's simulation?
>
> Don't forget, the plaintiffs (Waco survivors and heirs) have lawyers
> as well. The test was originally proposed by the plaintiffs and the
> terms were agreed to by them. I believe they also agreed upon the firm
> to conduct the analysis (unfortunately I suspect the only organizations
> with experience in this kind of analysis have military or law enforcement
> ties because those groups are the main users of this technology).
>
> Hal
Of the circumstance that the plaintiff agreed to the terms of a simulation
without having some of their proposed terms denied, or to the analysts, I was
not aware, not do I particularly think that either situation would change the
capability of group B to appropriate or alter the results of the simulation.
Media access was highly restricted. Can one get copies of the actual 93 and
simulation footage today to compare for themselves?
There just seems to be too many loose ends in this hypothetical situation, and
eighty dead non-combatant men, women, and children. Perhaps among the most
damning facts is the fact that the government has modified and deleted
evidence, and been found in lies over the course of the investigation, most
strikingly in regards to the use of incendiary devices by the invading force, a
lie being a falsehood knowingly made.
I can't say much more than that: I wasn't there. Media access was restricted,
and so the only ones that were there that live can be ordered into silence.
Where is the survivors' testimony? They could take polygraphs of their own
volition and largely clear the air. It's not my wheel to grind, it just seems
obvious that something wrong happened at Mt. Carmel.
It's sad, regardless. From this time forward let there not be government
imposed force on its citizens without the entirety of the citizens able to
watch the proceedings, and the turmoil surrounding the results would not
reoccur.
Ross
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:28:42 MST