At 09:48 PM 03/20/2000 -0800, Hal wrote:
>I wonder if, based on the totality of the FLIR tape, you might be able
>to answer some of the questions I raised after seeing the Rules of
>Engagement video:
>
> - All of the gunshots (assuming that is what they are) shown in the video
> appear to be shooting from left to right. This is the result of the
> fact that the shooters are all on one side of the building, and that
> the camera angle is approximately the same for all shots. In the full
> video, are there flashes seen with a significantly different geometry?
> In particular, is the airplane ever at the opposite point in its
> circle above the building, or near that point, when a flash occurs?
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. There are some flickering
pixels, particularly in multi-generation copies,
and the first few moments of viewing the tape I
thought maybe that's what folks are talking about,
but when the shots happen, they are dramatically
distinct from noise, and they occur in the some
spots on the ground even as the camera moves around.
It's clear the "shots" are something on the ground.
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.
The Fort Worth Star-Telegram reported one of those
reasons as follows: "Cox demonstrates in the film,
using geometry, 'That the FLIR plane would have had
to circle the compound at a speed of Mach 1.8 to
capture reflections in the manner in which the
flashes appear on the tape.'" That pertains to the
necessity of reflective objects replicating the
rate at which the flashes flash, which is at a
rate roughly equal to 8 flashes per second, or
500 flashes per minute, which is consistent with
gun-muzzle flashes from a machine gun and isn't
consistent with any other identified phenomena.
Here's a summary of the reasons why the sunlight-
reflection theory for the Waco FLIR flashes fails:
http://www.rolandresearch.com/SRGv1/B3-NotPoss.htm
> - Are there other flashes which are less bright, so that it is harder to
> judge whether they are just part of the overall "flickering" of the
> background, versus whether they are gunshots? If the flashes are
> due to reflections we'd expect to see a full range of brightness,
> from just barely above the background noise level up to the bright
> flashes shown in the video.
IAN: Most flashes are consistent in brightness and
appear to be shaped like gun-muzzle flashes are known
look on FLIR, albeit much smaller than this close-up
example: http://users.erols.com/igoddard/FLIRshot.jpg
All flashes reach full white, which is "extremely hot."
A few flashes are larger than the others and the claim
is that those flashes may be ferret round or grenade shots.
> - In the script at
http://www.mnsinc.com/SkyWriter/WacoMuseum/burial/doc/wre_scr4.html,
> page 38, Allard says, "These are embers that are flying off the
> building, but you can see up in here that this is rapid gunfire. When
> we analyze the tape, we found out that there's two people there in this
> area here. And they're firing for about thirty seconds in this area
> where we have the burning dining room area. And it's almost continuous
> gunfire. And toward the end of this particular section, we find out
> that the people doing the shooting are actually retreating away from
> the fire and shooting as they're retreating." He points with his
> hand to the left in the McNulty video to show the direction they are
> retreating. Can you see this effect on your tape, so that the flashes
> are actually moving to the left as if the gunmen are retreating? This
> part is not shown in the McNulty video.
IAN: I believe Allard's statement that the gunmen
are retreating is based on the fact that the gunman's
position appears to be further back as the fire starts
and grows larger, but I don't see any shots that I've
noticed as occurring as such movements would be taking
place. Perhaps he's noticed a detail or two I haven't.
>You are the only person I have had contact with who has actually seen the
>FLIR film so it would be interesting to get your take on these questions.
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.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:06:02 MDT
