Re: Waco Test Shows "OBVIOUS GUNFIRE"

From: Ian Goddard (
Date: Tue Mar 21 2000 - 13:13:09 MST

At 09:06 AM 03/21/2000 -0800, Hal wrote:

>> 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.

  IAN: You're right, my error, the flashes are seen
  across a range of angles to the *right* of the
  indicated muzzle (to the left of the viewer when
  looking that the frames I was when I wrote that).

  Hal, if in fact the flashes always occurred when
  the FLIR was in only one spot, then you might have
  an argument, however, they do not. This graphic shows
  the outer limits of angles from which the FLIR
  sees flashes at location 5, which is located at the
  conjunction of the red lines I've superimposed over
  Cox's graphic. The flashes are seen by the FLIR
  when the FLIR is in locations where the rear of
  the gym (the rear-most structure) is visible and
  from locations where the front of the building
  is visible. On/off bursts of rapid-pulse flashes
  occur at location 5 even as the FLIR plane moves
  across a range of angles. These facts are totally
  inconsistent with a fixed reflective object.

  A reflective object at location 5 would reflect
  a beam of sunlight that would be seen from only
  one angle and would appear as one single flash
  only once as the camera passed across that angle.
  This is completely inconsistent with the FLIR
  evidence before us. For the reflective-surface
  theory to have any merit, it must explain how
  a single reflective object at one location can
  reflect in many directions, doing so only some
  of the time, and most important, it must explain
  how it emits rapid-pulse reflections at a rate
  around 8 times per second. Nobody has done this,
  and thus the reflective theory is without merit.

>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: I forwarded your comments on the specific
  features of Cox's analysis that you raised to
  his webmaster. I hope he'll give us a reply.


This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:06:03 MDT