At 03:13 PM 03/21/2000 -0500, I wrote:
> 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.
To answer my own question: an object with a
geodesic type structure has a multifaceted
surface that could reflect sunlight in many
directions. However, it would be apparent as
one moved around it, seeing different reflections
off the different facets of its surface that the
locations of those reflections are different. But
in the Waco '93 FLIR, flashes occur in the exact
same spot when viewed from different locations,
ruling out reflections off a geodesic structure.
A key point here is that the physical size of a hot
thing seen on FLIR is virtually exactly the size of
the area of white on the FLIR. In visible light,
there can be a glare that can make a bright object
appear larger than it is, but this, I've been told
by Allard, is not the case with FLIR. So if you
took a FLIR photo of the sun, it would have a hard
edge, unlike a visible-radiation photo. This means
that different facets on a geodesic object would
not produce reflective flashes that overlap and
thus appear to be located in the same spot. Also,
the non-regularity of flashes doesn't support the
contention of reflections off a geodesic object.
A point of clarification: in reviewing the tape,
I would say that the flashes at location 5 are
single shots, not full automatic. Shots from the
other locations, where shooters are sometimes
roughly visible, are, on the other hand, clearly
full automatic. I'd also take issue with Allard's
claim that gunmen are retreating, for the last
shots on the tape where he seems to indicate
that this occurs appear to remain stationary,
at a location that they were before the fire.
But Allard may very well have more tape than I.
BTW, last week Allard suffered a massive heart
attack that left him paralyzed on one side of his
body, thus he was not able to conduct oversight
of the Waco test. Last week another witness for
the plaintiffs also died of a heart attack. Let's
hope the trial gets going before they're all dead!
BTW, here's Allard's analysis filed in court:
Roger Williams --> http://www.Ian.Goddard.net/roger.htm
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:06:03 MDT