('binary' encoding is not supported, stored as-is)
>Date: Tue, 23 May 2000 05:26:34 -0400
>To: extropians@extropy.org
>From: Ian Goddard <Ian@goddard.net>
>Subject: Re: Waco FLIR Update
>Reply-To: extropians@extropy.com
>
>
>I had occasion this weekend to view the test FLIR, and the
>best version of the 1993 Waco FLIR I've ever seen. It would
>appear that glass shards did reflect sunlight in the test,
>and some of the flashes do look like gunfire on the test
>FLIR. But a terrible problem was immediately visible. In
>the videotape of the test in the possession of Davidian
>lawyers, the ground behind the shooters is so bright as to
>be up to 100% white. So how are you supposed to see a white
>flash against a white background? The answer is you can't.
>The camera also wasn't as zoomed-in as in the 1993 FLIR.
>
>The ground in the 1993 Waco FLIR is around 40 to 60% black,
>but the ground behind shooters in the test FLIR is up to
>100% white, totally obscuring the ability to see most shots.
>However, a few shots are visible when some darker ground
>happens to be behind a shooter, and video clips in the
>CD-version of the VDS report do show some visible shots,
>and the ground is a little darker than on the videotape.
>The temperature was around 20 degrees cooler on the test-
>FLIR day, and so the ground should have been darker than
>seen in the 1993 FLIR. The fact that the ground is instead
>measured as being hotter on a cooler day indicates that
>the settings on the test FLIR were different. It's worth
>noting that some shooters were as white as the bright ground
>at times, disappearing into it. Some shooters were black.
>
>In contrast to the no-contrast background behind test gunshots,
>the ground upon which the debris was placed was pitch black,
>and thus was much cooler than the ground behind the shooters.
>This causes the sunlight reflections to stand about against
>a black background, dramatically emphasizing them, the exact
>opposite of the no-contrast background behind the shooters,
>which effectively disappears the gunshots. The dramatic
>difference of the backgrounds behind the test gunshots and
>the test debris is grounds for a re-test, this time with
>identical thermal backgrounds for both debris and gunshots.
>
>What is most disturbing is that analysis of close-up photos
>of the debris area before the test proves that they placed a
>tarp only over the debris area, keeping it in the shade, and
>they sprayed the debris area down with cool water, which is
>why the debris area appeared to be pitch black, or cool, to
>the FLIR. This is prima facie evidence of an intent to bias
>the test results by allowing full contrast for any debris
>reflections versus no contrast for the gunshots, a clear
>effort to obscure the gunshots and emphasize reflections.
>
Just as I said - whoever's opinions the test results cut against will denounce them as either incompetent or dishonest or both.
>=======================================================
>Roger Williams --> http://www.Ian.Goddard.net/roger.htm
>=======================================================
------------------------------------------------------------
Looking for a book? Want a deal? No problem AddALL!
http://www.addall.com compares book price at 41 online stores.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:11:36 MDT