('binary' encoding is not supported, stored as-is)
>Date: Sat, 27 May 2000 12:10:23 -0400
>From: "Michael S. Lorrey" <email@example.com>
>Subject: Re: Waco FLIR Update
>Joe Dees wrote:
>> >Date: Wed, 24 May 2000 10:35:45 -0400
>> >From: "Michael S. Lorrey" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>> >To: email@example.com
>> >Subject: Re: Waco FLIR Update
>> >Reply-To: firstname.lastname@example.org
>> >Ian Goddard wrote:
>> >> At 04:16 PM 05/23/2000 -0700, Joe Dees wrote:
>> >> >Just as I said - whoever's opinions the test results cut against will
>> >> >denounce them as either incompetent or dishonest or both.
>> >> IAN: Well, if the situation was reversed and the debris
>> >> had been placed on "white hot" ground, obscuring almost
>> >> all reflections, and the gunshots were placed over "black
>> >> cold" ground, emphasizing them, it would be a legitimate
>> >> grievance that there should not be different backgrounds.
>> >> Making one phenomena invisible and another exceptionally
>> >> visible is exactly contrary to examining their similarity.
>> >> Nobody should be asked to accept that Waco FLIR flashes
>> >> are not gunshots based on a videotape of gunshots placed
>> >> up against a bright background, obscuring them to nothing.
>> >Joe isn't interested in the truth, Ian, he's interested in being right.
>> Well, Mike, apparently, according to Ian, I can be right about the truth in this instance, although I'm sure it will pain you to admit same. You DID read his discovery concerning the non-gun flash causes, didn't you? I commend Ian for the honesty he has shown in presenting the conclusion that I'm sure was both counterintuitive to him and flew in the face of the way he suspected the US government of operating in this case, a position he had made more than well known.
>The difference between you and he is that he waited until all the
>evidence was in, while you insisted on a position that countered all the
>existing evidence from the beginning, without any evidentiary foundation
>for your insistence. Sure you were proven out here, but would YOU be man
>enough to admit it if it had gone the other way? I doubt it.
Actually, he had NOT waited until all the evidence was in, but had clearly stated his positions that guns WERE fired there, a position that subsequent evidence forced him to change. I, OTOH, had simply stated that whoever the evidence would seem to cut against would cry foul on the basis of incompetence or dishonesty, and Ian, among others here, did indeed do this, until the evidence became so clear that he could no longer deny it. Once again, I commend him for sharing with us facts that were dissonant with his stated opinions and judgments in this case. Had it been discovered that, despite government denials, gunfire indeed been directed into the compound, I would have actively supported an investigation and subsequent punishment of the offending parties, both as to any command to fire and as to any subsequent cover-up.
Look, Mike, I know that you are deeply disappointed that your dearly behated "jackbooted government thugs" were NOT firing into the Waco compound; it removes a cherished reason you thought you possessed to experience that personally precious avenging surge of self-righteous anger you love to direct at the federal government. I have faith, however, that you have stocked your magazine with enough other reasons that, after a while, you won't even remember or care that this particular one is missing. You DO still have Lon Horiuchi, after all. ;~)
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 - 14:11:43 MDT