At 04:03 PM 9/9/99 -0700, hal@finney.org wrote:
>
>In the case of Waco, the same thing happens. There is a web site
>devoted largely to debunking and opposing the film, Waco, the Rules
>of Engagement.
IAN: The site owner, Carol Valentine, has also "debunked" the Nazi holocaust... ahem. Claims of disagreement do not inherently indicate that evidence is suspect. The only basis for disagreement in The Washington Post article is the claim that the flashes are reflections of sunlight. The main problem with that claim is that the flashes often occur at cyclic rates identical to machine-gun fire. The odds that pieces of glass will often emit reflections in rapid pulses is flatly implausible.
Doctor Allard is one of the world's top FLIR experts, as is Fred Zegel, quoted in the article you posted to your site wherein Zegel states: "In one instance, where the guys drop from tanks, that was firing... There was no reflection." The fact is that the flashes are ideally shaped like the muzzle flashes of guns, wide at one end and tapering toward the other end. There are not reflections, or flashes, seen in any of the areas of debris where there should be a lot of broken glass. The Post also observes that those it queried were "defense contractors." It's surprising then that several of them did agree that the FLIR shows gun shots when you consider that they were paid via the same entity they would be accusing of murder if they said they were gun shots. A clear conflict of interest.
Dr. Allard speaks the plane and visible truth when The Post notes that "he says the weapons signatures are so clear as to eliminate all doubt." Also, an ex-CIA agent who was recently interviewed by Dallas Morning News claims that Delta Force agents fired shots at the building. A Congressional Committee has recently promised him protection from threats against his life.