Re: Waco: Govt Set Fire

Robert J. Bradbury (
Sat, 11 Sep 1999 22:29:41 -0700 (PDT)

On Sat, 11 Sep 1999, Ian Goddard wrote:

> >
> >Spike points out the fundamental problem with
> >a conspiracy theory. You have to guarantee that
> >nobody will *ever* decide they made a mistake
> >and talk about it. You could never guarantee
> >that with the number of agents that were involved
> >at Waco.
> IAN: You could guarantee that destroying
> the building and killing witnesses will
> destroy the evidence of the aerial attack
> on the first day and silence witnesses.

It silences the *VICTIMS*, it does not silence the witnesses who participated in the actions!

> Of course I'm just saying things you have not
> yourself taken the time to study.

No, you are right, I haven't taken the time to study it. When the coroners re-examinations come in, and if they show evidence that the people died of bullet wounds from ATF guns, then it would be interesting to spend some time on it.

But, you still haven't addressed my fundamental points (1) Why would the government create a conspiricy

      involving dozens or hundreds of individuals
      to commit mass murder?
  (2) How would they hope to protect such an action
      from exposure?

If you can't make that case, you have putative "evidence", but no "motive", so that makes your case very weak.

> It would be good to rent "Waco: The Rules of Engagement"
> from Blockbuster or Tower Video.

If I had lots of time or interest in (a) dead victims; or (b) people who will likely die anyway (e.g. non-transhumanist ATF agents); or (c) organizations that will become largely obsolete in post-nanotech world (e.g. governments), then I would go do this. But my impression of your agenda and my comments on your agenda is that they are much ado about nothing.

> BTW, it just won the Emmy Award for investigative
> journalism, stated last night on Dateline.

Oh, that's great -- "investigative journalism" which in today's environment = "sensationalistic rumor spreading", should be accepted as "authoritative fact". In case you haven't noticed, these programs have advertisements (and even on PBS they require public contributions) -- they have to get ratings and nothing sells like "government conspiracy".

What -- the government can have a conspiracy to kill people but the reporters can't have a conspiracy to boost their ratings?

If you think TV reporting is unbiased, you should investigate their failure to cover efforts by members of Congress to increase the prices charged for channel allocations during the HDTV changeover. It is in the networks interest to work against any increases in the prices the FCC charges for these channels. The local network affiliates are getting these channels for *free* compared with the prices for cell phone channels and other communications bandwidths that have recently been auctioned off for. Networks acting in the public interest!?! Schhhhh, don't tell anyone, but do you know there is a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow?

BTW, you still haven't addressed my earlier point that the entire film could have been extensively modified.