Waco FLIR Update

From: Ian Goddard (Ian@goddard.net)
Date: Sun Apr 23 2000 - 22:00:49 MDT

    (following: http://users.erols.com/igoddard/flir01.htm)

     A Dallas Morning News report [1] gives us some numbers
     to work with from the official FLIR (forward-looking
     infrared) camera study being conducted by defense-
     contractor-owned Vector Data Research. The Morning
     News states that flashes on the test FLIR from the
     six guns tested lasted up to one fiftieth of a second
     (1/50 = .02 seconds), while reflections off debris
     lasted up to 19 times longer (.02 * 19 = .38 seconds).

     Dr. Edward Allard recorded the duration of flashes on
     the 1993 Waco FLIR to be as short as one thirtieth of
     a second (1/30 = .03 seconds). [2] Here then are the
     reported durations of flashes from these sources:

      (A) TEST-GUNS .02 sec
      (B) WACO FLIR .03 sec
      (C) REFLECTIONS .38 sec

     Of the three, A and B are most similar. While the
     duration of B is only 1.5 times longer than that of
     A, the duration of C is 19 times longer than A. Logic
     therefore clearly indicates that the reported duration
     of flashes on the 1993 Waco FLIR is significantly more
     similar to the flashes on the test FLIR from test-guns
     than from reflections off debris. It should be noted
     that the Dallas Morning News report lists four of the
     six guns tested, and only two were machine guns, the
     CAR-15 assault rifle used by the FBI's hostage rescue
     team and the large M-60 machine gun. Any machine guns
     seen on the 1993 Waco FLIR could be different types,
     explaining the minor discrepancy in flash durations.

     AND THEN there's the matter of the rate at which series
     of flashes appear on the 1993 Waco FLIR. While a reflective
     surface would reflect only one beam of radiation that a
     moving camera would pass through only once, resulting in
     the occurrence of only one flash, flashes on the 1993
     Waco FLIR coming from one spot occur at a rate of 7 to
     10 times per second, exactly matching the cyclic rate of
     a machine gun. [3] No reflective surface could reasonably
     replicate such a rate of flashing. The inherent inability
     of a reflective surface to replicate the rapid flashing
     seen in the 1993 FLIR is by itself an insurmountable
     problem for the FBI's defense, and with the addition of
     the flash-duration analysis above, the evidence before
     points clearly in only one direction: machine-gun fire
     directed at Mount Carmel is seen on the 1993 Waco FLIR.

     It's reprehensible that virtually all major media are
     spreading the false claim that shooters are not visible
     on the 1993 Waco FLIR, when in fact sometimes shooters
     are visible: http://www.erols.com/igoddard/flir01.htm .
     It staggers my imagination that none of the professional
     journalists assigned to cover this case have bothered to
     study the FLIR or to even simply watch the documentary,
     Waco: A New Revelation, that put Waco back in the news,
     in which case they'd know that shooters ARE sometimes
     visible and thus that what they're writing is false.

     See the Waco FLIR yourself: http://waco-anewrevelation.com

     [1] Dallas Morning News (4/23/00): "Flashes from gunfire
     on the test video were also far shorter in duration,
     lasting at most one-fiftieth of a second while those from
     debris lasted up to 19 times as long, the sources said."

     [2] Dr Edward Allard states: "We've measured the actual
     time of the individual flashes, and they occur at a
     fraction of a second, in same cases a thirtieth of a
     second. There is absolutely nothing in nature that can
     cause thermal flashes to occur in a thirtieth of a second."
     Source: Waco, A New Revelation (waco-anewrevelation.com)

     [3] Dr Edward Allard's Affidavit: "I note five flashes
     from one point, appearing and disappearing at the rate of
     7-10 per second." http://www.indirect.com/www/dhardy/allard.html

         If the axiom "power corrupts" is a reliable axiom,
        then the Official Story must be suspect on its face.
    GODDARD'S JOURNAL: http://www.erols.com/igoddard/journal.htm
    Asking the "wrong questions," challenging the Official Story

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:09:45 MDT