Re: Waco FLIR Update

From: Ian Goddard (
Date: Wed May 17 2000 - 21:04:47 MDT

At 09:01 AM 05/17/2000 -0700, hal wrote:

>Ian writes, regarding the Waco report from Vector Data:
> > IAN: What the VDS report fails to address is
> > the multiplicity of flashes in fixed locations,
> > which is the linchpin of the "gunshot" diagnosis.
> > In one rotation of Mt Carmel by the FLIR aircraft,
> > around 20 shots can be counted in one fixed location.
>If there were some broken glass at that fixed location, you might well
>expect to see multiple flashes as you move around it. This seems to be
>what the VDS report describes.

   IAN: Rather than reiterating Part II:

> > Bursts of flashes occur in a mechanical rhythm of 7
> > to 10 times per second, like the cyclic rate of a
> > machinegun.
>VDS does not discuss this phenomenon, and I'm not sure why. It is
>possible that the pattern is not as rhythmic and mechanical as some
>have led us to believe. There could also be artifacts introduced in
>the processing, copying and digitizing of the tape.

    IAN: I could just as well argue that whatever
    gets the Govt off is an artifact of processing.
    I have the FLIR, flash patterns are rhythmic.

> > They are also linear and pointed toward
> > Mt Carmel.
>I don't think so. The pixels are very wide, either due to image
>degradation or the behavior of the camera. From certain angles, this
>makes the pixels appear to be linear and oriented toward the compound.
>And for some reason the flashes are mostly seen from those angles.
>Are there any instances where there are linear flashes which are in the
>vertical direction on screen?

    IAN: Observe the distribution of the
    points where these shots are visible:
    The linear shape of the flashes point
    at Mt Carmel consistently throughout
    the aircraft's motion, so the shape of
    the first shots are just about at 90
    degrees on the screen to the shape of
    the last shots. This indicates that the
    shape is not an artifact of the monitor.

    Also, hot embers flying off Mt Carmel
    are seen on the screen as circular,
    indicating again that the elongation
    of the flashes is not a distortion, or
    the embers would also be elongated, and
    therefore the FLIR is true to the shape
    of things down to the very smallest dots.

> > The VDS report fails to include the rate
> > of flashes in fixed locations as a critical flash
> > attribute in their attribute comparison of the test-
> > FLIR to the 1993 FLIR.
>This is true. However we would need to see the test footage shot last
>month to see whether this is actually a gunfire attribute. VDS used
>this footage to establish their criteria. Maybe real gunfire does not
>show such patterns.

    IAN: Think about it, one gunshot will show
    up as one flash (this is no longer disputed),
    thus two shots will show two flashes, and thus
    a series of shots will be a series of flashes.
    I would also like to see the VDS tape, but it
    seems that reliable science needs to be secret.

> > VDS
> > also fails to offer any explanation for how there
> > could be multiple solar reflections in fixed locations.
>On the contrary, this is one of their biggest arguments in favor of
>the sun reflection theory. In some cases there are multiple flashes
>in fixed locations over a prolonged interval (many minutes) while the
>visible light images show reflective material at that exact location.

    IAN: Can you show me those visible-light
    images that show reflective material in
    the locations? Flashes are separated by
    many minutes but by fractions of a second.

> > However, in my recent report on the Waco FLIR I do
> > explore several explanations for how solar reflections
> > might duplicate the rapid flashes seen on the FLIR,
> > and one just might do it. But counter explanations
> > either fail or are far less likely explanations for the
> > rapid flashes on the FLIR than that they are gunshots,
> > which is further supported by whistle-blower testimony
> > that there was a gunfight around the back of Mt Carmel.
> >
> > See why the rapid flashes are most logically gunshots:
> > Part I:
> > Part II:
>I think if you look at the last figure in your flir02 URL above,
>you see right there a strong argument for the sun reflection theory.
>All the flash observations are clustered together in the left side of
>the diagram. It's true, they aren't right on top of each other, but
>you'd expect some variation due to uneven ground. This clustering is
>hard to explain if it is gunfire.

    IAN: I reject the idea that about 20,
    1-by-3-foot pieces of glass laying at
    angles that would allow their beams to
    strike the plane one after the other
    could also occupy the same location.

    Furthermore, those shots appear to be
    in the shadow of the building. I'll
    check this detail again to see if so.

>(I believe you suggested that the building would have blocked view of the
>"shooters" from other directions, but it didn't look to me like there
>was that much obstruction. The camera was high overhead and looking
>down at a steep angle.)

    IAN: There are dozens of rotations of Mt
    Carmel, there is never a view of the spot
    in question from the other side. Here's
    a view of Mt Carmel from the other side:
    which is the east side. Notice that the
    aircraft is looking at Mt Carmel from an
    angle. Now, pieces of glass could lay on
    the ground such that they refelect solar
    radiation back toward the sun, and thus
    virtually no angle need be immune from
    the possibility of seeing a reflection.

>Keep in mind, too, that VDS also attributed a number of flashes to heat
>from the hot underside of the tanks reflecting from debris on the ground.

    IAN: Ya, and Vector Data also implies
    they have no conflict of interest since
    their British office never contracted
    directly with the US Government, even
    though Vector Data Systems, which is
    headquartered in Alexandria, VA, works
    for US military intelligence and is a
    member of the National Military Intelligence

     If the axiom "power corrupts" is a reliable axiom,
    then the Official Story must be suspect on its face.
Asking the "wrong questions," challenging the Official Story

To subscribe send email with "subscribe" to


This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:11:20 MDT