ATF agent tries to put Waco ghosts to rest

My SA ^

[Tymesup]

"Lucky thing all the expert FLIR witnesses died or backed out before they could testify before John C(overup). Danforth. "

There's at least one expert the press continues to ignore. Here's a link to a 12/10/2001 thread - Optics expert rebuts Waco standoff report -

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/587274/posts

[_Jim]

The visual photos taken by overhead A/C (aircraft) put this 'myth' to rest - these were shown to McNulty by Byron Sage on an edition the McCuistion TV Program; they show no personnel under, around behind or in proximity to the CEV's inserting gas in the building, CONTRARY to the continual insistance by McNulty based SOLEY on IR video ...

Case closed.

Reference: The big lie (Debunking 'claims' about the FLIR used in Waco showing gunmen and gunfire)

From: www.ntskeptics.org/2002/2002january/january2002.htm#flir

FLIR

by John Blanton

FLIR is an acronym that stands for Forward Looking Infra-Red. It's a technology that uses far infra-red radiation for seeing without benefit of visible light. Why it's necessary to add the words "forward looking" is not clear, except that IR is not very satisfying as acronyms go, and it's too much like a Spanish verb.

FLIR is also the name of the latest video produced by Mike McNulty concerning claims that government forces killed innocent Branch Davidian members on the final day of the standoff near Waco. McNulty has previously produced Waco: the Rules of Engagement and Waco: A New Revelation. Rules of Engagement was honored as "Documentary Film of the Year" by the International Documentary Association for 1997. It received an Oscar nomination for "Best Feature-Length Documentary Film" for 1997. McNulty won a national Emmy award for "Best Investigative Journalism" in 1999 for his work in the production of Rules of Engagement.

We previously encountered McNulty when he appeared as a panelist on the McCuistion show on PBS. The May 2000 issue of The North Texas Skeptic carries an account of this plus additional details of the Waco controversy. ¹

McNulty's two previous videos were highly critical of government actions related to the Mount Carmel siege and the destruction of the Branch Davidian compound on 19 April 1993. The language used in these documentaries states in strong terms that government forces used fire from automatic weapons to prevent the escape of innocent civilians from the fire.

Branch Davidian survivors sued, claiming the US Government was responsible for the deaths of over eighty people in 1993. In 1999 former Republican senator John Danforth was appointed special counsel to investigate possible government culpability in the case. A key issue was the contention by the plaintiffs that FLIR video recorded by the government on the final day of the siege provides incriminating evidence. Plaintiffs alleged that the imagery shows flashes from small arms, including automatic weapons fire, directed at the Branch Davidians. The plaintiffs contended that in some cases they can make out the movements of the shooters. The governments contention was that the flashes that appear in the video result from reflections of infra-red sources by debris on the ground and that no shooters are visible in the video. Senator Danforth retained Vector Data Systems to analyze the Waco FLIR and conduct FLIR test. On 19 March 2000 the government conducted tests at Fort Hood, Texas, to replicate the situation of 19 April 1993. FLIR videos were made from two aircraft flying 4000 to 6000 feet above the test area. The test area included debris on the ground and some scenarios with shooters firing weapons. The conclusion of Senator Danforth was that the test video invalidated the plantiffs' claims. Specifically:

1. Plaintiffs claimed the Waco video shows gun fire from locations where no shooters are visible. In the Fort Hood video shooters are always visible.

2. The government contended the flashes in the Waco video came from reflections. The Fort Hood video shows similar flashes from a debris field, where no shooters were present.

In July 2000 the case was decided against the plaintiffs. In US District Court a 5-person advisory jury reported to Judge Walter Smith "? the ATF had not fired indiscriminately or used excessive force. They also agreed that the FBI tanks' actions were not negligent and did not contribute to the fire, and that the FBI commanders were not negligent in their decision not to try to fight any fires at the compound during the tear gas assault." ²

Response to the decision was swift, broad, and somewhat one-sided. While cooler heads accepted the verdict even if they did not agree with it, many opposed to the government action and to the administration in power at the time denounced the outcome of the trial, the validity of the Fort Hood tests, and even the integrity of Senator Danforth. A Google search revealed a large number of anti-government sites as well as many sites critical of the conspiracy theorists. ³

One response to Judge Smith's decision was the latest McNulty video from COPS Productions L.L.C. In FLIR McNulty has followed up on his claim that the Waco video shows government gunfire directed at the trapped Branch Davidians. He now takes the added step of arguing that the Fort Hood video fails to make the government case and, furthermore, seeks to back up his claims regarding the Waco video. Specifically, McNulty asserts:

1. The Fort Hood tests are fatally flawed by not exactly replicating the conditions of the Waco siege: The Fort Hood tests did not use FLIR equipment identical to that used at Waco. The Fort Hood tests did not use the same weapons. Temperatures at Fort Hood were 20 degrees F cooler than existed at the siege. And finally, dusty conditions at the siege site enhanced the flash from the weapons, and the Fort Hood tests did not duplicate these conditions.

2. Government forces at Waco wore uniforms that suppressed their IR signature, accounting for why shooters would not be visible.

3. In the Waco video government agents can be clearly seen when standing on a plain, concrete, surface, but they readily disappear when they move onto the grassy areas, which provide a concealing, mottled background.

Many of the points made by McNulty are essentially correct. FBI standard issue is a 14-inch barrel military rifle, and the Fort Hood tests included standard M-16s with 20-inch barrels. It should be noted that the FBI states rifles with 14-inch barrels were also used in the Fort Hood tests. ⁴ Also, the Fort Hood tests did not use the same type of FLIR equipment, and Fort Hood test conditions were about 20 degrees cooler. Furthermore, combat clothing can reduce the wearer's IR signature, and certain backgrounds can help conceal personnel on the ground.

COPS, the producers of FLIR conducted their own tests, apparently in November 2000, and presented their imagery in the video. The COPS tests did not involve aircraft but used a long boom to place the FLIR equipment high above the ground. The COPS tests were also conducted at the same temperature as the day of the Waco assault and included a variety of weapons, ammunition and ground debris.

A prime assertion of the government side of the case is that the flashes seen in the Waco FLIR are too long to represent muzzle flashes, and the Fort Hood tests demonstrated muzzle flashes much shorter than those that show up on the Waco FLIR. COPS seeks to refute this point by noting that the dusty atmosphere at Waco would have prolonged the duration of the muzzle flashes. The idea is that the heat from the muzzle discharge will heat the dust particles in the air producing a prolonged glow. To demonstrate this, COPS had someone throwing dirt in front of the weapons before they were fired, and they showed that a longer flash was produced under these conditions.

Additionally, COPS seeks to show in its video that it is problematical whether ordinary debris would have produced the flashes seen in the Waco FLIR.

In conclusion, FLIR reiterates McNulty's previous assertions that government agents at the rear of the Branch Davidian compound directed automatic weapons fire at the compound. He further contends this action killed innocent Branch Davidians directly and resulted in the deaths of others by preventing their escape. This is a serious charge that finds many friends. What are we to make of it all?

The problem is that McNulty's claims are made outside the context of a very large body of other information. In fact, it may be that the producers of FLIR have shot themselves in the foot. Here are a number of issues that FLIR failed to note:

1. A major claim of FLIR is that the smoky, dusty atmosphere at Waco produced the prolonged flashes seen in the video. By stirring up dust and firing into the dust they seem to have demonstrated their case. However, a reasonable person comparing the Waco imagery and the COPS imagery will find little in common. The COPS video shows a shooter firing directly into a dust cloud right after someone has thrown a handful of dirt in front of the weapon. While the narrator points out that only dust is present, and not dirt, at the time the weapon is fired, it is quite obvious that this procedure produces a heavy concentration of dust that quickly settles out. A look at the Waco video seems to show the ground quite clearly from over 4000 feet up without the obscuration that would result from a heavy concentration of dust at 65 degrees F.

2. McNulty purports to show muzzle flashes from invisible shooters. He asserts that their camouflage clothing hides them in the Waco imagery. However, the firing demonstration in the COPS video shows a shooter holding a weapon, and the barrel of the weapon shows very bright in the imagery. In the Waco FLIR no hot, bright gun barrels show up.

3. FLIR also completely ignores an issue previously pointed out by other detractors. While McNulty claims to show invisible shooters, there is at least once case in which a tank tread runs completely over one of these invisible "shooters." ⁵ This would appear to invalidate NcNulty's claim that the flashes could not have been produced by ground debris. If there is at least one case of muzzle flashes without a shooter, then it is up to McNulty to explain what produced those flashes and why this explanation does not apply to all the other cases.

4. The Branch Davidians were killed by their leaders. Eavesdropping federal agents recorded the leadership issuing orders to start the fire. Some children and adults and even leader Vernon Howell (AKA David Koresh) were killed at close range by small arms fire while deep inside the compound.

5. Motive. For 51 days the government tried to coax the Branch Davidians out and even effected the release of some children and adults. On the final day of the siege members of the rescue team risked their lives to save Branch Davidians from the fire. One has to ask: How did the government forces divvy up the chores that day. "Team one, you guys try to save as many people as you can. Team two, you try to kill as many as you can." Inquiring minds would like to know the answer to this riddle.

References
1 http://www.ntskeptics.org/2000/2000may/may2000.htm
2 The Dallas Morning News, 15 July 2000. http://www.dallasnews.com/texas_southwest/111922_waco_15tex.html
3 Here are some relevant sites:
http://www.rense.com/general12/danfo.htm
http://www.gospelcom.net/apologeticsindex/news1/an010412-01.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/nelson1.html
http://www.webleyweb.com/tle/le970315-02.html
4 "Waco Inquiry Failed to Test Correct F.B.I. Gun," Matt Kelley, Associated Press, available at http://www.flirproject.com/current_events.html
5 "The Waco FLIR Flashes" by Ian Goddard at http://iangoddard.net/wacoflir.htm

[OutSpot]

_Jim said "Vernon Wayne Howell ordered the fire started, he and he alone is rsponsible for the firey death of those people ..."

My how smart you are?!?! There is no way that the incendiary devices shot into the compound by the FBI could have started the fire

The Dallas Morning News 7/28/99 Lee Hancock "...The head of the Texas Department of Public Safety said Tuesday that evidence held by the Texas Rangers since the 1993 Branch Davidian siege calls into question the federal government's claim that its agents used no incendiary devices on the day that a fire consumed the sect's compound. "There's some evidence that is at least problematic or at least questionable with regard to what happened," said James B. Francis Jr. of Dallas, chairman of the Texas Department of Public Safety. Mr. Francis declined to detail the evidence but said, "With the proper experts analyzing it, it might shed light as to whether an incendiary device was fired into the compound that day." Myron Marlin, a spokesman with the Justice Department in Washington, D.C., dismissed the allegation. "It's more nonsense. We know of no evidence to support an allegation that any incendiary device was fired into the compound on April 19, 1993," Mr. Marlin said....Mr. Francis said Tuesday that some FBI officials made statements to Texas Rangers immediately after the fire "that are contradictory" to the federal government's account of what happened. Mr. Francis told The Dallas Morning News that he only recently became aware of those statements as he began looking into complaints about the lack of public access to evidence in the Davidian investigation. Mr. Francis said he became concerned enough to contact U.S. District Judge Walter Smith of Waco, who has presided over all the cases arising from the deadly standoff. DPS recently filed a motion asking Judge Smith to take control of the evidence in the case. "I took the steps to turn it over to the court so the court could decide what to do," Mr. Francis said. "I think it's very important that whatever the evidence is and whatever it shows, that all of it come out and let the chips fall where they may." .... "I said, 'It is in effect a cover-up. It is not intended to be, but in effect it is," Mr. Francis said. "It is a complete stonewall." Mr. Francis said he doesn't think there was "some grand conspiracy to hide the evidence. I think it evolved into a situation where that was the effect of it." He said the judge asked only "how much space are we going to need," when Mr. Francis proposed turning over the evidence in the case to his federal court in Waco. After the siege, about 40 Texas Rangers were assigned to investigate and gather evidence in the case, and their investigation became the backbone of a 1994 criminal trial in which eight Branch Davidians were convicted of charges ranging from manslaughter to weapons violations..... Evidence used in the federal prosecutions was transferred to DPS headquarters in Austin for safekeeping. Although Texas Rangers had custody of the material, Justice Department officials retained authority over who could see it. They ordered DPS officials to route requests for access to Washington....Mr. Francis and others in the agency said DPS officials became increasingly frustrated as they learned that Justice Department officials routinely sent those requests back to Austin with the explanation that the evidence was in the custody of Texas officials. "It was a perfect Catch-22 to block everybody from seeing the evidence," Mr. Francis said. "There is some evidence there that the world needs to see, in my opinion. The government does not want this evidence out, and yet, that's not right." .... "

[Teacher317]

"I have come to understand now that this had to be done because who knows what these people had in store for the local community down the road, or in the future."

Yeah, they could've caused scores of women and children to be barbecued alive or something horrific like that!

[OutSpot]

"Wouldn't it be fair to air the *other* side this fiasco - here are the opening remarks and comments in Danforth's report ... "

Danforth's report is not worth the paper it is written on! It is what Clorox bleach is to dirty laundry. For the government it has served it's purpose well, so shills like you can use it as a reference.

[OutSpot]

I especially like the three quotes that you mention from the Danforth report.

"In fact, what is remarkable is the overwhelming evidence exonerating the government from the charges made against it, and the lack of any real evidence to support the charges of bad acts."

"The readiness of so many of us to accept as true the dark theories about government actions at Waco deserves serious attention by all of us."

"This non-disclosure is especially puzzling because the use of these pyrotechnics had nothing to do with the fire. They were used four hours before the fire began, 75 feet from the Branch Davidian residence, and in a manner that could cause no harm."

A picture is worth a thousand words

Your tax dollars at work killing over 80 inocent men, women, and children!

NEVER FORGET WACO!

[Twinkie]

Gee. Muslim mosques are popping up all over the place.
All the "maybes and what-ifs" inherent in that boggle
the mind.

[_Jim]

How often do I have to come back here and shoot down more hair-brained, half-witted comments by authors, commentators, film-producers who take substantial amounts of material out-of-context JUST SO they can make some kind of 'case' for the way they happen to think and believe something happened?

You, and others, are somehow operating UNDER THE OPERATING ASSUMPTION that Danforth wrote this report himself.

The *TRUTH* is that a number of widely regarded professional reseachers and criminal forensics lab guys (and gals) reviewed all relevant evidence and video. The conclusions THEY reach is in stark contrast to the RAVINGS of those less well versed in logical thinking and MORE PRONE to lapping up the production (the 'propaganda', if you will) of someone like a Mike McNulty.

There's another aspect to this that y'all never consider - this 'event' happened in Texas, it was WIDELY and CONSTANTLY reported on the media including TONS and TONS of live TV reporting from on location AND this included the numerous demands constantly put out by Vernon Wayne Howell like the 'tapes' of his message to be played - as they were, on 50,000 Watt radio station KRLD in Dallas - to no avial, as he REFUSED time and time again to come out ... the way it's seen DOWN HERE by real people in Texas, where this event played out in real time before us, is that y'all in the OTHER parts of the country have been WIDELY MISLEAD on this event by a number of 'hucksters' and publicty hounds who SOUGHT to make 'hay' and a 'name' for themselves ...

Just a side note: It would be a good idea to start taking a more civil note on this issue - it might start reflecting badly on people here on FR. The real adversary in all this is the highly liberal element of the opposition party; the democrats.

[OutSpot]

"Now the head of a 10-agent office, Aguilera enthusiastically talks about his plans to make the ATF more recognizable for its assault on crime rather than how it's seen in some circles — synonymous with Waco."

This is ironically exactly what happened at WACO. The media was informed before hand to bring the spotlight on the ATF and bring the ATF's reputation in a good light. Is this guy Satan?

The Free Market (reprinted in Mises.org) 3/94 Ron Paul "…The stated purpose of the raid was to save children from abuse. Yet Janet Reno lied about that too. The information she used was already discredited, and she later admitted it. The real child abuse was committed by the government to harass community members: the FBI turned on massive floodlights at night and played recordings of Buddhist chants, dental drills, and screaming, slaughtered rabbits. Reno herself ordered the house to be saturated with CS gas, knowing that the community's gas masks couldn't fit the children. In ways that have become typical, the media and government worked together in this disaster. One day before the raid, the Waco Tribune-Herald started a series on "The Sinful Messiah." On the morning of February 28, 1993, before BATF arrived at Mt. Carmel, at least 11 reporters were on the scene already. After the religious community was torched, the entire media participated in the beatification of Janet Reno for her actions in Waco…."

[Stew Padasso]

"Just a side note: It would be a good idea to start taking a more civil note on this issue - it might start reflecting badly on people here on FR. The real adversary in all this is the highly liberal element of the opposition party; the democrats."

Why? Just in case Clark is the democratic candidate?

[OutSpot]

Unfortunately for persons well versed in WACO you are a red flag and have been proven wrong numerous times. Yet, your relentless and never-ending pro-government spin on the issue never ceases to amaze me.

Why is it that on every single WACO thread you magically appear and feverishly try to convince folks who know their information. (Do you do a daily search for WACO on FR). I hope the devils work pays good!

[OutSpot]

Ping

[Tymesup]

"Case closed. "

Does your post respond to my link in any way?

Here are some quotes from the link:

"Grant said her study showed the sensor malfunction and debris reflection scenarios are far less likely to explain the infrared flashes than the muzzle flash of weapons. "I would discount the first one," she said. "For the second one, in our experiments we found glass gives a pretty awful reflection in the infrared spectrum - not like visual light, it appears as a vague glow, not like the flashes that appeared on the tape."

She said that debris would have to be shiny, elevated and precisely aimed at the FLIR sensor in the moving aircraft to work as an explanation for the heat flashes"

***

"It was valid science," Arizona Optics Industry Association member Keith McLeod said of Grant's presentation. "It wasn't schlepping one side or the other. It was simply taking basic high school and college analysis to dismantle the FBI's position."

***

Kathleen Perkins, CEO and publisher of OpticsReport, said, "This is a fine example of how optical engineers can find thorough solutions to problems."

***

"Grant and local attorney Dave Hardy, who pursued a Freedom of Information Act suit for two years to get the FBI to surrender a copy of the FLIR tape, made their own infrared tapes of weapons firing at a local shooting range for comparison.

These tests at the Desert Trails Gun Club and Training Facilities showed that muzzle flashes could last four times longer than the government said was possible, and helped Grant show that muzzle flashes would appear on the 30-frame-per-second FLIR videotapes."

***

The Waco ghosts have plenty of time to hash this out.

[Lurker]

You're a liar. Howell never ordered anyone to start a fire and you have no proof of that.

L

[First_Salute]

Tomorrow, The New York Times might say something that starts World War III.

Go try and serve them a legitimate warrant.

[Lurker]

Oh goody, a picture.

That'll make things easier.

Sleep well you murdering bas****.

L

[dd5339]

ping for archive.

Semper Fi and will never FORGET