Expert: Government science failed at Waco

An independent forward-looking infrared, or FLIR, analyst says the government used inappropriate scientific methods to "prove" federal agents did not fire at Branch Davidians as they tried to escape their burning complex in Waco, Texas, a decade ago – perhaps, she says, to reach a predetermined conclusion that exonerates federal agents.

Barbara Grant, an independent consultant in electro-optics who has studied extensively the March 2000 re-enactment of the final hours of the Waco siege authorized by special counsel John Danforth, says in a new research paper, "The key issue [of the test] was whether flashes recorded on infrared imagery represented the signatures of weapons fire or some other phenomenon, such as solar reflections off debris."

"Non-government experts concluded that the flashes were gunfire; experts retained by the government concluded they were not," she said.

Grant told WorldNetDaily that, based on her expertise and observations, the government re-enactment seemed destined to reach a pre-determined conclusion – one that cleared federal agents of firing their weapons into the burning complex, allegedly at Branch Davidians as they tried to flee the carnage.

Federal officials have regularly denied such claims, pointing to the conclusions reached during the 2000 reenactment by government-hired analysts, by congressional inquiries into Waco, and by court rulings that clear agents of wrongdoing. Government analysts say "glint" – bright light reflections that appear on an FBI infrared videotape shot from a plane as it flew over the Mount Carmel complex during the final hours of the raid – were reflections of sunlight off debris.

Grant and others say the glint on the tape is gunfire. And she said of the government's investigations, "Their conclusions say something about some of the scientific issues at Waco that I believe really … need to be looked into further, because I disagree" with the government's findings.

In her paper, Grant refutes the government's claim that muzzle flashes, allegedly from federal agents' rifles that she and other experts claim are visible on the FBI's original FLIR video, don't last long enough "to have generated the flash signatures" visible on tape. The FBI's FLIR videotape was shot by an agency plane circling above the complex during the government's final assault.

"This conclusion was based on the analysis results in three expert reports – two of who were working for [Danforth] and one for the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Government Reform," she told WND. "And they never really explained how long this phenomenon can last, yet they all three agree that no way could muzzle flashes last long enough to have generated the flashes at Waco.

"That's particularly interesting to me, having participated in muzzle-flash tests," she continued. "We saw flashes lasting far longer than what the government had claimed."

The results Grant witnessed were included in a documentary film "The F.L.I.R. Project," produced by Emmy Award-winning investigative journalist Mike McNulty.

One phenomenon present at Mount Carmel the day of the April 19, 1993, raid was heavy dust churned up by government vehicles and agents conducting the final push – a condition not duplicated at the re-enactment at Food Hood, Texas, some seven years later.

That dust, McNulty, Grant and other experts say, has a "dampening" effect on reflective sunlight. The result is that the "glint" – which appeared on the FBI's original infrared film – could not have come from ground debris, as Danforth concluded; it would have been covered with heavy dust and, therefore, the reflectivity of sunlight greatly diminished.

But there are other problems with the government's testing too, Grant says, which she spelled out in her paper. All of them, she says, lead to this conclusion – that the test may have been rigged.

"I've thought about that for years now," she said. "What I would say is that the [2000] test was conditioned to produce a predetermined result."

Grant also questioned the ability of the government's analysts. In the case of Vector Data Systems Ltd. of the United Kingdom – one of the primary analysts for the Fort Hood test – she said, "Their report does not really demonstrate a lot of expertise with the issue of muzzle flash."

"[Vector] is an imagery analyst firm," she said, "but when I study the test, when I study Vector's report and the data from the test, it seems to me that there was a lot of expertise in putting that test together that I can't attribute to Vector."

In other words, she said, it seems as though experts outside of Vector and the other analysts employed by Danforth who did have lots of experience analyzing muzzle flashes on FLIR may have set up the test a certain way to pre-empt findings that government agents fired their weapons.

"If you were a person who had never gone into this before, I think that you might take a look at some of the very gusty, windy conditions that existed at Mount Carmel on April 19, and then you take a look at the conditions under which gunfire was tested at Fort Hood, and the difference between the two is just stunning," Grant said.

"It's almost like somebody, somewhere … knew that the presence of particulate [dust] can influence the muzzle flash signature and in particular can lengthen it," she said. "That's why I'm saying I think more expertise went into putting this test together than just Vector."

In her paper, Grant quotes one expert who says the British-built GEC Marconi FLIR – the one used by the FBI the day of the raid – has been used specifically in the past to detect gunfire.

Jane's Information Group analyst and spokesman Paul Beaver, who concluded that the glint on the FBI tape was gunfire, told the Dallas Morning News Jan. 29, 2000: "I have personally been in a situation where I've seen gunfire, using the GEC-Marconi system. … In a firefight situation, it's very, very useful to detect where the enemy is."

Some law-enforcement experts have opined that the overhead FBI FLIR camera was in use to detect gunfire coming from heavily armed Branch Davidians, especially after events that triggered the 51-day siege.

A Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms team exchanged fire with Davidians when agents arrived to serve warrants Feb. 28, 1993; four ATF agents and six Davidians were killed in the initial melee. Eighty-six people died in the final siege and fire.

God Bless America!
God Bless This Man!
Some of us VRWC volunteers think freedom is worth fighting for.

Please join us.

Or mail checks to
FreeRepublic , LLC
PO BOX 9771
FRESNO, CA 93794

or you can use

PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com

STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD-
It is in the breaking news sidebar!

a predetermined...that exonerates federal agents

Welcome to Kansas, Toto. Freepers have been saying this for YEARS!

I have seen the F.L.I.R. project video. It is damning. But then so are most facts about Waco. I am not a believer in conspiracies, but it doesn't take much of a conspiracy to see that the FBI, ATF, the Executive branch, Congress, and the OldDominantLiberalMedia all have strong vested interests here to keep the truth from coming out.

In my opinion, Waco was mass murder on TV by the government. The above players could not let the fact of an illegal raid by a government agency being stopped by citizens use of defensive firearms stand. To do so would undermine all efforts at gun control, probably result in the abolition of the BATF, and (if the Republicans had had to guts to really investigate it) resulted in Conservative Republican dominance for decades.

The Waco incident was an early indication of the desperate corruption in the Clintoon Administration.

Neverthless, "experts" can be found that will take either side of any technical issue. They don't come right out and say they are selling opinions but . . .

Many people call lawyers liars. Maybe so, but the real liars at trial are usually the "experts" (especially those retained by plaintiffs).

When I was in Mexico I asked some of the locals what they thought of Waco. They told me that it was a government assault on a church and that was that.

Notice how the media hasn't put something together: If you want to use gas, it's best to use it on a calm day so the effects are maximized. But, on a windy day the gas just blows out.

However, if you want to burn a place down, do it on a windy day. It will fan the flames and leave little evidence for the seekers of truth

Here is what I find an undealt with aspect of this.

The MEDIA and the GOVERNMENT at that time, called this WACO.

I believe this was a subtle pyscho-op on the American People.

We might say WAY-KO as the pronunction, but our minds pick up on the WHACKO reading of it.

I believe this may have been intentional, as the truth is that the whole event occurred at Mt. Carmel. The complex the Branch Davidians were in was not in WACO, Texas at all.

The reporters were.

Clintoon? Why hasn't Bush set up a commission? Why has Bush written an executive order to lock up all presidential papers? We will never know the truth now, thanks to Bush.

The real tragedy is that the (non-productive) commissar class in America (which includes the ATF, DEA, INS, CIA, etc.) are increasing in size and scope. The budget in the last two years has spending up 22% under Bush. Why does anyone support what Bush is doing any more than they did Clinton?

"Neverthless, "experts" can be found that will take either side of any technical issue. They don't come right out and say they are selling opinions but . . ."

This is not the first time Ms. Grant has rendered her opinion on the subject. She spoke at an optics conference (in Arizona a year or two ago, if I remember correctly) saying it was gunfire.

Apparently the media wasn't interested in the story since that was the last I heard about this.

Carlos Ghigliotti, who also thought it was gunfire, may have paid for his opinion with his life.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.