Memory of Waco growing dimmer

Amazing that it has been ten years already.

We Salute Free Republic's Donors! Be one!

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!

Waco? What Waco? Waco should have been a major issue in the last presidential election. There has been no accountability. It will happen again.

Ugh, yet again another bozo who insists on titling his piece with the closest city with enough hotels to house the mob of journalists. People, the incident occurred at MOUNT CARMEL not Waco!

My blood still boils of the memory of the tanks, helicopters and snipers "defending" against a stationary building. Who attack whom?

Hmmm, yeah, here's a point on which my memory has faded. Aside from being whackos, exactly what laws did all those people break? Were they illegal immigrants like that Elian guy from Cuba?

Amazing that it has been ten years already.

What's really amazing is the level of anger I still feel about this disgusting display of Federal thuggery and murder that NOBODY has been held accountable at all.

There are still dupes that believe the government story.

>There are still dupes that believe the government story.

The Waco massacre is proving to be one of those defining moments in modern America. How people react to the mind-bogglingly barbaric ATF-FBI fiasco in Texas sets the remaining eagles apart from the growing herd of sheep in the United States. You can tell the quality of a person by whether he sputters over the incident or jumps through logical hoops to defend the conduct of "the authorities."

Yes, what he said.

People, the incident occurred at MOUNT CARMEL not Waco!

Too late. Its "Waco" forever in the vernacular. Same as "Ruby Ridge". There never was an exact location called "Ruby Ridge" but the media made it up. Now that dark day when FBI agents decided to take out a mother cradling her infant, her little boy and his dog, is simply known as "Ruby Ridge".

Ruby Ridge--another fine day in history for our FBI (sarcasm off).

The FLIR Project documents John Danforth's coverup of the murder of Branch Davidians as they attempted to escape the flames.

I have been to Mount Carmel several times. I have helped build the new church there. I can tell you this...

"There is no spot of ground so holy as where defeated valor lay."

Another decade of clearly unConstitutional laws infringing the right to keep and bear arms.

(from the article): rapidly is being forgotten

I've not forgotten. I consider Waco one of the darkest days in American History.

We must remember Waco, and Ruby Ridge, as an example of how easy it is for the government, any government, to turn on its people.

Memory of Waco growing dimmer

Yes, just like the Alamo, Pearl Harbor, and the WTC.

John Danforth's coverup

Surely you gest ... most work attepmting to 'spin' it any other way is seriously flawed by the film-making hucksters who seek fame at the cost of others ...

A review of McNutty's 'Flir' piece by these guys:

http://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

You have been proven wrong so many times you aren't even worth the trouble. Bottom line is, Bill Clinton, rather than going after terrorists like he should have been, focused on his political enemies, or in many cases the political enemies of his cocaine laden paranoid mind. As far as I am concerned he compromised national security with his deliberate negligence, aiding and abetting terrorism in the process. Anyone who supports all these bogus versions of events does the same.

The Branch Davidians were killed by their leaders. Eavesdropping federal agents recorded the leadership issuing orders to start the fire.

Hear you heard the tape? Ever consider that is propaganda?

I've seen the films.

I rather believe my own eyes than what uncle sammie tells me, especially about this mess and the particular scum balls who were involved. Reno, Clinton(s), Freeh.

You actually believe Louis Freeh?/////////// Heh. O.K. with me