.............................................................. >From the New Paradigms Project [Not Necessarily Endorsed]: From: Ian Goddard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Mike McNulty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: McNulty on Waco FLIR Reflections (1) Date: Monday, June 05, 2000 6:43 PM My response to an email from Mike McNulty (producer of Waco: The Rules of Engagement and Waco: A New Revelation) he sent to Waco watcher and friend Paul M. Watson regarding: http://users.erols.com/igoddard/flirloc6.htm : >---------- Forwarded message ---------- >Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2000 11:47:47 EDT >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Re: Waco FLIR Reflections (1) (fwd) > >Dear Paul and all other interested parties,, > The issue of where bodies were when shot, re Mr. Goddards' remarks, >assumes we said certain things in the film that we did not say. We did not >say the bodies were found "in the dinning room" or 'at the back door.' Some >folks watching the film may have drawn that conclusion, but, in fact, the >narrator notes that, "There are at least two men firing into the back of the >dinning room..." and then notes later that "at least 15 people were found >shot to death at this location." In hindsight, it might have been more >prudent to say , "at or near the dinning room," but we didn't. [...] IAN: When the narrator of Waco: A New Revelation (WANR) says "this location" he can be referring to no other location than the only location he stated prior to that, which was the dinning room, where the only rear exit was. To imply that WANR does not say people trying to escape through the dinning-room exit were gunned down defies what everyone understands and isn't true. To get a broader sense for the intended message, let's look to see what McNulty's first video, Waco: The Rules of Engagement (WROE), states about this matter. It says: "Most of the remaining Davidians were concentrated here in the kitchen dinning room area, it was their only way out except for one thing: two men outside were firing machineguns at them." WROE superimposes an arrow over the FLIR pointing at the location that "here" is, and this is it: http://users.erols.com/igoddard/wroeexit.jpg The arrow points exactly at the dinning room: http://users.erols.com/igoddard/dineroom.jpg The Justice Department report does not list at least 15 bodies in the dinning room, as WANR claims. In reality the DoJ report lists zero bodies found in the dinning room. The Treasury Dept report's body-location map shows one body in the dinning room: http://public-action.com/SkyWriter/WacoMuseum/death/map/d_map01.html The largest concentration of bodies was in the concrete room and in front of the concrete room, and both locations would be protected by that room from any shots fired from Location 6. Completely contradicting the story so many of us have been led to believe: there was no concentration of bodies where an alleged "gun" was allegedly "shooting," not according to the official story that was the very cited source for that claim. BTW, flashes from the second "gunman" at that time referred to above by WROE & WANR are flashes at Location 5, which are the flashes most obviously not gunshots. Stay tuned... What I think should be explored is the high concentration of bodies found forward of the bunker, in the exact location that the tank entered many times. See this graphic (flags mark bodies): http://public-action.com/SkyWriter/WacoMuseum/death/fig/d_fig03.jpg And then look at these: http://www.erols.com/igoddard/wacoroom.htm A Challenge To Mike McNulty: Mike continues in his response to my report (his full reply below) by claiming that sophisticated expert analysis proves that the flashes, or "gunshots," as the fire breaks out are retreating away from the burning building. As stills I grabbed from WANR taken from better part of that sequence show, there is NO motion of the flashes away from the building, and this is absolutely true up to the last shot, as anyone with good eyes and a good copy of WANR can see for themselves (the same flash sequence is too distorted in WROE to properly analyze). So here's my challenge to Mike: If the flashes in question do retreat from the building, take some of your sophisticated technology and prove it by posting a frame-by-frame analysis to your website that shows where all the things are in each frame. You've got better equipment that I do for that task and thus you should be able to blow the doors off my claim. Prove me wrong, show us the alleged retreating "gunshots," and don't ask us to shell out another $25 dollars to see it. =================================================================== =================================================================== >---------- Forwarded message ---------- >Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2000 11:47:47 EDT >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Re: Waco FLIR Reflections (1) (fwd) > >Dear Paul and all other interested parties,, > The issue of where bodies were when shot, re Mr. Goddards' remarks, >assumes we said certain things in the film that we did not say. We did not >say the bodies were found "in the dinning room" or 'at the back door.' Some >folks watching the film may have drawn that conclusion, but, in fact, the >narrator notes that, "There are at least two men firing into the back of the >dinning room..." and then notes later that "at least 15 people were found >shot to death at this location." In hindsight, it might have been more >prudent to say , "at or near the dinning room," but we didn't. However, it >should be noted that the location given includes the hall way across the >front of the dinning room. One of the problems with determining who was were >when shot is the fact that no proof is offered that they were shot where they >were found. In addition the government couldn't tell whether the people found >at a given location were actually upstairs and fell to the ground when the >building collapsed or were down stairs when shot during the fire. The >certainty is that most of the folks found shot to death were in the field of >fire from the rear of the building and the two walls, exterior and interior, >that may have been between the shooters and the victims were not sufficient >to stop the rounds being fired from the courtyard. Again, a complete forensic >test would settle the question, and as noted by the narrator, the test done >by the FBI was "rudimentary at best and inconclusive." > In so far as the shooters moving down the side of the building, moving >away from the raging fire, this is observable in the complete FLIR. I think >the problem Mr. Goddard is having stems from the fact that he is not a >photogramatist, and as a result is way off on his basic understanding of the >scale and shapes he is claiming to be certain things, like "flapping plastic >sheets" and he has no knowledge in the area of FLIR technology regarding such >factors as emmisivity vs reflectivity. Based on the review of our experts, we >find Goddard's current "Flapping Plastic" >offering, simply without biases and left flapping in the breeze. As to why we >find it so, this will be revealed during the course of the up coming trial. > While we appreciate Mr. Goddard's persistence in these matters, we had >hoped that he had learned his lesson, (the need for appropriate expertise in >the field of endeavor he chooses to operate in -- re the explosion on the >roof of the bunker episode), from his previous experiences. > Non of us can be 100% right 100% of the time, but we do our best to keep >our error ratio as low as possible and spend the time and money to find the >appropriate experts to test our theories before we present them to the >public. It would be advisable for Goddard to do the same. > > Best Regards, > > Mike McNulty > Researcher/ Producer WANR and >WTROE. ========================================================================= ========================================================================= That's all hype Mike, let's see the empirical evidence. Your experts said reflections of solar infrared radiation can't be seen reflecting off reflective objects, and that's been soundly disproven by the FLIR test and as the Washington Post stated in 1997, by tests conducted by some experts they consulted. As I will continue to show, there are many flashes in the 1993 Waco FLIR that can only be reflections. The Waco FLIR is an example of the fallibility of some experts. What your experts didn't do that Vector Data and the Maryland Advanced Development Laboratory (http://www.urf.com/madl/eo/viper/washpost.html) did was conduct a mathematical comparison of gunshots to the flashes. The examples of gunshots you provided in the clip from Somalia seen in your WANR is sufficient to illustrate the decisive difference between gunshots and the Waco FLIR flashes: gunshots last no more then one frame, but many Waco flashes said to be gunshots last for several frames per flash, sometimes up to four frames, way too long. And that's just the tip of the iceberg re: problems with the flashes. ---------------------------------------------------------------- IAN GODDARD'S JOURNAL: http://www.erols.com/igoddard/journal.htm ________________________________________________________________ Asking the "wrong questions," challenging the Official Story To subscribe send email with "subscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Forwarded for info and discussion from the New Paradigms Discussion List, not necessarily endorsed by: *********************************** Lloyd Miller, Research Director for A-albionic Research a ruling class/conspiracy research resource for the entire political-ideological spectrum. **FREE RARE BOOK SEARCH: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ** Explore Our Archive: <http://a-albionic.com/a-albionic.html> <A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/">www.ctrl.org</A> DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html <A HREF="http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html">Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]</A> http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ <A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/">ctrl</A> ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
