Dave Hartley http://www.Asheville-Computer.com http://www.ioa.com/~davehart -----Original Message----- From: William Gazecki [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, September 10, 1999 4:03 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: "Waco: The Rules of Engagement" documentary or hoax? To Ms. Carol Valentine- I am going to respond to the assertions contained below because I feel that they misrepresent severely the intent and content of WTROE. I Produced, Directed, co-Wrote, Photographed (on videotape) and Edited "WACO: The Rules of Engagement". My name is William Gazecki, and I was the sole filmmaker of the original film. In June of 1995, Mike McNulty was first referred to me by Aaron Russo, a film producer I had worked with in 1979 on a film entitled "The Rose". Michael came to my home studio, (which I designed and built myself- literally one circuit card at a time) introduced himself, and proceeded to play for me a fuzzy black-and-white video which, as he pointed out, showed a tank tearing down the back of the (Davidian) building. This was Michael's copy of the FLIR tape. Up until that time I had spent the previous 4 years producing products mostly in the health field (I still worked part-time then as a(n Emmy Award winning) sound mixer for movies and TV shows, something I had done since 1974). The FLIR video and the subject of Waco all seemed pretty creepy, but it was a potential job. Michael knew NOTHING about media production, and had NO money. But, he knew Dan Gifford and his wife Amy, and they agreed to pay the for the production. The rest is "history" as they say. Except that..... what most people know about WTROE is what has happened to it since it was finished. What virtually no one knows is how it was made. I know how it was made, because I made it, and I made it (essentially) alone. I state this in the context that documentaries are "made" in the editing phase, and many times (as in this situation), the Director and the Editor are the same person. The point is that I personally know the intent of every sound byte and photo contained in WTROE, because I specifically selected each and every one. Michael and I spent about a year, busting our asses I might add, gathering the interview materials. He was the sleuth, I was the filmmaker. Dan and Amy stayed home and waited. In the beginning we had a list of people Michael had put together of all the key players- Davidians, FBI & ATF people, attorneys, and other people like James Tabor and Dick Reavis. Our first day on the job was in Washington, DC, at the first day of the Waco (House) Hearings. We were scheduled to be there for a week or so, and our stated objective to our investors was that we intended to videotape the bulk of our interviews during this Hearing period. On our first day there Michael confidently started tracking down the people on his list. Every single one declined to be interviewed. The FBI guys just laughed us off. The Congressional people had NO TIME for us (we weren't ABC, CNN, NBC, etc.). We ended up coming home with one interview, and that one was with Clive Doyle. Michael was blown away. I explained to him that video was a lot different than print journalism, where you can grab an "interview" standing in line with someone waiting for a cup of coffee. For newspapers, phone conversations often suffice as "interviews". We were both surprised at how wary or disinterested everyone we ran into was. When I told my friends I was working on a piece about Waco, most of them just snickered or shrugged. So, we hit the road. We went back to DC, we went to Waco, we went to Dallas, we went to Boston, we went to Vegas, we went to North Carolina, we went to Austin and San Antonio. Just me and Michael, lugging about 200 pounds of video gear, sleeping (and usually shooting) in small motels, wringing out every interview appearance one at a time. The only FBI guy we ever got was Farris Rookstool, and he had quit the FBI over his bad feelings about Waco. All the tapes came home with me to my studio in LA, and Michael went home to Colorado to wait for the film to magically appear when I was done making it. By the time I started editing, I had almost 300 hours of raw footage, much of it (app. 150 hours) from the same Congressional Hearings we started out at. Since the FBI wouldn't appear in fornt of our cameras, I figured the next best thing was their testimony before the committee. So, I planned to use that footage for the FBI's on-camera sections of the film. It tool A LOT of work to carefully sit through viewing all those hours of Hearings, looking for the snippets that would demonstrate the FBI and ATF collusion. Originally, by the way, we weren't even making a "film". The Giffords hired Michael and I to make a 1-hour TV show. It was my idea to do it as a feature-length film. The story was too big for one hour. We had too much information, and understanding the details was essential. Second, a TV show would be subject to the same spin control that other journalism products are subject to. I was afraid we would be publicly discredited before we even got onto the air, our of sheer political greed. I had seen for myself (for the first time in my life) what washington, DC "spin" was like, at the Hearings. I could just see us finishing a 1-hour show and it never getting on the air for one reason or another. I had been around the movie business for years, and I knew from experience that it had a lot more leeway for "artistic freedom" and the like. It's just a less politcally controlled and more entrepenurial business. The Giffords went for the idea (Michael LOVED it), and on we went. The finished product took me about 9 months to edit. I would edit alone, from about 11 in the morning until about 4 the next morning, 7 days a week. Michael and I would talk every day on the phone, he reminding me ad-infinitum about every last detail that just "had to be in the finished version". We submitted a 3-1/2 hour rough-cut version to the Sundance Film Festival, and were absolutely FLOORED when they accepted it. The final version that screened at Sundance (my "Director's cut"), was a little over 3 hours long. It was received very well. Dan knew that theaters would balk at such a long film, so he cut it down to about 2 hours after Sundance (I had gone on to another project by then). From then on, the REST is history. Below are my responses to your commentaries, Ms. Valentine: > Waco "Documentary" Is A Hoax! "Hoax" is, first of all, very strong language. And, it implies deceit, is overtly dramatic, and unduly entices the reader. > by Carol A. Valentine > Curator, Waco Holocaust Electronic Museum > http://www.Public-Action.com/SkyWriter/WacoMuseum > With few exceptions, both the establishment and "patriot" press is raving "raving".... hmm. Is there a problem with people being enthusiastic? > about "Waco: The Rules of Engagement." It has been nominated for an > Academy Award and an Emmy. Doesn't that make you just a little suspicious? Why in the world would being nominated for an Academy Award make anyone suspicious? Unless of course perhaps one was paranoid to begin with, not to mention knowing absolutely absolutely NOTHING about how Academy Award nominations are made. The process is immaculately administered, and the Academy members who serve as judges are older, highly experienced film professionals who would definitely NOT appreciate having their integrity questioned. > > > If so, your suspicions are well founded. "Waco: The Rules of Engagement," > the much ballyhooed "documentary" on Waco, is a hoax. "ballyhooed" eh? Aren't we being just a BIT goading here? > > > WTROE is an effort to misdirect protest over Waco while pretending to be a > protest piece. This entire statement is nothing more than a projection based on an assumption. First of all, WTROE is not a "protest peice" . It's a movie, dumbbell. Actually (all "kidding" aside) it's a documentary film intended to accurately tell a story. The concept of "misdirecting protest" is your own fantasy. > WTROE hides the most damaging truths and directs attention > to false issues. Thus it neutralizes the outrage that would be felt if the > true facts were known. I acknowledge your ability to doublespeak. We'll get into statements like "hiding truths" later below. "Hiding truths" implies intentional deception. Uh uh uuuh... naughty, naughty. I am the one who knows why every cut was made and why every sound byte is there, remember? You insult not some nameless production company or hidden conspiracy, but a competent craftsman who is proud of his diligence and integrity. > It forwards murder charges based on weak evidence; > I don't believe the word "murder" appears in the entire film. I think the > evidence presented that asserts gunfire directed into the back of the burning > building in the area where Branch davidians were attempting to escape from is > not only not "weak" evidence, but it is accurate, detailed and scientific > DATA. Films don't present "evidence", by the way, they communicate > information. > once the charges are discredited, the public will be inoculated against > considering real evidence that the Davidians were murdered. Once again I acknowledge your dramatic use of language. "inoculated" has such a meaningful ring to it, don't you think? > And it chills > sympathy for the Davidians as victims. > > Space limitations in this article prohibit a full review--but a copy of the > script of WTROE and a more complete review can be found at: > > http://www.Public-Action.com/SkyWriter/WacoMuseum/burial/doc/wtroe.html > > In a nutshell: > > 1. WTROE makes its gravest charge against the FBI--that adult Davidians were > machine-gunned as they ran from the burning Mt. Carmel Center on April 19, > 1993--on a single piece of contested evidence. That evidence is > Forward-Looking Infra Red (FLIR) film taken by government forces on April > 19, 1993. I agree with this statement. > > > 2. WTROE does not question the veracity of this evidence, even though the > source is the FBI, the very agency WTROE is accusing of murder. Your childish insecure paranoia is showing. Even the FBI didn't realize what the FLIR showed. They don't use FLIR technology regularly. FLIR is 99% the purview of the military. As I understand it, the only reason this FLIR exists is because a British crew were there (why THEY were there I do not know), and provided this kind of surveillance to the FBI. The FBI in turn (not understanding just what a FLIR COULD show) were sloppy enough to hand it over to the Davidians' defense attorneys as part of the discovery process in the Davidian criminal trial. Even Michael and I were unaware of the gunfire shown in the FLIR until WAY LATE in producing WTROE. It wasn't until we met Ed Allard, and HE pointed out that the flashes seen COULD NOT BE ANYTHING BUT GUNFIRE. The FLIR technology was developed to be reliable enough to protect men in combat. IT IS "rocket science". > 3. WTROE argues that the Davidian mothers and children were not deliberately > murdered and that their deaths were the unintended result of the CS attack > and fire. I don't believe the film "argues" anything. Your statement here is an interpretation, based on an assumption that inferences such as "unintended result" are accurate. I think what WTROE explains is that the use of CS has complications. It is highly flammable, and when it burns it creates hydrogen cyanide. I do not know whether the FBI tactical people knew this or not, but I'll bet some did. If that is so, the deaths of the mothers and their children would not have been "unintended". The point is that I don't know whether the by-products of CS were "intended" to have the ultimate effect they had, or not. What I DO KNOW is that the by-products of CS DID KILL PEOPLE. > > > 4. WTROE ignores a wealth of convincing evidence from a number of sources > which confirms the charge that the Davidian mothers and children were > deliberately murdered. Nice charge- what are your facts? And BY THE WAY, we didn't "ignore" anything. There was plenty of stuff left on the proverbial "editing room floor", but I tried my damnest to include every credible piece of information that made sense. You're such a hotshot, go make your own movie. > > > 5. WTROE fabricates a "they died of cyanide poisoning" story to explain the > deaths of the children. I do not believe this is a "fabrication". The cyanide levels in some of these kids was way beyond lethal. That is a fact. Concluding they died from cyanide poisoning is logical and factually based. > > > 6. WTROE makes blatantly false statements about the Davidian Autopsy Reports > and "official" causes of death. There are no "official causes of death". There are "actual causes of death" stated in "official documents". The point is that someone like Jimmy Riddle did not die by smoke inhalation. Not when half his body was mauled by a tank tread. > > > 7. WTROE dilutes outrage over Waco by showcasing the most repulsive > accusation against the Davidians. Now who would want to "dilute outrage"? I guess I must have diluted your outrage. I did not, by the way, "showcase" anything. I presented information as accurately and fairly as I knew how. The Davidians were who they were. What I did try to do was stay away from moralizing about them, and show some of their history, which I felt was largely unknown. Any accusations shown in the film are not made by "the film", they are made by those individuals who made them originally. You wouldn't want me to leave out all that REAL stuff, now would you? Or does something like REALITY scare you? > > > 8. WTROE dilutes outrage over Waco by suggesting the atrocity was, in part, > a product of the Davidians' belief system. I blatantly reject this statement. The film DOES NOT "suggest" that their deaths were the product of their belief system. It may appear that way to your warped sensibilities, but that is a reflection of you, not the film. > > > 9. WTROE reasserts the obviously false accounts of April 19 events, as told > by some Davidian "survivors"-- What else do you call someone who crawls out of a burning building with his clothes on fire, other than a "survivor"? > that the majority of Davidians were alive > during the CS attack and fire and died as a result of those events. The > message is "They were alive on April 19, they really were . . . " (Except > for those who got mowed down by FBI machine gun fire, see 1 and 2, above). > 10. WTROE protects the US military by casting Waco as a "law enforcement" > event. This, despite overwhelming and obvious evidence that that it was a > military operation from the beginning to the end. Again you jump to conclusions. What you call "overwhelming and obvious evidence" I would seriously take issue with. We did not "cast" Waco as a law enforcement event (although I must say, after all, it WAS the FBI running the damn thing). We were aware that the military MIGHT have been involved, but I refused to include that in WTROE precisely because we HAD NO EVIDENCE. McNulty's NEW film has that. At the time I would only include information that had accompanying pictures to verify the factual assertions. I accepted at the time Michael's feeling of certainty that it was most likely a military operation. As I recall Dan agreed that the concept made sense also. But we were all in agreement that we just did not have enough verifiable material to make such an assertion. NOW, Michael's got the goods, and they are in his new film. Do you feel better now? > > > In the space permitted, let's have a look at the WTROE presentation > concerning the deaths of the mothers and children. Remember, the deaths of > the mothers and children is the most politically explosive issue of the > entire incident. It is in the government's interest to direct attention > away from the real and voluminous evidence they were murdered with malice > aforethought, and lead people to believe they died as a result of government > negligence. > > Lies Concerning Autopsy Reports and Causes of Death > > Firstly, WTROE tells us a lie concerning the causes of deaths as given in > the Autopsy Reports. Mike McNulty, WTROE director of research, co-producer, > and narrator, tells us: Michael was NOT the narrator. Dan was. > "The actual cause of each Davidian's death remains > officially unknown because the FBI interfered with the coroner's > investigation" (Script, pg. 39, available in the URL cited above). Well, they did. > > > Not so. The "official" cause of each Davidian's death is given in the > Autopsy Report and Death Certificate. You can examine many of the Autopsy > Reports and "official" causes of death yourself at There is no such thing as an "official" cause of death! There are "actual" causes in "official" documents! This is all such bullshit. Your focusing a telescope on a grain of sand for God's sake! The point is that the causes of death were obfuscated BY THE GOVERNMENT for reasons that shall remain OBVIOUS. Wouldn't YOU tamper with autopsies if YOU had killed someone? (not to mention 80 people) > > > http://www.Public-Action.com/SkyWriter/WacoMuseum/death/map/-d_list00.html > > On July 2, 1997, this writer called the office of the Justice of the Peace, > Precinct 2, McLennan County, Texas (where Mt. Carmel was situated). > According to the Judge's assistant, Belinda, no changes have been made since > the autopsies were done and the death certificates signed in 1993. On the > same date, a similar call to the Records Custodian at the Office of the > Chief Medical Examiner in Tarrant County, Texas, confirmed what Judge > Collier's office had reported. > > Certainly a known incompetent, Dr. Nizam Peerwani, Chief Medical Examiner of > Tarrant County, was chosen to perform the autopsies. Certainly the manner > in which those autopsies were conducted violated many professional and > scientific standards. Bravo! Peerwani is a slimebag. > Certainly many of the "official" causes of death are > not correct. But despite what WTROE says, each of the autopsies contains an > officially assigned cause of death. They were assigned in 1993, and remain > "official" today. One of the problems is many of the autopsies and forensic pathological reports ("official" information. mind you), contain information that contradicts the coroners "actual cause of death" conclusion/statement. A young child with 10 times the lethal level of cyanide in their blood may NOT have died from "smoke inhalation". Capiche? > > > Unfounded Claims of Cyanide Poisoning Deaths > > As already pointed out, the most politically explosive issue in Waco is the > circumstances surrounding the deaths of the mothers and children. If people > could be convinced, one more time, that those deaths were the result of > negligence rather than planned murder, the government cover-up would be > safe. The resolving of a distinction between "negligence" and "planned murder" is entirely moot. Especially when you're talking about the FBI. Do you think they cared a "tinker's damn" whether the Davidians died from intended or unintended actions? As long as they were all dead, that's all that mattered. > > > Let's examine WTROE's position on this question of negligence or murder. > What evidence does it cite for the negligence position? What evidence does > it cite for the murder position? I think you're phobic. It was BOTH MURDER AND NEGLIGENCE. WTROE does not take either "position". It presents enough factual information so that even YOU can see there was both negligence and outright murder. > > > Showing us a picture of a child's body, WTROE narrator McNulty tells us: > "Besides gun shot wounds, the majority of bodies had high levels of hydrogen > cyanide--the deadly poison produced when CS burns. The backward bowed corpse > of this eight year old girl shows what cyanide does to the human body. It > makes muscles contract so violently that they can actually break bones." > (Script, pg. 39). This is a fact. > > > This quote, and other material in the film, advances the argument that the > deaths were the result of negligence. Oh contrare. The only "argument" WTROE "advances" in this instance is your own fantasy about what "argument" is being "advanced". The concept WTROE advances is that those idiots at the FBI were arrogant enough to do what they did. Had we had the information that has been recovered since WTROE's completion, we would have included Delta Force, not to mention the President of the United States, the Attorney General, and a few dozen other law enforcement professionals who are now in permanent early retirement. > Let's examine the chain of reasoning > closely: (1) The government wanted the Davidians to come out of the > Mt.Carmel Center, so (2) they sprayed CS on April 19. After the CS was > sprayed (3) a fire broke out, and (4) the fire heated the CS, which caused > (5) the CS to produced cyanide gas, which in turn, was inhaled by the > Davidians, and (6) many, including the child in the photo, died of cyanide > poisoning. > > What evidence does WTROE present to support this negligence argument? The > answer is: Shaky evidence. I don't think forensic pathology reports are "shaky evidence" (the very same reports you refer to above, by the way). > > > Bodies commonly contain hydrogen cyanide residue after a fire, a fact that > WTROE ignores. We did not "ignore" that. We researched that and found that the normal levels of cyanide from a normal house fire are far BELOW the levels found at Waco. So there! > Forensic pathologist Dr. Michael Baden is a former chief > medical examiner in New York City. In his book "Unnatural Death -- > Confessions of a Medical Examiner" (Random House, 1989), he cites a not > atypical case when cyanide was introduced into lungs and blood of airplane > crash victims from burning plastics in the plane (pg. 39). So cyanide can > easily be released in a fire in ordinary circumstances, without the presence > of CS. Airplane crashes are very different from residential dwellings. The amount of plastics and other synthetic flammables present in an aircraft will drive the cyanide content up, but STILL not as high as the Waco bodies. > The bodies of the Davidian mothers and children were found in a windowless > concrete room. The only ventilation came through a door opening (the door > had been removed years before). Arguably, the atmosphere in this room would > have been relatively uniform. Yet research director McNulty fails to tell > us that while some of the children's bodies contained cyanide, some had no > traces of cyanide at all. We suspected some of the bodies may have been moved, but had no proof. Also, the degree to which each child may have been protected with wet towels, blankets, etc., may have been a factor. We also do not know how long each child may have been in the room, nor do we know how to correlate that information with the timing of the insertions into the building. This is what is called "not knowing something". Have you ever experienced that yourself? > > > This evidence -- which undermines the cyanide poisoning claim -- is neither > mentioned nor explained. The only "undermining" here is your attitude. > > > Now let's examine this part of the "cyanide death" photo and the quote, > above: "The backward bowed corpse of this eight year old girl shows what > cyanide does to the human body. It makes muscles contract so violently that > they can actually break bones." This gives us the impression that > CS-produced hydrogen cyanide killed the specific child shown in the > photograph. > > Yet according to the autopsy reports, neither this child nor any other > Davidian died of cyanide poisoning. WRONG. BZZT! Again (and let me spell it out for you real clear)- the STATED causes of death, in the "OFFICIAL" documents, does not, repeat DOES NOT always account for all of the forensic pathological data in each case. There were people with gunshot wounds whose cause of death was listed as "smoke inhalation". > > > Even so, what can we expect from a cyanide death? Dr. Baden in "Unnatural > Death," talks about the symptoms of cyanide poisoning. In describing one > murderer's account of killing with cyanide, he quotes the murderer: > > "It's quiet, it's not messy, it's not noisy . . . there's even a spray mist > around . . . you spray it in somebody's face and they go to sleep . . . " > said the murderer. Baden tells how the murderer (a professional hit man) > described a test murder he had committed on the street. > The murderer simply walked along in a crowd with a handkerchief over his > nose and sprayed the victim in the face. Did the man go into violent > convulsions? No. "The man collapsed and died, and everyone thought he'd > had a heart attack," says Baden (pg. 128.) Hardly the effect described by > WTROE. I think a better analogy on cyanide would be a gas chamber in a prison setting. They tie the prisoner down to prevent him/her from convulsing out of the chair. That IS in the film (it was in my Director's cut at least). > > > On the other hand, Baden says strychnine produces convulsive deaths. "The > body does out of control and into convulsions, arching backward, and the > muscles of the face contort into the unmistakable risus sardonicus--sardonic > grin. The convulsions prevent breathing." This is interesting. Your "up" on the autopsy reports. Was there any strychnine reported? If so, YOU get the booby prize! > > > So despite what WTROE says, bodies burned in fires commonly contain cyanide; > a number of bodies found in the concrete room contained no cyanide; the > "backward bowing" of the child's body could have been caused by an agent > such as strychnine, or some other cause; not one autopsy report gives as a > cause of death "cyanide poisoning." yeah yeah yeah > > > Thus WTROE argues that negligence caused the death of the Davidians on > virtually no evidence at all. Oh Puhleaze. > > > Missing Heads and Other Problems > > While advancing the government-friendly line that the mothers and children's > deaths were the result of negligence, WTROE ignores voluminous evidence from > official sources that the mothers and children were murdered--deliberately, > with malice aforethought, and that the crime was hidden. You keep repeating that WTROE asserts negligence. I do not believe that the word "negligence" appears in the entire film. Que paso seniorita? As far as the "voluminous evidence from official sources"- what does that mean exactly? Again, why don't you just state your evidence and join the party? It's like you're trying to say, "well, one person was killed by a knife, and one was killed by a gun, but the gun was more important". > > > WTROE does this by ignoring the remarkable condition of the bodies found in > the concrete room. > > According the Autopsy Reports, the people found in the room died variously > of smoke inhalation, gunshot wounds, suffocation, blunt force trauma and > burning. But what of the conditions of the bodies? > > Some were charred beyond recognition or slightly charred. In individual > cases, one part of a body may be completely burned away, while the remainder > of the body scarcely burned. Some bodies were severely decomposed, some > only moderately; some dismembered and badly mutilated, while others were > whole. There were parents laying on top of their children, trying to protect them. Anyone lying underneath someone else would be less affected by the fire, and thus less charred, etc. > Joseph Martinez (Mt. Carmel Doe 52) and Crystal Martinez (Mt. Carmel Doe 57) > are recognizable as human forms. But many of the bodies in the concrete > room/pantry appear to have been torn apart, as in the case of Melissa > Morrison (Mt. Carmel Doe 74). Only Melissa's lower legs were found. > > While the bodies of Joseph and Crystal Martinez suffered little charring, > the remains of Katherine Andrade (Mt. Carmel Doe 30) and John McBean (Mt. > Carmel Doe 32) were virtually incinerated. > > Some corpses were so decomposed that the connective tissue between the bones > had disintegrated, causing the bodies to fall apart (the process is called > "disarticulation.") From a review of professional literature, we will see > that this degree of decomposition is usually effected over a long period of > time. Other corpses were so decomposed that the internal organs were > unrecognizable, had turned to mush, or were liquefied. > > Other corpses suffered only moderate decomposition. Remarkably, bodies of > the five Davidians who died on February 28 and were buried in graves were > far less decomposed that some of those who allegedly died on April 19. > > In one case, the body parts of eleven (11) people were reformed into an > agglutinated mass, as if compacted in a press. The deceased, found > compacted like this, were said to have died variously of smoke inhalation, > suffocation, and gunshot wound. It is obvious that these people died in > different environments, and their remains gathered after death and pressed > together. There were very likely bodies moved. That is why Peerwani's photographer had his videotape absconded.(That's in film, by gosh) He was shooting the location at a very early stage after the fire, and it probably would have shown a discerning eye enough to see that the situation was being tampered with. Also, it is important to remember that in certain instances, like in the concrete room, that the bodies would have been more "cooked" than burnt to a crisp. This made moving them problematic, as I understand it. Just picture a well-roasted chicken fresh out of the oven(where the meat just falls off the bone)- that is what the coroners had to handle, except that they were human beings instead of chickens. > > > John McBean's body was found in the concrete room. The head, both arms, and > both legs, appear to have been mechanically amputated. The stumps are > abrupt, and inconsistent with the graduated amputations caused by the > ambient heat of fire. How does "cyanide poisoning" explain those > mutilations? > > In his courtroom testimony during the 1994 trial of the Branch Davidians, > Dr. Peerwani, who performed the autopsies, said that many died when the > concrete room "collapsed." But when a body is crushed by the simple force of > a weight falling from a few feet, perhaps the height of a ceiling, the body > parts tend to remain together, even if physically severed by the force. They > retain something of the original spatial relationship to each other, as we > can see in many fossils. The bodies in this concrete room, however, do not > follow that rule. Many of those said to have been killed by falling debris > were found without heads. I do not know about the heads. Never got that much detail. Michael has now viewed the "official" videotapes of this part of the aftermath, and I am certain could lend more detail now about this specific aspect. However, I will say that while we were aware of the relative certaintly that a high explosive device was detonated on the roof of the concrete room sometime during the fire (remember that big fireball/explosion?), we did not address this particular event in WTROE because we could not verify it as well as we could the FLIR, and we had major time problems (at over 3 hours, some things just had to go). Find Gordon Novell or Ramsey Clark and they'll tell you all about that explosion. > > > How does an unfounded claim of "cyanide poisoning" explain any of this? It > doesn't, of course. That's why WTROE ignores the evidence. This is starting to sound like a broken record. A) cyanide poisoning is not an "unfounded claim"; and B) WTROE does not "ignore evidence". Do you write romance novels on the side? > > > WTROE took the trouble of interviewing Dr. Peerwani, but asked him no > questions about some of these remarkable facts--even though these facts were > memorialized in Dr. Peerwani's own autopsy reports. Dr. Peerwani kicked us out of his office in the middle of his interview. Just so you know. > > > The very real evidence ignored by WTROE suggests that the mothers and > children did not all die on April 19 as they tried to get away from the CS, > but that they died elsewhere under different conditions. The evidence > suggests that the bodies were moved and mutilated after death, and a cover > story invented. I have heard, and perhaps I read it on your website at some point, about a fantasy theory that says the CIA went in weeks before the 19th and killed a bunch of Davidians, and that some of the survivors collaborated with this series of events, and are thus now part of a coverup to hide the fact that they cooperated with the CIA in murdering their fellow churchmembers. Is that perhaps what you are alluding to here? Ms.Valentine, I must say that in my opinion you are an absolute nitwit. I "get" that you are concerned about what really happened at Waco. I get that real strong and real clear. But boy you are way off track in certain regards. And your use of language I just must comment on. You use more repetetive, slanderous, accusational verbiage than even the most ardent NSA-born Orwellian propagandist. If you had ANY IDEA what it took to make that film, and I mean A N Y I D E A A T A L L, you would, I am certain, be embarrassed at your own hyperbole. WTROE is a miracle. It was a miracle I met Michael at all, it was a miracle the Gifford's financed it (and by the way, unfortunately for me, I do not make a DIME on the sale of it- I got paid by the hour); it was a miracle we got into Sundance; it was a real miracle I finished IN TIME for Sundance; it was an absolute miracle we were nominated for an Academy Award; and it is a supreme miracle that we won, almost 3 years after it's completion as a theatrical documentary film, an Emmy Award for it's appearance on television. Tell me Ms.Valentine, just tell me you have FAITH in something. Because if you do, if you have real faith in some kind of GOD, you might, you just MIGHT have the capacity to understand what I am saying here. What has happened with WTROE is a fucking miracle, and if you are too stupid to accept that, then I am sorry for you, ma'am. Very Sincerely, William Gazecki Producer/Director/Writer/Editor WACO: The Rules of Engagement > > > There are many other reasons to believe WTROE is a hoax. Visit the Burial > Gallery of the Waco Holocaust Electronic Museum. Study the script, and a > more comprehensive review. Then make up your own mind. > > http://www.Public-Action.com/SkyWriter/WacoMuseum/burial/doc/wtroe.html > > === -- "Many questions are unanswerable. Many answers are questionable."
begin: vcard fn: William Gazecki n: Gazecki;William org: UltraVision adr: 1739 Berkeley St.;;Suite 110A;Santa Monica;CA;90404;USA email;internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED] tel;work: 310.586.1800 tel;fax: 310.586.1880 tel;home: 310.572.7816 x-mozilla-cpt: ;0 x-mozilla-html: TRUE version: 2.1 end: vcard