-Caveat Lector- <A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/"> </A> -Cui Bono?- Government refused to test for gunfire at Waco, officials say Scientist reported in '96 that FBI camera could discern whether guns caused flashes 02/14/2000 By Lee Hancock / The Dallas Morning News A military scientist told Justice Department lawyers in 1996 that the FBI's infrared camera was capable of recording gunshots at Waco. But the government never pursued his proposal for tests to determine whether gunfire caused repeated flashes recorded at the end of the Branch Davidian siege, officials said. The scientist, a U.S. Air Force research physicist, was recently questioned by U.S. Senate and House committees and the Waco special counsel's office re-examining the government's handling of the deadly 1993 standoff, said federal officials familiar with his interviews. Justice officials declined to discuss the matter. The scientist recounted how his "back of the envelope" mathematical modeling and lab studies found a small but significant statistical probability that flashes on the FBI's infrared videotape came from gunfire, said the officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity. The scientist recalled that Justice lawyers did not contact him after he told them that he could not rule out gunfire and recommended field tests to help resolve the issue, the officials said. The scientist declined to be interviewed. Defense Department officials asked that investigators keep his name confidential because of his ongoing work on sensitive military projects. Justice officials tried last fall - three years after the scientist made his recommendations - to discredit and derail proposals for a public field test. Despite those efforts, the Waco federal judge overseeing a wrongful-death lawsuit arising from the 1993 tragedy ordered a court-supervised field test. It will be conducted next month at Fort Hood, and all sides in the case will gather with experts Wednesday to finalize protocols. The spokesman for the House committee re-examining the standoff said the Justice Department's handling of the Air Force scientist's recommendations and the recent field test proposals are the latest examples of what appears to be a long effort to avoid full disclosure of government actions in Waco. "This goes back to 1996. That's three years after the tragedy at Waco," committee spokesman Mark Corallo said. "So here we are, three years after the fact, with still unanswered questions, and the Justice Department somehow decided not to get the answers." "The perception is that they don't want to get to the bottom of this. Whatever their reasons are, the message that it sends to the public is one of cover-up and obfuscation," said Mr. Corallo, whose committee held extensive 1995 Waco hearings and began a new inquiry last fall. "Why not just do everything they can to answer the questions and put this case to rest?" Work 'privileged' Justice Department spokesman Myron Marlin said he could not talk about the scientist's work because "the expert to whom you are referring is a consultant. His work is therefore privileged." Under court rules that protect attorneys' work, government lawyers do not have to divulge information about the Air Force scientist's work unless they plan to call him as a witness. The scientist's study surfaced last month when Pentagon officials brought it to the attention of congressional investigators and Waco special counsel John Danforth. The scientist was questioned at Mr. Danforth's St. Louis office and interviewed in Washington. Officials familiar with his account said he told investigators that he was working at the National Air Intelligence Center in late 1996 when he was contacted by Justice Department lawyers. The center, part of Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Dayton, Ohio, evaluates foreign military technology. The FBI has refused to release the make or model of the infrared camera deployed on its "Nightstalker" airplane in Waco, but outside experts and British Defense Ministry officials have identified it as a British-made GEC-Marconi. The Justice lawyers told the Air Force scientist in late 1996 that they needed help in evaluating repeated, rhythmic flashes on a videotape recorded by an airborne FBI infrared camera April 19, 1993, the last day of the Branch Davidian siege. Opinion came in 1996 A retired defense expert had given the sect's lawyers a written opinion in March 1996 that the flashes could have come only from government gunfire. That declaration was filed in September 1996 in the Branch Davidians' wrongful-death lawsuit. Many of the flashes on the video that the plaintiff's expert called gunfire appeared around government tanks that were bashing into the sect's building and spraying in tear gas. Others appeared to come from compound windows, toward the tanks. FBI agents began the assault just after dawn April 19 to end the 51-day standoff. Less than an hour after the flashes began appearing, the compound burned with more than 80 Branch Davidians inside. The Branch Davidians' lawyers allege that the flashes came from government gunfire that kept women and children from escaping the fire. FBI officials have always said that their agents never fired a shot. They contend that the government was not responsible for the standoff's deadly end because government arson investigators ruled that the sect deliberately set the fire. The scientist told interviewers that Justice lawyers never showed him the April 19 video. But they gave him detailed data on the camera that recorded it and the altitude of the airplane that carried it over the compound. Details of experiment Officials said the scientist recalled being asked a theoretical question: Could that camera, which creates video images by measuring minute temperature differences, capture heat bursts from gunfire on the ground at Waco? The scientist told officials that he began with a mathematical study and concluded that the camera could detect and record muzzle flashes at Waco. He then moved to a laboratory, using a similar camera to record test shots from a 9 mm pistol, an M-16 assault rifle and an M-60 machine gun. He monitored each shot with lab equipment, measuring the size, intensity and duration of each muzzle blast, officials said. With that lab data, he extrapolated that the FBI couldn't see the pistol fire. But he concluded that flashes from the other guns were big, bright and long enough for at least some of their shots to be detected by the FBI camera. He offered the opinion shared by independent infrared experts that the camera's capabilities would allow detection of only a fraction of any series of shots fired. Some experts with extensive experience in infrared analysis have said they would expect about 50 of any 100 shots to be detected and recorded by the type of camera used in Waco. The Air Force scientist, who had not previously done infrared such as the M-16 or the M-60. Field test proposed Some FBI agents in the April 19 operation carried CAR-15 assault rifles, short-barreled versions of the M-16. That could prove important, some experts said, because the muzzle flash of a CAR-15 extends almost a foot from its barrel, while the M-16 flash extends a few inches. "If an M-16 could show up, then a CAR-15 would be even more likely to be detected. The blast from a CAR-15 looks like a blowtorch," one expert said. The Air Force scientist told the Justice lawyers that he could not rule out the possibility that gunfire caused at least some of the flashes on the Waco infrared tape, officials familiar with his account said. He proposed a field test as the next logical step. But Justice never responded. "He said that he had offered a test protocol. They neglected it and ignored him," said one official who questioned the scientist. In the spring of 1997, Justice and FBI officials hired a Maryland research laboratory as infrared experts for the Branch Davidian case after the lab issued public statements and a short study attempting to debunk the flashes-as-gunfire theory. The Maryland lab used computer modeling developed for a ground-based sniper detection system to conclude that the FBI camera was too far away and that the flashes on the Waco video lasted too long to be from gunshots. Analysis questioned Officials with the lab did not return phone calls last week, but its director said last fall that the conclusions of a more detailed confidential study for the government mirrored the earlier assessment. Independent experts have questioned that analysis. They have estimated that the April 19 video was recorded from an altitude of about 5,000 feet, within range to detect gun blasts from CAR-15s, from .50-caliber sniper rifles owned by the Branch Davidians and from other types of high-powered weapons. Some have also questioned whether the Maryland lab had the expertise to analyze the Waco video because its earlier work was in different infrared technology, and their detection system was not pursued by U.S. military officials after the lab built prototypes in the mid-1990s. The Waco case drew renewed national attention last fall after The Dallas Morning News reported that the FBI had misled the public, Congress and Attorney General Janet Reno about the type of tear gas used in its final assault. Although Ms. Reno had banned the use of anything capable of sparking fires that day, a retired FBI official acknowledged canisters April 19. That prompted the appointment of Mr. Danforth as special counsel to investigate the Waco incident. He identified the question of government gunfire as a major focus of his inquiry. In October, the sect's lawyers challenged the government to a public field test to settle the issue. They proposed that cameras similar to the FBI device be flown above a firing range to record test shots from weapons similar to those carried by both sides in the Waco siege. Those recordings would with the April 19 tape. Justice fights back Government lawyers responded with letters ridiculing the idea. They said that any test would be flawed without data on the FBI's camera and how it operated in Waco, information that Justice lawyers said was classified and would not be released. But in November, the special counsel asked the Waco federal court to order and supervise tests. The stated reason was simple: While Justice Department lawyers dismissed the Branch Davidians' proposal, FBI officials had offered a private, "accurate" field re-enactment for the special counsel. Even after Judge Walter Smith ordered a test, Justice lawyers filed a pleading in late November arguing that any field test would be unreliable and inadmissible in court. They said the FBI camera was one of a kind and had been significantly upgraded since 1993, making an accurate test impossible. They added that it would also be impossible to replicate environmental conditions of April 19. Justice lawyers instead proposed theoretical studies to explore what gunfire might look like and whether it would show up at all - the same kind of analysis that federal officials said the Air Force physicist had conducted in 1996 before proposing a field test. Help from overseas In late December, the Waco special counsel's office filed a court pleading stating that it had learned from the maker of the FBI camera that it was a relatively common device still used by foreign military forces. That filing stated that the government had dropped its opposition and accepted a British infrared expert chosen by the special counsel as court-appointed supervisor for a field test. In January, British government officials said, the special counsel asked to borrow a Royal Navy Sea Owl infrared system mounted on a Lynx helicopter for the court-ordered field test. Experts say the camera is identical to the FBI's 1993 device. With plans for the test being finalized, some FBI officials say the bureau faces a no-win situation with the field test, and they believe the flashes on the Waco tape may never be explained. FBI infrared camera operators conceded in recent depositions that they have never seen anything quite like the Waco flashes, but they believe they were caused by sunlight glints or electronic glitches. The Air Force scientist who had proposed field tests in 1996 saw segments of the April 19 infrared video last month during his interviews with Waco investigators, officials familiar with the inquiries said. He told interviewers that he was skeptical but would not dismiss gunfire as a possible cause of at least some of the blips of light on the tape. "He wouldn't say it was gunfire but he wouldn't rule it out. He couldn't rule it out," one official said. "It's certainly a reason for maintaining the question: What did cause those flashes and was it gunfire?" ================================================================= Kadosh, Kadosh, Kadosh, YHVH, TZEVAOT FROM THE DESK OF: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> *Mike Spitzer* <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ~~~~~~~~ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> The Best Way To Destroy Enemies Is To Change Them To Friends Shalom, A Salaam Aleikum, and to all, A Good Day. ================================================================= <A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/">www.ctrl.org</A> DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substance—not soap-boxing! 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 http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ ======================================================================== 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
