>               This roll of film is important because it appears
>               to show that there are no government agents
>               standing where flashes show up on infrared
>               surveillance tape of the incident. The absence of
>               agents undercuts the Branch Davidians' claim
>               that the flashes are from the guns of agents
>               firing into the complex.


                ARMED, CAMOUFLAGED, REMOTE-CONTROLLED ROBOTS
                PROVE THEIR METTLE AT WACO -- MISSION GOALS
                ACHIEVED, PLAUSIBLE DENIABILITY A SUCCESS.

                IT NEVER HAPPENED.


At 06:26 AM 4-18-2000 -0700, you wrote:
>                Monday, April 17, 2000
>
>               Negatives from film shot at Waco
>               are missing, U.S. says
>
>                By William H. Freivogel and
>               Terry Ganey
>               Of the Post-Dispatch
>
>                 The Justice Department admitted Monday that
>               it could not find the original negatives of an
>               important roll of film taken on the last day of
>               the siege of the Branch Davidians' complex. But
>               it said it had not tampered with those photos or
>               with infrared and electronic surveillance tapes of
>               the 1993 episode that left about 80 Branch
>               Davidians dead.
>
>               The government acknowledged in a court filing
>               Monday that it is missing 30 original negatives
>               from the first of at least seven rolls of film shot
>               by an FBI photographer who circled 1,000 feet
>               above the complex in a Cessna surveillance
>               aircraft.
>
>               The government, however, does have prints of
>               the missing negatives and the original contact
>               sheet of the negatives.
>
>               This roll of film is important because it appears
>               to show that there are no government agents
>               standing where flashes show up on infrared
>               surveillance tape of the incident. The absence of
>               agents undercuts the Branch Davidians' claim
>               that the flashes are from the guns of agents
>               firing into the complex.
>
>               One strip of original negatives from that first
>               roll of film has been turned over to the federal
>               court that is hearing the Branch Davidians'
>               wrongful death suit against the government.
>               That strip contains a key photograph that
>               appears to have been taken at 11:24 a.m.,
>               within seconds of flashes on the video. That
>               photograph shows no agents in the vicinity of
>               the flashes.
>
>               But the other negatives from that roll of film
>               have been missing since at least 1997 and have
>               not been found despite an extensive search by
>               the FBI, the Justice Department said. Agents
>               searched for the negatives at least five times.
>
>               The department said that the strip of original
>               negatives with the photo from 11:24 a.m. was
>               separated from the missing original negatives
>               when Congress requested it as part of its 1995
>               investigation of Waco.
>
>               A document analyst with the Special Photo Unit
>               of the FBI, identified only as "ALS," found that
>               the negatives were missing around April 1997.
>               The FBI then made a duplicate set of the
>               negatives from photographs and marked them
>               with the notation "originals lost."
>
>               The Davidians' attorney, Michael Caddell, had
>               claimed that one of the photos from the
>               replacement negatives had a white scratch that
>               appeared to obliterate a speck that might be a
>               person. But the Justice Department said that
>               the contact sheet, made from the original
>               negative, had no person or speck.
>
>               The Justice Department also disputed Caddell's
>               claim that several rolls of the film were missing.
>               The photographer taking the film that said he
>               took about 10 rolls, give or take one or two. The
>               FBI produced seven rolls. In Monday's court
>               filing, the department produced logs and records
>               that appear to show that only seven rolls were
>               shot and developed.
>
>               The government argued in its court filing that it
>               should not be fined for any discrepancies
>               involving the photos or tapes.
>
>
>

<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

Reply via email to