From: owner-roc-digest@lists.xmission.com (roc-digest) To: roc-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: roc-digest V2 #351 Reply-To: roc-digest Sender: owner-roc-digest@lists.xmission.com Errors-To: owner-roc-digest@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk roc-digest Monday, June 5 2000 Volume 02 : Number 351 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 3 Jun 00 13:58:22 PST From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: America the Beautiful (fwd) On Jun 03, Tammy wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] Hi All, This is the judge who fought to continue to hang the Ten Commandments in his courtroom. I understand that he won. Love, Tammy S. ***********************************************8 AMERICA THE BEAUTIFUL : by Judge Roy Moore : : America the Beautiful, or so you used to be. : Land of the Pilgrims' pride, I'm glad they'll never see : Babies piled in dumpsters, Abortion on demand, : Oh, sweet land of liberty, your house is built on sand. : : Our children wander aimlessly, poisoned by cocaine, : Choosing to indulge their lusts, when God has said abstain. : From sea to shining sea, our Nation turns away : From the teaching of God's love and a need to always pray. : : So many worldly pastors tell lies about our Rock, : Saying God is going broke so they can fleece the flock. : We've kept God in our temples, how callous we have grown, : When earth is but His footstool and Heaven is His throne. : : We've voted in a government that's rotting at the core, : Appointing Godless Judges who throw reason out the door, : Too soft to place a killer in a well deserved tomb, : But brave enough to kill a baby before he leaves the womb. : : You think that God's not angry that our land's a moral slum? : How much longer will He wait before His judgment comes? : How are we to face our God from Whom we cannot hide? : What then is left for us to do, but stem this evil tide? : : If we who are His children will humbly turn and pray, : Seek His holy face and mend our evil way, : Then God will hear from Heaven and forgive us of our sins, : He'll heal our sickly land and those who live within. : : But America the Beautiful if you don't, then you will see, : A sad but Holy God withdraw His hand from thee. : AMEN! [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] - -- - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- RKBA! ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** RKBA! - ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ - ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- Constitutional Government is dead, LONG LIVE THE CONSTITUTION!!!!! - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 3 Jun 00 14:00:56 PST From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: It's Happening - Goodbye Income Tax! (fwd) On Jun 03, Bill Utterback wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] Sen. Orrin Hatch's Former Attorney: 16th Amendment Not Ratified! http://www.devvy.com/warren_20000602.html Devvy Kidd May 30, 2000 For those of you who have been following Bob Schulz' IRS Symposium's in Washington, DC., you know that last November 13, 1999, Bill Benson, author of The Law That Never Was, gave a very serious speech on this issue. During Bill's speech, he categorically and very specifically outlined the offer of a bribe he received via telephone (with a third party, a reverend, listening to this conversation) back in 1986 by an attorney named Warren Richardson. Bill Benson turned him down flat. Who is Warren Richardson? Back in 1986 he represented himself as an attorney for the unconstitutionally seated "Senator" Orrin Hatch. When I say that Orrin Hatch is unconstitutionally seated, I say that based on the fact that the 17th Amendment, just like the 16th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, was not legally ratified. Therefore, Orrin Hatch is serving in office under a law that flat out does not exist. I ask this question over and over because I want it to become firmly etched in people's minds: Are we a nation of laws or a nation of lies? We can't be both and claim that the United States of America is a great country. Greatness is not built on lies and deceit. Fast forward to May 5, 2000 and what does Bill Benson get in the mail? Why a letter from none other than Warren Richardson, J.D. Attorney at Law. The letter appears below. What makes this letter so remarkable, besides the fact that it is authored by Warren Richardson and actually notarized -- is his statement on page two, paragraph three: In my professional opinion your two books demonstrate, at least to me, that the 16th Amendment was not property ratified even though the Secretary of State made the public announcement that it had been properly ratified. Hold on to your hat, folks. Here's a guy who tried to bribe the recipient of this letter (Bill) 14 years ago to stop publication and distribution of Bill's Law That Never Was, a guy who at that time stated he was a lawyer who represented "Senator" Orrin Hatch and offered a bribe. Now, out of the clear and six months after Bill's speech at the National Press Club, this guy sends Bill a letter acknowledging that Bill's work proves an amendment to the U.S. Constitution was never ratified. Holy smokes. Richardson back peddles a bit in the next paragraph by saying that he's just a little old lawyer and not a constitutional scholar, but ladies and gentlemen, this is truly an amazing thing. My question is why would this big, powerful, lobbyist attorney suddenly after 14 years send Bill this letter which includes a request that it not be "published?" If you read the piece on what happened at Bob's symposium last month, you know that both Bob and Joe Banister met in the White House with Clinton's senior economic advisor and senior staffers from Lott and Hastert's offices. Something is cooking back in DC. All three people at those meetings last month (White House, Senate & House) committed, and I watched it on the video, committed to sending reps to the final symposium coming up next month (June 29th ) at the National Press Club in Washington. Stay tuned, things seem to be churning back in old foggy bottom. - ------ For a graphic image of the letter see http://www.devvy.com/warrenltr.html Here is the text of the letter: - ------ WARREN S. RICHARDSON, J.D. Attorney at Law May 5, 2000 Mr. William J. Benson Constitutional Scholar 1128 East 160th Place South Holland, IL 60473 Dear Mr. Benson: You may address me simply as Warren and I'll call you Bill. My first comment is to applaud you for the tremendous amount of work you have done in bringing to light the enormous volume of factual data--over 17,000 pages of certified government documents from each of the 48 states (the number in 1913) as well as from the National Archives in Washington, D.C. In fact, the whole project, which includes your two books, is truly monumental. In case you wish to know a little about my background, let me give you a brief overview. I was honored to serve my nation in World War II as a Naval Aviator. Since my college career at the University of Rochester had been interrupted by the war, I went back to the U. of R. and obtained my A.B. degree in history. That was followed by a B.S. in accounting. By then I was married and we moved to the Washington, D.C. area so that my wife could continue her college work while I attended law school. Upon receiving my law degree, I was honored to be chosen for the first class of Honor Law Graduates at the Justice Department. (This program was started in 1953 while Eisenhower was president.) Because of my law and accounting background, I moved to the legal department at the General Accounting Office. After 5 years as a government attorney, I left for the private sector, where I have been ever since. Two years of that time was spent in a law firm and the rest has been working in the lobbying profession. Before going to the subject of your books--the 16th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America was not properly ratified--I wish to lay some groundwork. In 1895 the United States Supreme Court ruled a direct income tax to be unconstitutional in the case of Pollock v. Farmer's Loan and Trust Company (158 U.S. 601). Since our forefathers who established our form of government (a republic, not a democracy) by splitting the federal power into three equal branches (legislative, judicial, and administrative), it was clearly within the court's discretion to render their verdict in the Pollock case. The Supreme Court's decision in that case can only be changed by one of two method: 1. The Supreme Court, assuming it has valid reasoning, could reverse the Pollock case; or, 2. An Amendment to the Constitution authorizing a direct income tax could be passed by a vote of two-thirds of both houses of Congress and then ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the States. Following the procedure of item 2, above, the Secretary of State has the duty of announcing to the public, the President, and the Congress that a proposed amendment has been accepted or rejected. The people who wished to overturn the Pollock case chose the second alternative. In my professional opinion your two books demonstrate, at least to me, that the 16th Amendment was not properly ratified even though the Secretary of State made the public announcement that it had been properly ratified. When only four states of the required 38 ratified it properly, how could it be considered valid? In view of the facts, how could it become a valid part of our Constitution? Since the Pollock case has not been reversed by the Supreme Court, what was the legal framework upon which the current income tax law is based? Although I am a lawyer, it is important to note that I am not a constitutional scholar; therefore I do not speak as one. As noted above, it is my opinion that, based on your overwhelming evidence, the 16th Amendment was not properly ratified. Furthermore, I believe that it is imperative to have legal scholars in constitutional law study this matter deeply and render their opinions on whether the 16th Amendment was properly ratified. Provided they come to the same conclusion we do (that it was not properly ratified), what would be the logical next move? That last question is a real tough one because of the politics involved. Assume that the Supreme Court rules upon a case properly brought before it that the tax system of the U.S. is not legal. Can you even visualize the reaction of the Members of Congress? Bill, you have done a magnificent job in providing the factual data about whether the 16th Amendment was properly ratified. I am hopeful that we can find the scholars who will go to the next step and suggest what should be done now. Thanks for your hard work. You have done a great service to your country. /Warren S. Richardson/ Sworn and subscribed to before me this 5th day of May, 2000 Mary M. Challstrom Notary Public My Commission Expires 6/12/00 P.S.: Since a personal letter cannot be distributed, or even shown, to anyone other the recipient without permission of the author, I hereby authorize you to show it (not publish it) to other people at your discretion. - ------ Editor's notes: (1) The statement in the P.S. is not correct as a matter of law. A personal letter belongs to the recipient, together with any copyright, unless a copyright notice appears in the document. (2) A summary of Benson's book The Law That Never Was can be found at http://www.constitution.org/ica_ltnw.htm =================================================================== Constitution Society, 1731 Howe Av #370, Sacramento, CA 95825 916/568-1022, 916/450-7941VM Date: 06/02/00 Time: 14:54:51 http://www.constitution.org/ mailto:jon.roland@constitution.org =================================================================== ******************************************************************* A few times a week, on average, I forward messages that I consider to be worthwhile. Occasionally I may be inspired to write a brief editorial. If you do not want to receive these messages, send me a message with UNSUBSCRIBE in the subject field. If you would like to begin receiving these messages, send me a message with SUBSCRIBE in the subject field. for Liberty (for all), Bill Utterback bill.utterback@unlimited-thought.com - ----- "We have the greatest opportunity the world has ever seen, as long as we remain honest -- which will be as long as we can keep the attention of our people alive. If they once become inattentive to public affairs, you and I, and Congress and Assemblies, judges and governors would all become wolves." Thomas Jefferson "It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds." Samuel Adams "It is not the function of our Government to keep the citizen from falling into error; it is the function of the citizen to keep the Government from falling into error." U.S. Supreme Court in American Communications Association v. Douds, 339 U.S. 382,442 - ----- World's Smallest Political Quiz http://www.self-gov.org/quiz.html Libertarian Party http://www.lp.org/ Fully Informed Jury Association http://www.fija.org/ Citizens for a Fair Vote Count http://www.votefraud.org/ We The People Foundation for Constitutional Education http://www.givemeliberty.org Gun Owners of America http://www.gunowners.org/ Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership http://www.JPFO.org/ Citizens of America http://www.citizensofamerica.org/ Keep and Bear Arms.org http://www.keepandbeararms.org/ COPYRIGHT NOTICE-- In accordance with Title 17 U. S. C. Section 107, any copyrighted work in this message is distributed under fair use without profit or payment to those who have expressed prior interest in receiving this information for nonprofit research and educational purposes only. Ref: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] - -- - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- RKBA! ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** RKBA! - ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ - ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- Constitutional Government is dead, LONG LIVE THE CONSTITUTION!!!!! - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 3 Jun 00 14:03:57 PST From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: [newsucanuse] VIN -- 'Fat Tax' (fwd) On Jun 3, SlickEditor@aol.com wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] FROM MOUNTAIN MEDIA THE LIBERTARIAN, By Vin Suprynowicz Time for a 'fat tax' on Wendy's, McDonald's? Ever-increasing budgets being the lifeblood of a bureaucracy, cynics have long contended that when the federal government runs out of legitimate wars to fight and crises to solve, it just invents new ones. Witness the two-day "federal nutrition and health summit" convened in Washington May 30. The latest crisis requiring an emergency allocation? About 52 percent of Americans are now overweight -- carrying around 20 pounds more than their theoretical "ideal weight" -- up from 33 percent just a decade ago, Agriculture bureaucrats breathlessly revealed. This, of course, turns out to be just another troubling side effect of our capitalist prosperity -- always a reliable villain. Busy Americans are eating fewer meals at home and more at restaurants, you see, and "Restaurant meals typically have more calories, more fat and more sugar than food consumed at home," explains Roger Rosenblatt, covering the conference for the Los Angeles Times. ("Hey honey, we both had a tough day in the office, what say we just send out for celery sticks?") How is this any of the government's concern? "Policy-makers worry about the enormous costs the nation will sustain to pay for doctor and hospital bills as the baby boom generation moves into middle age and beyond," Mr. Rosenblatt of the Times explains. Note that interesting construction: "the nation." The last time you hauled a child to the doctor with a fever, did you find you could breezily inform the receptionist, "Oh, just send that bill to 'the nation,' will you please?" "The nation" doesn't pay most Americans' medical bills, even if we let the propagandists get away with confusing "the nation" with "the federal government," which is a different thing entirely. To the extent that the Medicare and Medicaid boondoggles do create an "entitlement" for the poor to have their medical bills paid by the rest of us -- no matter how reckless their behavior -- this should only sound a further cautionary Klaxon against the relentless march of socialized medicine. But the "policy-makers" don't stop there. No, "There are an estimated 120,000 premature deaths each year related to dietary factors -- about 20 percent of heart disease and stroke fatalities, and 30 percent of cancer and diabetes deaths," Mr. Rosenblatt continues. "The financial tally is $70 billion a year, a figure that includes medical bills and lost wages from people who become ill." Goodness. So we "cost the nation" when we take sick days? What about if we retire early, or move to Costa Rica? How much extra do we owe "the nation," then? Besides which, pardon me, but isn't it possible that "premature deaths" actually save "the nation" health care costs, by getting more potato-chip eaters out of the way before they're old enough to qualify for Medicare in the first place? Nonetheless, it is out of just such a fearful-sounding statistical house of cards that the folks at the Agriculture Department -- a department never authorized in the Constitution -- now build their urgent plea for "a sophisticated new marketing approach that would counter fast-food's lure, pitting commercials promoting the appeal of fruits and vegetables against those showing juicy hamburgers." The new approach will go "far beyond the display of the 'food pyramid' in school classrooms or cafeterias" -- the kind traditionally supplied by the dairy industry, you'll recall, which always identified dairy products as a separate and vital "food group." No, nowadays "It has to be packaged in a way that is exciting," explains Eileen Kennedy, deputy undersecretary of Agriculture for research, education and economics. But wait. Cue ominous "Peter and the Wolf" theme music here: "Any nutrition education campaign faces an uphill battle," Mr. Rosenblatt warns in conclusion. "The food industry spends $7 billion a year on advertising, compared with the Agriculture Department's total outlays of less than $350 million. ..." Oh, the humanity! Just look at the odds they're up against! Or should we, instead, marvel at the transparency of the implication that this particular set of Washington worker ants -- whose main vocation for 70 years has been to funnel tax moneys to farmers and agricultural conglomerates in the form of subsidies and price supports -- now stand in an adversarial relationship with the evil "food industry," who apparently spend their $7 billion a year seducing Americans into consuming unhealthy doses of poison, dirt, and lard against their will? It would be tempting to write off Ms. Kennedy's $350 million per year as a mere drop in the bucket as we now measure federal waste. But make no mistake, this will not end with a few "Eat your vegetables" TV ads, any more than the anti-smoking campaign ended with tobacconists required to print the "Surgeon General's warning" on every pack -- any more than gun control ended with a $200 tax on each machine gun back in 1934. Based on just those precedents, we can now expect to see "menu calorie averaging" requirements, penalty taxes, and coordinated state and federal "health cost liability lawsuits" against the evil fast food behemoths, based on how much "excess fat" they supposedly cram down the throats of unwary Americans. Why? Because hamburgers, fries, and a Coke kill more Americans than car crashes, legal alcohol, or swimming pool drownings? Of course not. To identify the next likely candidate for this sequence of gentle federal ministrations, all one has to do is apply Willie Sutton's Law: "That's where the money is." Vin Suprynowicz is assistant editorial page editor of the Las Vegas Review-Journal, and author of the book "Send in the Waco Killers." *** Vin Suprynowicz, vin@lvrj.com "The evils of tyranny are rarely seen but by him who resists it." -- John Hay, 1872 "The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed -- and thus clamorous to be led to safety -- by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." -- H.L. Mencken * * * To subscribe, send a message to vinsends-request@ezlink.com, from your NEW address, including the word "subscribe" (with no quotation marks) in the "Subject" line. All I ask of electronic subscribers is that they not RE-forward my columns until on or after the embargo date which appears at the top of each, and that (should they then choose to do so) they copy the columns in their entirety, preserving the original attribution. The Vinsends list is maintained by Alan Wendt in Colorado, who may be reached directly at alan@ezlink.com. The web sites for the Suprynowicz column are at http://www.infomagic.com/liberty/vinyard.htm, and http://www.nguworld.com/vindex. The Vinyard is maintained by Michael Voth in Flagstaff, who may be reached directly at mvoth@infomagic.com. [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] - -- - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- RKBA! ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** RKBA! - ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ - ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- Constitutional Government is dead, LONG LIVE THE CONSTITUTION!!!!! - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 3 Jun 00 13:56:03 PST From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: [newsucanuse] Interrogating 6 year olds (fwd) On Jun 3, RichSlick@aol.com wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] Dan Walters: Interrogating 6-year-olds (Published June 2, 2000) Suppose a state law required that when a 6-year-old child was entering the first grade of school, the youngster and/or his parents had to answer a series of questions delving into: Whether the child's family had a history of mental illness, domestic violence or drug use. Whether there were "family stresses that could lead to violence," such as unemployment or divorce. Whether the family had adequate child care. Whether parents used spanking in discipline. Whether the child had been exposed to violence, either actual in the family or neighborhood or fictional via movies and television. Whether the family or neighbors owned any guns. Whether anyone in the family, the school or the neighborhood was involved with gangs. Whether the child had experienced physical assault or "sexual victimization from anyone." Whether the child had signs of poor self-esteem or depression. Sounds rather intrusive, doesn't it, as if a 6-year-old child or parents would be required, as a condition of entering school, to spill family secrets? There isn't any such law now, but Sacramento Assemblyman Darrell Steinberg wants one, contending that early screening is needed to find "red flags" to children's emotional problems that could later emerge as violence or crime. However, rather than simply write the legislation and take his chances on its passage, Steinberg is taking a circuitous path to his goal. State law already requires children to undergo, as a condition of entering the first grade, complete medical examinations. An earlier version of Steinberg's bill would have extended this to include a "social history" of each child, but didn't spell out what it would have included. Rather, the bill said that it was to reflect a 1999 policy statement by the American Academy of Pediatrics -- the items in previously cited list. Steinberg's back-door approach didn't survive the Assembly committee process, in part because the state would have to pay for the examinations. After several rewrites, an even more indirect version of the bill reached the Assembly floor, one requiring the American Academy of Pediatrics recommendations to be incorporated into children's health screening programs operated by county governments -- the programs that poor parents lacking health insurance are most likely to use to comply with the medical exam requirements for their first-grade children. No matter how you slice it, however, the essential thrust remains intact: 6-year-olds would be undergoing exams that would probe private aspects of their family lives. Anyone who has reared a child knows that the world of 6-year-olds is a delightful mixture of fact and fantasy in which "monsters" can be just as real as parents, in which water guns and bazookas are equally menacing, in which the line between gangs and pals is indistinguishable -- and in which questions from adults can often be regurgitated as fact. Interrogating them about family problems is pointless, intrusive and potentially damaging as official busybodies act on the "information" the kids impart. The Assembly may not have known what it was doing when it approved Steinberg's measure recently, but it certainly couldn't claim ignorance on Wednesday when Assemblyman Tom McClintock, R-Simi Valley, tried to persuade his colleagues to rethink what they were doing, quoting extensively from the American Academy of Pediatrics policy statement and terming it "some of the most frightening invasions of family privacy I have ever read." Nevertheless, the Assembly left its original approval intact, thus contributing to a triumph of good intentions over good sense. ===================================================== uwsa@uwsa.com is an unmoderated mail list to discuss general government topics. To join or leave this list send e-mail to majordomo@uwsa.com with either subscribe uwsa or unsubscribe uwsa at the start of the message. Visit our world wide web site at http://www.uwsa.com Support UWSA.COM at http://www.uwsa.com/UWSAintro.html >> [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] - -- - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- RKBA! ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** RKBA! - ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ - ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- Constitutional Government is dead, LONG LIVE THE CONSTITUTION!!!!! - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2000 08:37:22 -0500 (CDT) From: Paul M Watson Subject: Waco FLIR Reflections (1) (fwd) - ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2000 05:35:35 -0400 From: Ian Goddard To: igoddard@erols.com Subject: Waco FLIR Reflections (1) This is the first in a series of updates where I shall examine flashes at key locations on the 1993 Waco FLIR. The FLIR video is from a Forward-Looking InfraRed camera that was mounted on an aircraft flying over the Waco siege. While viewing a high-quality copy of the 1993 Waco FLIR I recently observed that there's an object that flaps in the wind and periodically flashes in the very same location as the flashes that are said to be machinegun fire in the well- known documentaries Waco: The Rules of Engagement and Waco: A New Revelation. Observing this object makes it clear that these flashes are not machinegun fire but are instead reflections of infrared radiation initially from the sun and eventually from the fire reflecting off an object that can be seen in both FLIR and visible-light photographs here: http://users.erols.com/igoddard/flirloc6.htm After I made that observation some readers responded noting that according to Waco: A New Revelation (WANR), the Justice Department report states at least 15 people were found shot to death in the dinning room at the back exit, which is where WANR says the "gunshots" in question were being directed as the fire was breaking out. However, WANR is simply wrong, the Justice Department report lists the recovery locations of all bodies (see pages 313-28) and not one body is listed as having been found in the dinning room, or anywhere near the back exit. How do zero bodies in the dinning room become at least fifteen? Respondents have also noted that the flashes that happen as the fire breaks out have got to be gunshots because Dr Edward Allard observes in the Waco documentaries that there's a gunman who retreats as he fires. Allard's claim is, however, simply not accurate. Careful observation anyone with a copy of WANR can conduct will prove that those flashes remain fixed in one location on debris on the ground throughout the flash series. Viewing the uninterrupted FLIR proves the same. At the cited page you can see four stills taken from times across the better part of that flash series, and you can see that the flashes are always in the same location on fallen debris: http://users.erols.com/igoddard/flirloc6.htm There are in fact no retreating flashes, the Justice Department lists zero, not at least fifteen, bodies at the back door, and the so-called gunshots are plainly reflections off an object. The scenario many people, myself included, had accepted as presented in Waco: A New Revelation is in reality a fiction. ------------------------------------------------------------ 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 Ian@Goddard.net - - ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2000 12:03:43 -0500 (CDT) From: Paul M Watson Subject: Re: Waco FLIR Reflections (1) (fwd) - ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2000 11:47:47 EDT From: COPS555@aol.com To: pwatson@utdallas.edu 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. - - ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2000 16:28:29 -0500 (CDT) From: Paul M Watson Subject: Re: Waco FLIR Reflections (1) (fwd) - ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2000 13:42:10 -0400 From: Ian Goddard To: Paul M Watson Subject: Re: Waco FLIR Reflections (1) (fwd) Thanks Paul, When I asked McNulty where in the DoJ report it says at least 15 bodies were found in the dinning room, he said "we are not your reference library." The dinning room is where the rear exit is, for him to now say it's not where they meant to say the bodies were found is a complete reversal. The story that everyone has taken away from WROE and WANR is that the people were gunned down as they tried to exit, and the rear exit was in the dinning room, which is why WANR mentions the dinning room, but now he's saying they were somewhere inside and were hit by bullets flying through the wall apparently fired blindly into the Center. Is this not a reversal? Here's the locations bodies were found as stated in the Treasury Department report: http://www.public-action.com/SkyWriter/WacoMuseum/death/map/d_map01.html In that report, one body is found in the dinning room. Nine bodies were found on top of the bunker, all shot in the head. The cluster of bodies in the kitchen-serving area are, from the view of the alleged rear gunman, behind the concrete room, and thus they cannot really be said to have been shot from the rear. At 11:55 AM 06/05/2000 -0500, you wrote: >---------- Forwarded message ---------- >Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2000 11:47:47 EDT >From: COPS555@aol.com >To: pwatson@utdallas.edu >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. - - ------------------------------ End of roc-digest V2 #351 *************************