Byron Quick
Moderator In Memoriam
DMF,
Exactly how was the FLIR video examined? By some expert watching it? Or a team of experts? If so, that wasn't a scientific examination no matter how many degrees the team members each had or what fields the degrees were awarded in.
A scientific investigation would have looked at the possible types of automatic weapons that the government might have used at Waco. Then it would have used the same type of FLIR at the same altitude and groundspeed and with all other conditions as similar as possible to the conditions the day the intial video was taken. It would have taken FLIR videos of automatic weapons fire of the various possible weapons that could have been used. Then it would have taken footage from the same area with no automatic weapons fire.
Then, and only then, would the experts be brought in to examine the footage. Informed opinion is informed but it is still opinion. Science is a hypothesis that is supported by data obtained from experimentation. Just because someone is a trained scientist does not make their opinion scientific.
Didn't the FBI claim for years that they had no incendiary tear gas at Waco? Wasn't the FBI caught in a lie several years ago when it was definitely proven that the agency did have at least one such device? The fallback party line was,"Yes, it was there but we never used any." Anybody believe them? I've seen FBI behavior in two investigations. If a FBI agent told me that the sun is going to rise in the east in the morning...I'd check that with a compass and a watch. And that opinion is not based on Waco or Ruby Ridge;rather it is based on the actions of several FBI agents and witnessed personally.
Many of the moderators here are border line. Me? I'm what's been called a rational anarchist. I don't need the government to force me to do right or to brush my teeth. However, I realize that there is a large segment of the population who does have such a pathological need. Therefore, I endeavour to live perfectly in an imperfect world.
Exactly how was the FLIR video examined? By some expert watching it? Or a team of experts? If so, that wasn't a scientific examination no matter how many degrees the team members each had or what fields the degrees were awarded in.
A scientific investigation would have looked at the possible types of automatic weapons that the government might have used at Waco. Then it would have used the same type of FLIR at the same altitude and groundspeed and with all other conditions as similar as possible to the conditions the day the intial video was taken. It would have taken FLIR videos of automatic weapons fire of the various possible weapons that could have been used. Then it would have taken footage from the same area with no automatic weapons fire.
Then, and only then, would the experts be brought in to examine the footage. Informed opinion is informed but it is still opinion. Science is a hypothesis that is supported by data obtained from experimentation. Just because someone is a trained scientist does not make their opinion scientific.
Didn't the FBI claim for years that they had no incendiary tear gas at Waco? Wasn't the FBI caught in a lie several years ago when it was definitely proven that the agency did have at least one such device? The fallback party line was,"Yes, it was there but we never used any." Anybody believe them? I've seen FBI behavior in two investigations. If a FBI agent told me that the sun is going to rise in the east in the morning...I'd check that with a compass and a watch. And that opinion is not based on Waco or Ruby Ridge;rather it is based on the actions of several FBI agents and witnessed personally.
I don't think you'll find anyone here or on any gun board who is an outright anarchist.
Many of the moderators here are border line. Me? I'm what's been called a rational anarchist. I don't need the government to force me to do right or to brush my teeth. However, I realize that there is a large segment of the population who does have such a pathological need. Therefore, I endeavour to live perfectly in an imperfect world.