My typing from a photocopy in my possession -- Richard J. Sanford
Civil Action No. H-95-587 Judge Atlas
DEBORAH BROWN, et al., Plaintiffs v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al. Defendants
DECLARATION OF EDWARD F. ALLARD, PhD.
Edward F. Allard declares and states as follows:
1. My name is Edward F. Allard. I have worked for many years in the field of radiation physics related to thermal imaging, thermal signatures, thermal suppression and especially in aspects of those subjects relating to Forward Looking Infrared [FLIR] military systems.
2. My experience is set forth in my curriculum vitae, which is attached to this declaration. I received my Bachelor of Science in physics from Boston College and my doctorate in physics from the University of Missouri. I hold Patent No. 4,413,668 on a device to suppress thermal signatures and Patent no. 5,013,092 on a microdischarge image intensifier. My inventions and studies will enable use of uncooled thermal imagers with predicted performance better than the current TOW antitank missile night sight; design and calculation for these required an expert knowledge of photocathodes, photo detectors, signal detection, noise, charge transfer and optics for thermal imaging devices.
3. I began my career in this field as a supervisor at the Defense Department's Night Vision Laboratory, later becoming Deputy Director, Systems Development. My team developed and defended a variety of programs in the area, including L3TV systems, the thermal night sight for the Dragon antitank weapon, the night sight for the TOW antitank missile system, and other programs. NVL pioneered the Common Module System that is the foundation of the thermal imaging systems used in Operation Desert Storm.
4. As a defense contractor and government employee, I have analyzed a number of thermal imaging devices. These include comparisons of L3TV with thermal imagers, comparisons of American and foreign imagers, analyses of the thermal imager for the M1 tank, design of thermal pointing systems, construction of a T-62 thermal target for tank gunnery, and countermeasures to completely hide an M60 tank from enemy FLIR and to reduce FLIR signatures of tents, trucks, ships, and individual soldiers. The interpretation of FLIR imagery requires skill and experience. As but a few examples, materials which reflect sunlight and thus seem bright in the visible spectrum will often appear indistinct, or even dark, to a thermal imager; the very reflective properties that make them bright to the eye make them appear cool, and thus dark, to FLIR systems. Interpretation of thermal images requires a knowledge of the reflective properties of both natural and man-made objects.
5. I have reviewed a FLIR tape depicting the events outside Waco, Texas, on April 19, 1993, which tape was obtained from one of the defense attorneys involved in the criminal cases that arose out of those events. My analysis of the tape follows. All times given are those shown in the timeclock shown in the tape. All directions are given from the standpoint of the viewer.
6. At 11:24:31, the FLIR is recording events in the rear of the building, where the Combat Engineering Vehicle [CEV] has partially demolished the area known as the "gymnasium." The FLIR shows several flashes appearing from a point to the left of the CEV. These are elongated in shape, several feet long, and appear and disappear at a regular rate with regular spacing between them. I note five flashes from one point, appearing and disappearing at the rate of 7-10 per second. At this location some non-flashing movement also appears visible. There is no natural explanation for these flashes. Natural phenomena do not heat and cool in fractions of a second. My expert opinion is that these flashes appear to be the muzzle flashes of a fully-automatic firearm, firing at about 500 rounds per minute cyclic rate. Carefully examined, in slow motion and by frame-to-frame observation, the flashes originate to the left and progress to the right, indicating that they are being fired from a source outside the building, and fired into the building.
7. At 11:42:56, the aircraft bearing the FLIR is circling the side of the building. A hot image is visible inside the side, ground floor, window of the "corner tower." As the aircraft continues its movement the image vanishes, underscoring the fact that the image is a hot object inside the room, the sight of which is lost as the aircraft moves on and alters the perspective through the window.
8. At 11:44:52, a momentary flash of radiation is seen to the rear of the central "tower." This may be at a location in the open area to the immediate rear of the building. The flash is visible for ten frames, approximately a third of a second, much longer than the flashes described above. It is not possible with these data to determine the cause or source of the flash.
9. At 11:47:50, the FLIR is recording events at the front of the building. A CEV has driven into the building, withdrawn, and has a large piece of rubble lodged on the front of the vehicle. An individual is dimly visible exiting the vehicle, walking to its front, and dislodging the rubble. The CEV is at this point halted within a vehicle length, perhaps twenty feet, of the front of the building.
10. At 12:07:40-42, the aircraft bearing the FLIR is circling past the right tower. A heat source, long and narrow in form, quickly appears across a window of the tower. Upon careful examination, slow motion and frame-by- frame, I believe this is more likely to be a heat source outside the window, than one inside it. It is noteworthy that the image does not vanish or fade as the aircraft flies past, in contrast to the heat signature noted at 11:42:56.
11. At 12:08:32, the FLIR depicts events at the rear of the building, where the large "gymnasium" structure has largely been demolished. Two very bright thermal flashes are visible near to or in the window at the center, in front of and to one side of the CEV which is stopped there. I see no natural explanation for these flashes. They would not, for instance, be reflections of sunlight off glass.
12. At 12:08:52 there are again radiation flashes, which I believe to be firearms fire, from the side and rear of the CEV. Again, when carefully examined they appear to move in the direction of the building.
13. In brief, my examination of the FLIR tape indicates:
a. An analysis of the tape, field by field, reveals thermal flashes occurring that have pulse times and time intervals between them consistent with the intervals of automatic weapons fire. Pulses of approximately 1/15 second occur. There are no naturally- occurring phenomena that could explain these events.
b. Other thermal flashes of radiation, approximately 1/3 second in duration, occur in various areas of the building complex. Again, no naturally-occurring phenomena can explain this.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the above is true and correct.
Edward F. Allard, Phd.
Dated this 1 day of Feb, 1996.
Note that the gunflashes of item 12 are after fire has started to roar
through the building. The FBI would seem to be either shooting Davidians
as they came out, or trying keep them in the burning building.
On, October 3 1997 the award winning documentary, "Waco: The Rules of Engagement" went to worldwide home video release.
Waco is a hard hitting 2 hour 36 minute documentary film about the tragedy of the Branch Davidians at Waco Texas on April 19th 1993 with a budget of 2 million dollars and a production time of four years, this is a serious consertive effort to probe the depths of the Waco tragedy. The film has been appearing in theaters across the country for the past 10 months and has an original musical score by well known film composerDavid Hamilton.
"Waco" has been the subject of dozens of articles in respected publications including: The Washington Post; The New York Times; The New Republic: The Nation; The Boston Globe; and the American Spectator
*Richard Reavis, the author of the critically acclaimed book "The Ashes of Waco" has said of the film- "When people asked me about Waco, I used to refer them to my book. Now when I'm asked, I refer them to the film (Waco: The Rule of Engagement) because it has so much new information in it. It is the seminal work on the Waco tragedy."
This Academy Award contender, referred to as the most controversial film of the year, "... is not about Right or Left wing politics- it is about right and wrong...", said the films producer Michael McNulty. " This film is not divisive. People from all political points of view 'get it' - the message of the film, "McNulty says. The "problem" is perceived by all as a mutual concern: any one of us could have been faced with." "When people sit down and watch this movie political differences are washed away by the common fear of a government gone berserk. People understand that they must take back control of their government. The only question left is how to accomplish that. Hopefully all of our fellow citizens will find a proper and peaceful means to resolve this conflict. The real question buried deep within this "symbol" called "Waco" is who will control our mutual destinies; we the people or those that would be king?"
The home video runs 15 minutes longer than the current theatrical cut. It is available through C.O.P.S. distribution @ $29.95 (retail) and distribution inquiries are welcome.
PLEASE CROSS POST THIS MESSAGE TO ALL AVAILABLE MAILING LISTS.!!!!
WE "MIGHT" ONLY HAVE A VERY SHORT TIME BEFORE THIS VIDEO IS PULLED FROM DISTRIBUTION. Legal actions have already begun which may result in an injunction or restraining order being issued against all further sales. This is not a conspiricy theory, it is a hard cold fact. Time IS of the essence! We need to get as many copies of this film into the hands of our fellow Americans as we possibly can before we are shut down. Wholesale prices are available for quantity purchases.
COPS, Citizens Organization for Public Safety.
Odell Place, Suite G,
Boulder, CO, 80301 Phn: 303-530-7248 (Temporary through 10/9)
Phn: 303-530-4635 (Active on October 9th)
http://184.108.40.206 (under construction)
by Carol Moore, member, Committee for Waco
Nevertheless, citizens continue to produce new books and films cataloguing compelling evidence that hyped-up BATF agents shot first as David Koresh opened the front door, even as other agents shot from helicopters, killing four Davidians. BATF left ample bullet hole evidence in the walls and roofs of the building of this indiscriminate and illegal gunfire. The Davidians repeatedly told negotiators that when this evidence was discovered Davidians would be freed and federal agents would be prosecuted. Fearing they were right, and angry at the deaths of four BATF agents, FBI Hostage Rescue Team agents deliberately destroyed evidence of BATF gunfire outside the building. And they repeatedly sabotaged negotiations and pushed for a gas and tank attack that could--and ultimately did--destroy the building and its incriminating evidence.
Many Americans believe the U.S. Congress cares more about protecting these federal agents from prosecution than about protecting the American people from such agents. If Congress is to reassure the American people this is not true, it must re-open hearings on Waco to answer the questions below and/or call for a special prosecutor.
For action call or fax:
House Judiciary Committee 202/225-3951 fax-225-7682
Senate Judiciary Committee 202/224-5225 fax-224-9102
QUESTIONS ABOUT FEBRUARY 28, 1997
1. House investigators determined that "someone" at BATF lied to the military about the Davidians being involved with drugs in order to get U.S. Army Special Forces and other military aid. Instead of pulling out the stops to discover who lied, investigators only whined about the fact that military staff at Fort Bragg were not made available to them or had been pre-interviewed.
2. One of the chief raid planners was William Buford, Special Agent in Charge of Little Rock BATF and a personal acquaintance of President Bill Clinton. The day after the February 28 raid, then-Deputy Treasury Secretary Roger Altman visited the injured Buford in a Texas hospital. Congress never asked about this visit or whether Clinton or his staff had any foreknowledge of the raid.
3. During the House hearings it was revealed that imprisoned Davidian Brad Branch, who was standing behind the unarmed David Koresh at the front door, claims he saw an agent shoot a dog as other agents rushed the door. He claims one approaching agent panicked and started shooting at Koresh, wounding him and mortally wounding his father- in-law. Why did congressional investigators merely whine in their report that the Treasury Department did not let it interview agents before the hearings? Why not grill them now?
4. Why doesn't Congress methodologically investigate the copious forensic and eyewitness evidence that BATF agents in the Blackhawk helicopter shot at Davidians? Instead it quiescently accepts the denials of two BATF agents and 3 National Guard helicopter pilots--who themselves may have shot or covered up others' shooting. Such evidence includes: BATF discussions of using helicopter gunfire as a diversion; an agent in the helicopter admitting agents were armed and permitted to fire in self-defense; the government's allegations Davidians fired at helicopters, which might have triggered such a "self-defense" response, even before such gunfire began; BATF video from inside the helicopter showing the closeness of the approach to the building and containing sounds of close-up gunfire; television video showing bullets entering the roof from an almost perpendicular angle; two Davidians' complaints to 911 officers during the raid about such firing; thirteen Davidian survivors' testimony about it; Davidian attorneys and a prosecution witness' testimony about bullet hole evidence in the highest roof; autopsy evidence indicating four Davidians probably were killed from gunfire from above.
5. Why didn't Congress do a systematic investigation of the "second shooting" of Davidian Michael Schroeder as he approached Mount Carmel several hours after the raid? There is evidence that BATF agents, angry at BATF agents' deaths, gave scant warning as they opened fire on Schroeder, who died of three wounds to the back and two to the head. Troubling evidence like shooting heard after the incident and Schroeder's missing cap suggests that agents then approached and "finished off" the wounded man with shots to the head. The FBI would not allow Texas Rangers to investigate the area for ten days after the shooting, making it impossible to check for footprints.
QUESTIONS ABOUT SABOTAGE OF NEGOTIATIONS
6. Why didn't Congress grill prosecutors and federal agents about the moving and destruction of automobiles, trucks and a trailer during the siege? Why hasn't Congress asked FBI siege commander Jeff Jamar and chief negotiator Byron Sage--as well as Hostage Rescue Team commander Richard Rogers--about their reactions to the Davidians' allegations that bullet hole evidence in the building would lead to Davidian acquittals and convictions of agents? These questions must be asked in light of Jamar and Sage's conflicting or dubious explanations to Congress about why they withheld from their superiors and Attorney General Janet Reno important information which would have scuttled the gas and tank attack that they supported.
7. During the Senate hearings FBI Waco negotiator Cliff Van Zandt confirmed an allegation by a Davidian hearing witness: every time Davidians cooperated with the FBI by releasing people, the Hostage Rescue Team would punish them with acts like destruction of property, turning off electricity, or escalated harassment. Why hasn't Congress grilled Hostage Rescue Team commander Richard Rogers and all Hostage Rescue Team members about this phenomena?
QUESTIONS ABOUT APRIL 19, 1993
8. While FBI agents claim Davidians threw their phone out the window on April 19, Davidians deny this, asserting a tank cut the phone wire before the gas attack began. This made it impossible for Davidians to negotiate a safe surrender. The same agents claim Davidians immediately fired on the tanks, which Davidians also deny. This gunfire allegation gave the FBI the excuse to speed up the gas attack and quickly proceed to the demolition of the building--and an excuse not to fix the phones. Such actions and lies by the agents ensured the building would be destroyed. They also ensured Davidians would be terrified of exiting and being shot, even as they hung a banner asking that their phones be fixed. Why doesn't Congress take every FBI agent at the scene aside and grill each about the events of that day?
9. During the House hearing Representative Howard Coble complained that the U.S. Army had not yet provided to the Committee any evidence of alleged damage to army tanks from Davidian gunfire on April 19. One staffer told me they did finally receive that material from the army. However, if so, it was not included in the transcripts, as requested by Mr. Coble. Is the House investigating committee hiding evidence that there was no Davidian gunfire?
10. Before Attorney General Janet Reno left the FBI Operations Center in Washington on April 19, around 11:00 a.m., she had a telephone conversation with Bill Clinton, one she mentioned during the 1993 House hearings. Incredibly, in neither these nor 1995 hearings did representatives question her about the content of this conversation. Reno left soon after and put then-Associate Attorney General Webster Hubbell in charge. Representatives did not ask her questions about what communication she had with Hubbell in the next two hours that passed before the fire. Nor have they asked if wealthy Waco businessman Bernard Rappaport--who paid Hubbell $18,000 after he resigned in disgrace from the Justice Department--might have had any input into Justice Department or White House decisions on Waco. Nor have they asked Lisa Foster why one reason she believed her husband, White House counsel Vince Foster, killed himself was he felt guilty about "Waco."
11. Will Congress finally dispute the FBI and Justice Department claims that nearly two dozen Davidians were on the first floor but refused to leave the building? Davidians claim these men and women were trapped on the second floor because the tanks destroyed the stairwells.
12. Former U.S. Army and BATF fire investigator Richard Sherrow testified at the hearings. He later signed an affidavit for the Davidian civil suits stating that there is a strong probability that an FBI tank started at least one fire on the second floor that, fed by strong winds through long hallways, quickly spread to the rest of the building. He notes suggestive evidence that FBI agents shot an incendiary "flash bang" into the gymnasium after the first fire started. Will Congress finally take this evidence seriously--even it means the U.S. government may lose 1.5 billion dollars in lawsuits?
13. Why did several FBI tanks continue ploughing burning, bullet-pocked walls and other evidence into the fire for at least ten minutes towards the end of the fire, as seen on television videos? (During the hearings one FBI tank driver volunteered a dubious answer, a possible attempt to pre-empt such a question.)
14. The controversial new film "Waco: The Rules of Engagement" provides evidence relevant to most of the questions above. It also presents infrared video experts who opine that there is clear infrared video evidence that FBI agents shot at Mount Carmel, perhaps at escaping Davidians, during the fire. Will Congress take these allegations seriously enough to grill FBI agents about this?
QUESTIONS ABOUT PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT IN BRANCH DAVIDIAN TRIAL
15. Confidential memoranda and handwritten notes revealed during the 1995 House Waco hearings exposed the fact that the Treasury Department, under pressure from the Justice Department and Webster Hubbell, halted its post-February 28 raid shooting review because agents' stories "did not add up." In fact, interviewers were generating "exculpatory" material that could help the Davidian defendants at trial. Hubbell promised to produce his "Waco files" to Congress, but did not do so. Does Congress condone this unconstitutional Justice Department practice of squelching evidence that might help defendants?
16. The Department of Justice would not allow a company chosen by House investigators to independently test the Davidians' guns to see if they really are illegal machine guns, or if the FBI was falsely claiming this. It then claimed the Department could not afford to independently test them. Considering recent findings of faulty FBI lab work, and even evidence of fabrication of evidence, this FBI allegation, which has led to 140 year sentences for six Davidians, must be independently verified.
Former Los Angeles police officer Mark Fuhrman said on his infamous tapes, "cops" don't need to conspire together to protect each other when they commit crimes, they know what to do. The same goes for federal agents, even from competing agencies like BATF and FBI. These are "cover your butt" conspiracies. However, a truly committed Congress can break through law enforcement's vow of silence. Otherwise "Waco" will remain a prime symbol of the crumbling legitimacy of the federal government.
* Originally from Carol Moore (1:382/87) to terry liberty-parker (1:382/804). From: Carol Moore (cmoore@CapAccess.org)
Carol Moore in D.C.
email@example.com (for a while)
|Home||Ordering||Articles||US||state||historical||int'l||poles, etc||Waco pics|