Was Waco re-enactment rigged?

Infrared experts, including at least one not retained by either the government or the Branch Davidians, say former special counsel John Danforth’s Waco re-enactment tests may have been rigged to mute the effect of alleged gunfire said to be visible on original FBI infrared video, WorldNetDaily has learned.

The experts “have concluded that a series of conscious decisions were made by people that put the test program together … that, when you look at the consequences of those decisions, it becomes clear the test outcome was pre-determined, that it was rigged,” according to Mike McNulty, producer of “The F.L.I.R. Project,” a documentary film that charges FBI agents fired weapons at Branch Davidians trying to flee a fire, which consumed their complex following an FBI raid April 19, 1995.

“Who is actually responsible, I don’t know,” McNulty – who has produced two other Waco-related videos – said. “And I’m not saying that Mr. Danforth even knew.”

Rather, he said, because a number of what he calls provable mistakes were made during Danforth’s March 2000 Waco re-enactment testing at Fort Hood, Texas, “on one or two occasions” critics who believe the FBI fired at fleeing Davidians “should get the benefit of the doubt.”

“Instead,” McNulty said, “all benefit of doubt has supported the government’s conclusion” that agents did not fire their weapons at fleeing Davidians – a conclusion also reached by Danforth in a report he released last November.

Part of the problem with that summation, McNulty said, is that new information suggests the proper environmental conditions were not recreated by Danforth’s team during its re-enactment testing.

Specifically, said McNulty and other analysts, the heavy dust churned up by government vehicles and agents conducting the final raid on Mount Carmel was not recreated at Fort Hood the day of the Danforth tests.

That dust, experts say, has a “dampening” effect on reflective sunlight. The result is that the “glint” – which appeared on the FBI’s original infrared film – could not have come from ground debris, as Danforth concluded; it would have been covered with heavy dust and, therefore, the reflectivity of sunlight greatly diminished.

McNulty and others, including eyewitnesses, say the Danforth team went out of its way during re-enactment testing to diminish the level of dust on the debris at Fort Hood – perhaps to enhance the ability of sunlight to reflect off of it, thereby “proving” that the glint on the original Waco infrared film was also caused by ground debris, not gunfire.

According to Barbara Grant, an independent consultant in electro-optics who witnessed the March 2000 re-enactment materials, the dusty conditions present April 19, 1993, outside the Branch Davidian complex during the FBI’s final raid were not reproduced by Danforth’s team.

In an interview with WND, Grant – who did not work for McNulty, the Davidians or the government – said she had no comment about the possible political motivation “of the people who did the test.” Rather, she has instead “concentrated on strictly scientific technical analysis.”

“In terms of the dust, what we found is that the presence of dust – when weapons are fired through it – lengthens the time duration of the flash and increases the brightness of the flash,” Grant told WND. “Those are pretty significant findings.”

With respect to the Fort Hood tests and the “debris field” set up by Danforth’s team to supposedly recreate the environmental conditions present at Waco, Grant said officials watered it down the night before, supposedly to mimic the effect of rain that had fallen the night before the raid.

Fred Zegel, a thermal imaging expert who also acted as an observer during Danforth’s test – and who worked with McNulty on his “F.L.I.R.” documentary, confirmed Grant’s claim.

“There wasn’t any dust out at Fort Hood,” he said. “During the re-enactment, not much [dust] was kicked up” because the testing site had been watered down and covered with tarps, “which I didn’t like.”

Zegel told WND that had the Fort Hood tests mimicked the Waco conditions, the re-enactment team’s conclusions may have been different.

“I can’t say that [the debris] was highly polished, as though it had come out of a factory, but there wasn’t a lot of dust and dirt and grit on it – the type of thing one would have expected to find at Mount Carmel on April 19 [1995],” Grant said.

“You will get your best specular reflection from surfaces that tend to be flat and highly polished,” she said. “The more dirt and gritty stuff that goes on that debris will reduce the magnitude of the specular reflection. So what we had [at Fort Hood] was a debris field that was certainly different from the debris and conditions that existed at Mount Carmel.

“For scientific purposes, it would have been good to take a look at the dust and grime on debris and see how much that reduces the magnitude of the specular reflection,” she said. “But it was not part of the [Danforth testing] protocol to test in that manner.”

“Specular reflection” is a term used to describe the “glint” phenomenon often recorded by infrared cameras.

Zegel said there were other “problems” with Danforth’s re-enactment, but he wasn’t allowed to voice his concerns during the tests.

For one thing, the thermal signature expert said the infrared camera equipment used during the re-enactment – which was mounted on a British “Lynx” military helicopter borrowed specifically for the Fort Hood tests – was not operating properly.

“They never told us … until after the fact, when I started looking at the videotape,” said Zegel.

Among other problems, the camera’s stabilizer wasn’t worked, and the “system itself was ‘soft,’ or out of focus,” which usually means “there’s a vacuum leak in the detector,” Zegel said. “Once the detector loses its vacuum, it gets warm and it gives you that impression that it’s out of focus.”

“If they were experts, as they said they were, they would have noticed these problems and fixed them,” Zegel said. “But [the Danforth team] was obsessed with the fact that CNN was out there, and they didn’t want CNN to see them. They had guns and guards all over the place patrolling the area. They sneaked us in and out [of the testing area] to avoid being detected” by news crews, who were on the look-out for the testing team.

“The test was just a farce, really,” Zegel said. “I couldn’t take an active part in the tests because we were only allowed to watch [the test]. Even just as an observer, I had some questions. But they wouldn’t even let us look at the data – they went off by themselves and we were just kind of standing around.”

Zegel said he finally was able to see the video and other testing data “after the fact,” meaning, after Britain-based Vector Data Systems – the Danforth team’s infrared and testing scenario expert – had processed it.

Grant was clear that she had not yet made up her mind that certain types of “glint” recorded on the FBI’s original infrared film – shot from an aircraft circling Mount Carmel the day of the raid – are gunfire from the weapons of FBI agents, as some critics have charged. But she said the presence of dust would enhance any gunfire that did occur.

“I think that by not having dust in the picture in the Fort Hood test, that certainly produced different results,” Grant said.

“Frankly, [dusty conditions] made quite a difference in both duration and brightness of the flash of gunfire” in independent tests separate from the Fort Hood tests conducted last November, she added.

“I’m continuing to study the [infrared] tapes,” she said. “I don’t have a conclusion on the tapes yet, so I’m not ready to say” whether or not key flashes indeed were gunfire from FBI weapons.

“It could be, but I think we need to make sure whether it is or is not,” she said, adding, however, that she would not dismiss McNulty’s theory out of hand.

“I’m trying to look at this from a number of different angles,” she said. “It is not clear to me that on April 19, the FBI’s infrared camera sensor … was in position to record solar specular reflections.”

Grant explained that the sun strikes debris at a certain angle – the “force” of the reflection, with the debris acting as the reflecting object. “In the specular case, the reflection will come off from the debris, and it will come up at a specific angle. So, the aircraft has to be at an appropriate position” to pick up that reflection.

“If the aircraft is not in that position, the sun can shine on the debris from here to eternity, but that will not matter in terms of recording a reflection,” she said. “It has to be at a specific location for the camera to record it.”

Grant said earlier expert reports in 1999 argued that geometrically, the FBI’s camera could not have been in a position to record flashes of sunlight off of debris. But in the special counsel’s report – issued last November – officials only used a Swedish firm’s conclusion that the plane’s camera was in the correct position and, therefore, could record the flashes.

“When you have two conflicting points of view about something that critical, that is a make-or-break point for the solar-reflection argument,” said Grant.

Mick Coleman, professional staff member and counsel for the Criminal Justice subcommittee of the House Government Reform Committee, told WND that he had been sent McNulty’s “F.L.I.R.” video and that other information “would be on its way” to the subcommittee in a few days.

However, Coleman said no decision had been made on whether to hold hearings into McNulty’s latest charges, as well as others he has made questioning the veracity of Danforth’s tests.

“We need to [first] review all the evidence, and once we have it all, we’ll make a determination on whether to proceed,” he said, noting that there was “no timetable” to make a decision.

Coleman also said he had not yet been approached by any House member to expedite a review of McNulty’s charges.

“I have not been approached by any members of the committee,” he said, adding that the subcommittee’s chairman, Rep. Mark Souter, R-Ind., “is aware of the information on the videotape that Mr. McNulty has provided.”

The Senate Judiciary Committee has also confirmed it has been contacted by McNulty and supplied information related to his charges, but officials have not yet agreed to hold hearings there, either.

---

Related stories:

New documentary attacks Waco report

Danforth trusted FBI during Waco probe

Did Feds fire at Waco?

FBI machine-gunned Davidians, experts say

FBI weapon not tested during Waco probe

Danforth spokesman refutes Waco charges

Waco producer: Weapons photos falsified

Waco producer challenges government’s analysis

Expert supports Waco-video conclusions

Senators to scrutinize Waco siege evidence?