From: [Paul Schauble] at [f29.n15.z1.FIDONET.ORG] (Paul Schauble) Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns Subject: Linda's videotape 7/8 Date: Sat, 09 Oct 1993 22:41:41 -0500 * Original to All of 1:3624/7, on * Forwarded on by Terry Buyers of 1:3624/[REDACTED] at [Fidonet] ========== tojerry/inquest #528, from wclardy, 4761 chars, Fri Oct 8 10:50:42 1993 ---------- TITLE: Follow-up Analysis of the AJF Videotape In my previous post (long.messages 1697), there were several points in the Linda Thompson videotape that I could not confirm or disprove due to technical inadequacies. I have made use of my in-laws fancy new VCR and TV while they are off on vacation, and will try to clarify those points. In the following discussion, I will refer to the points as originally numbered in long.messages 1697. Point 3. The agent with the MP5 is almost certainly firing. His body motion is consistent with repeated alternation between taking a firing position and searching fro targets. This is in contrast to the agent with the M16, who appears to be looking for targets, not shooting. Point 6. The agent climbing the ladder does not appear to have had an AD. If you watch his right foot while he starts to draw his pistol, you will see that he barely gets his toes on the ladder rung. In other words, he slipped just like other people do when they get careless climbing a ladder. Point 9. The "grenades" that the narrator highlights on the BATF agent's belt appear to be magazine pouches with Fastex buckles. The grenade in his hand still appears to be a flash-bang. Point 11. The agent at the window appears to have thrown something (another flash-bang?) into the window and is just starting to withdraw his hand after the splice. I still could not determine whether or not he actually fired, but he appears to point his MP5 through the window once, then tosses the curtain back and sticks his head in the window while again pointing his MP5 through the window. If he fired at this point, he was not aiming but he was at least looking. Point 12. OK, I saw the 3 distinct holes. They still look consistent with a 3-round burst, but any difference between a 3-round burst and 3 simultaneous shots separate individuals is still meaningless as evidence of anything. Point 20. The tape does show the ramp on the Bradley being raised and personnel moving around. But it still doesn't show what they were doing. Point 21. The height of the hole appears to be 2-3 feet instead of my reported 1 foot. This makes no significant difference to my other observations. Point 22. I still can't tell if its smoke or dust. The narrator freezes the scene so you can't tell if it is rising (smoke) or settling (dust). Point 23. Still can't make out anything useful. There is too much glare (or some- thing) to make out any details on the man on the turret. For that matter, the contrast level is so high, that the man's shape is distorted. I think that the narrator's comments about him being clearly visible "in the studio" may represent wishful interpretation. Point 24. Who is this guy? BTW, I think that the narrator is mistaken in claiming that he is carrying a rifle. He didn't have one coming off the roof, and he doesn't appear to pick anything up. ___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12 * Origin: BRASS CANNON | PAT_HENRY/PRNet/AEN 602-639-1039 (1:15/29) From: [Keith Wood] at [f29.n15.z1.FIDONET.ORG] (Keith Wood) Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns Subject: Linda's videotape 7/8 Date: Sun, 10 Oct 1993 10:24:40 -0500 Paul Schauble wrote > ========== > tojerry/inquest #528, from wclardy, 4761 chars, Fri Oct 8 10:50:42 1993 > ---------- > TITLE: Follow-up Analysis of the AJF Videotape > > Point 9. > > The "grenades" that the narrator highlights on the BATF agent's > belt appear to be magazine pouches with Fastex buckles. The grenade > in his hand still appears to be a flash-bang. Paul, please let him know that the shapes on the belt have been dentified as fragmentation grenades by a number of military experts, based on the light/dark patterns of the objects. > Point 20. > > The tape does show the ramp on the Bradley being raised and personnel > moving around. But it still doesn't show what they were doing. That is the point that was being made. As he noted earlier, you would expect a news cameraman to cover the activity, but the American news crews were working under strict guidelines regarding what could and could not be shown in real time or short delay (to prevent this from being used as an intel source by the Branch Davidian members). It is most likely a case of "Mike, you're on the tank again, pan left. You read that message from New York about what we're not supposed to show." > Point 23. > > Still can't make out anything useful. There is too much glare (or some- > thing) to make out any details on the man on the turret. For that matter, > the contrast level is so high, that the man's shape is distorted. I > think that the narrator's comments about him being clearly visible > "in the studio" may represent wishful interpretation. Nope. The difference between the VHS tape in a home machine and the studio tape in my studio machine and on my studio monitor is about the same scale as comparing 640x480 EGA to a 1260x1024 SVGA system. *OLX/TLX* I'm not a number . . ! Oh, you mean my Node Addess?! * Origin: BRASS CANNON | PAT_HENRY/PRNet/AEN 602-639-1039 (1:15/29)