WACO

[a_unique_person]

Because it must be time to start discussing this topic in it's own thread.

From what I can tell, a bunch of Wackos, led by a psycopathic paedophile, converting semi-automatic weapons illegally into fully automatic weapons, committed mass suicide.

Now, I could be wrong, but from what I have found on the internet, people did actually surrender during the seige, without being mown down in a hail of bullets.

The rest of the sect could have done the same, and fought the issue out in the courts.

Why didn't they just surrender and end the seige? It was going to have to end somehow.

[DavidJames]

I believe you are correct. The deaths were the responsiblity of Koresh and those that chose (or were forced) to stay with him. They all could have walked out alive.

[Rouser2]

David James wrote:

>>The deaths were the responsiblity of Koresh and those that chose (or were forced) to stay with him. They all could have walked out alive.<<

There were tanks, gas, pyro-techniqe grenades, and gunfire mixed in with little children and babies on that shameful day. Nobody saw Koresh riding any tanks, throwing any grenades nor shooting people trying to escape. Guilt is not so easily denied. The blood of those innocents is on the hands and the souls of those who did the deed and gave the order as well as their "Amen" chorus of supporters in the body politic. The crimes of the adults? The claim and exercise of a constitutional right. The crime of the children? Choosing the wrong set of parents.

[Ravenwood]

IIRC, the charge of making illegal full auto weapons (Texas allows you to legally own full autos with a special federal permit) was not proven, in fact one of the ATF agents said on CNN that the reason they went in was because the Davidians had M-16 upper recievers & those will turn an AR-15 into a machine gun. Not wholly true. While the M-16 upper reciever is a machine gun part (in the sense that it is part of a full automatic weapon) the addition of the upper receiver (which houses the bolt & bolt carrier, as well as the barrel & sights) does not convert the weapon to full auto. To do that, you need to install a new sear, selector switch & spring in the lower reciever, as well as drill a couple of holes for some drift pins (I used to be an armourer) The fact that the ATF agent lied on this, as well as the lie that they had a metamphetamine lab (again, no proof ever given) on the compound leads me to think that the ATF was trying to cover its collective butts over a botched application of deadly force. Were the Davidians kooks? most definitely, but last time I checked, that's not a crime. I don't doubt that there may have been criminal goings on in their compound, but fabricating crimes to justify an improper response should also be looked into...

[Aoidoi]

There were tanks, gas, pyro-techniqe grenades, and gunfire mixed in with little children and babies on that shameful day. Nobody saw Koresh riding any tanks, throwing any grenades nor shooting people trying to escape.What in the world are you trying to say here? Because Koresh wasn't seen shooting people that somehow absolves him of culpability? Riding tanks? Huh? What in the world are you trying to say :confused:

Guilt is not so easily denied. The blood of those innocents is on the hands and the souls of those who did the deed and gave the order as well as their "Amen" chorus of supporters in the body politic. Guilt isn't so easily placed, either. All you've done is ranted, there's no support at all.


The crimes of the adults? The claim and exercise of a constitutional right.Well, there's also the little issue of murder. They did kill officers who attempted to enter the building. While Ravenwood has pointed out that the ATF might be trying to save their collective asses in what they say, I have to argue that in the US at that time that shooting government agents went far beyond defending your rights. The press is still out there, and if you argue 2nd Amendment rights in Texas you're almost sure to win. Violent action against the government is simply stupid when better options exist.

The crime of the children? Choosing the wrong set of parents.True regardless of who is at fault.

As to the original question, David Koresh believed himself to be the second coming of Christ, and one assumes at least some of his followers believed likewise. He believed confrontation with the government was inevitable (stockpiling food, water, and weapons was to prepare for that) and his followers went along just like all good little cultists. So the reason they did not surrender is that they thought they had God on their sides.

I'm not a theologian, but I think they were disproven.

[Mike B.]

Putting aside guilt for a second, one thing always struck me as odd.

After this happened, then Attorney-General Janet Reno went to press conferences and said she took "full repsonsibility" for what happened.

The press had a field day praising her courage, etc.

Wouldn't you think taking full responsibilty would mean at the very least you would resign???:confused:

[Ladewig]

led by a psycopathic paedophile

There is no evidence that any pedophilia occurred at the compound. During the subsequent hearings, Janet Reno claimed that the charges of child molestation were made at an FBI briefing. The FBI denied ever making those allegations and there were no written records of the FBI giving Reno any information about such allegations.

Similarly, there was no evidence of drug use at the compound. Charges of drug use were probably leveled at the religious sect because U.S. military personnel and equipment cannot be assigned to criminal cases unless the cases involve drugs.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Rouser2
David James wrote:

>>The deaths were the responsiblity of Koresh and those that chose (or were forced) to stay with him. They all could have walked out alive.<<

There were tanks, gas, pyro-techniqe grenades, and gunfire mixed in with little children and babies on that shameful day. Nobody saw Koresh riding any tanks, throwing any grenades nor shooting people trying to escape. Guilt is not so easily denied. The blood of those innocents is on the hands and the souls of those who did the deed and gave the order as well as their "Amen" chorus of supporters in the body politic. The crimes of the adults? The claim and exercise of a constitutional right. The crime of the children? Choosing the wrong set of parents.

That the whole exercise was a shambles is not deniable, Janet Reno should have resigned.

The basic principle was correct though. Even if they did not have all the parts to make the weapons fully automatic, they had shown clear intent to do so by having the parts there that were part of the process.

People did surrender and walk out. Without being shot. The parents could have sent their children out, they could have come out with their children. How many weeks does it take to surrender?

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
How many weeks does it take to surrender?

Guess in this case it depends on how long it takes to get God's permission.

[Ben Shniper]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
From what I can tell, a bunch of Wackos, led by a psycopathic paedophile, converting semi-automatic weapons illegally into fully automatic weapons, committed mass suicide.


This is my understanding. All the talk about "government intrusion" seems a little far-fetched. There can be no doubt that some mistakes were made (such as the flares), but under the long and stretched out circumstances it is entirely understandable. I don't feel particularly bad about the way Reno handled it, EXCEPT that she seemed to play the tragedy to the cameras a bit much, as she also did with that Cuban kid (what was his name?)

By the way, the full name of the group is "Branch Davidian Seventh Day Adventists", and they were a split off of a split off of my mother's church (http://www.adventist.org/).

-Ben

[Jedi Knight]

The only thing disturbing to me was that WACO was a church with a cross on top of it when it was burned down. I didn't think Americans were into burning people alive inside churches but as we spiral into the 4th world as a country nothing really surprises me anymore.

JK

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight
The only thing disturbing to me was that WACO was a church with a cross on top of it when it was burned down. I didn't think Americans were into burning people alive inside churches but as we spiral into the 4th world as a country nothing really surprises me anymore.

JK

Anyone can start a church. The concept really doesn't mean that much. There is just as much evidence that the fire was started by the davidians themselves as by the bat.

All that is academic, in the sense that they could have just surrendered. People did surrender. Surrender, no risk of fire or gas either way.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


Anyone can start a church. The concept really doesn't mean that much. There is just as much evidence that the fire was started by the davidians themselves as by the bat.

All that is academic, in the sense that they could have just surrendered. People did surrender. Surrender, no risk of fire or gas either way.

Well, just like the OKC bombing was "academic" to Tim McVeigh. I guess it all works out even in the end.

JK

[Rouser2]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Aoidoi

>>Well, there's also the little issue of murder. They did kill officers who attempted to enter the building.<<


There was no murder involved. The Davidians were victims of an unprovoked attack. No warrant was ever served. The Branch Davidian attorneys argued in court that the Davidians shot back at the ATF in self-defense, and the jury agreed.

>>So the reason they did not surrender is that they thought they had God on their sides.<<


The reason some did not surrender as explained by the survivors, was the fact that the people they would be surrendering to were godless liars and murderers and had lied when they told others who had surrendered that they would not be separated from their children.

[Rouser2]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by a_unique_person
[B]

>>That the whole exercise was a shambles is not deniable, Janet Reno should have resigned.

The basic principle was correct though. Even if they did not have all the parts to make the weapons fully automatic, they had shown clear intent to do so by having the parts there that were part of the process.<<


By that reasoning, every Texan with a shotgun and a hacksaw could be also be assumed to be in conspiracy to own an illegal weapon. Fact is, the Davidians were in the wholesale/retail rifle business.

[Rouser2]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ben Shniper
[B]

>>There can be no doubt that some mistakes were made (such as the flares), <<


When you set out to murder innocent people including children and babies with tanks, machingun fire and gas, that is not a "mistake" but a high crime.

[a_unique_person]

That's not the version (http://http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/waco/timeline.html) of the story here.

They had warrents, David Koresh promised repeatedly to surrender, but never did.



# SUNDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 1993:

At about 9:30 a.m. agents of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms attempt to execute arrest and search warrants against David KORESH and the Branch Davidian compound. Gunfire erupts. Four ATF agents are killed and 16 are wounded. An undetermined number of Davidians are killed and injured. Within a few hours, the FBI becomes the lead agency for resolving the standoff. Jeff JAMAR is named the on-site commander. By the afternoon, advance units of the FBI's Hostage Rescue Team (HRT) arrive, and telephone conversations are under way between KORESH, Steve SCHNEIDER, and Wayne MARTIN on one side and the ATF's Jim CAVANAUGH and Waco Police Lt. Larry LYNCH on the other. KORESH discloses that he has been wounded in the hip and left wrist. KORESH is allowed to broadcast his religious teachings on Dallas radio KRLD and does a CNN telephone interview. Michael SCHROEDER, a Branch Davidian, is killed while he tries to return to the main building. Texas Rangers begin an investigation but are barred by the FBI from continuing. At about 5:30 p.m., JAMAR arrives at Waco and chooses Byron SAGE of the FBI as chief negotiator. President CLINTON follows events closely throughout the day.[ Scruggs 1, 9, 21, 22, 24, 229, 236, 241]





#

In a conciliatory gesture, the FBI intervenes to have murder charges dropped against two elderly women, Davidians who had left the compound on March 2. Speaking with negotiators, KORESH accounts for his failure to surrender, as agreed, by saying he's "dealing now with his Father" and not with "your bureaucratic system of government." And he delivers various rambling sermons, focusing on such Biblical matters as "unlocking" the Seven Seals and interpreting God's intentions about the end of the world. In a late-evening conversation, he bristles at the movement of armored vehicles around the compound and says the FBI would have to "look at some of the pictures of the little ones that ended up perishing." [Scruggs 38-41]


# THURSDAY, MARCH 4:

Negotiators jawbone for 11 hours with various Davidians, including 7 hours and 38 minutes with KORESH. The negotiators remain "calm and conciliatory." A memo written by Pete SMERICK and Mark YOUNG, two FBI psychological profilers, says a strategy of negotiations, coupled with ever increasing tactical presence, could be counter-productive and result in the loss of life. [ Scruggs 41-49, 180]


# FRIDAY, MARCH 5:

Nine-year-old Heather JONES leaves compound wearing a note pinned to her jacket on which her mother says that, once the children are out, the adults will die. KORESH and his top aide, Steve SCHNEIDER, deny they are contemplating suicide. The FBI seeks the advice of experts and Davidians on likelihood of mass suicide by the Davidians and receives "inconsistent information." The FBI concludes that the Davidians have a one-year supply of food, including abundant military rations or MREs (meals ready to eat). KORESH continues preaching and threatening violence. [ Scruggs 49-52]





Had the Branch Davidian leader, David Koresh, been abusing children in the compound?

The issue of whether David Koresh sexually and physically abused children in the compound is also not entirely resolved. Koresh acknowledged on a videotape sent out of the compound during the standoff that he had fathered more than 12 children by several "wives" who were as young as 12 or 13 when they became pregnant. ("Why Waco?," by James D. Tabor and Eugene V. Gallagher.) A review of Waco events published by the Justice Department in October 1993 concludes, "Evidence suggested that Koresh had 'wives' who were in their mid-teens, that Koresh told detailed and inappropriate sexual stories in front of the children during his Bible study sessions, and that Koresh taught the young girls that it was a privilege for them to become old enough (i.e., reach puberty) to have sex with him." (Report to the Deputy Attorney General on the Events at Waco, Texas February 28 to April 19, 1993.)





The Department of the Treasury

July 13, 1995

MEMORANDUM TO THE PRESS

FROM: Chris Peacock, Director of Public Affairs

SUBJECT: Weapons Possessed by the Branch Davidians

Enclosed are a set of photographs of items recovered from the Branch Davidian compound and a document listing weapons the group possessed. The photographs were exhibits presented at the trial of eleven Branch Davidians in January and February of 1994 in San Antonio, Texas. The summary document, prepared by the Department of the Treasury, sets forward the findings of the FBI laboratory analysis of the recovered weapons. The FBI prepared the analysis at the request of the prosecution team and the Texas Department of Public Safety, which was responsible for collecting the evidence at the crime scene. The FBI experts' findings were presented at trial in January 1994. Copies of the FBI report are available upon request.

The photographs make clear that the Davidians possessed an extensive arsenal. The first photograph displays some of the hundreds of weapons recovered from the compound. The second photograph "government exhibit 594" presents a portion of the ammunition rounds that were destroyed by heat ("cooked off") and found in an interior bunker; the pile in the photograph is approximately 5 feet high, 20 feet long, and 12 to 14 feet wide. The cooked-off ammunition is being shoveled into a Bob Cat front-loader in "government exhibit 593." "Government exhibit 599" shows one of the live hand grenades found on the premises.

In total, the Texas Department of Public Safety, led by the Texas Rangers, recovered more than 300 firearms from the Branch Davidian compound. In addition, a number of live grenades and more than 300 grenade components were uncovered. Hundreds of thousands of rounds of ammunition were also seized.

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms investigated David Koresh for conduct involving: the illegal manufacture of machine guns and the illegal manufacture and possession of destructive devices. The FBI report provides evidence that the Davidians' arsenal did indeed include weapons unlawfully manufactured. The weapons listed include semiautomatic firearms illegally modified to fire in full automatic mode, as well as grenades and silencers. All of these weapons were unlawfully possessed.

I hope you find these documents useful as you review Treasury's report on ATF's role in events at Waco.

__________________________________________________ _____________________________

WEAPONS RECOVERED FROM THE BRANCH DAVIDIAN COMPOUND: TREASURY SUMMARY OF REPORT PREPARED BY THE FBI FOR PROSECUTORS AND THE ILLEGAL WEAPONS RECOVERED

Machine Guns

The FBI determined that 46 semiautomatic firearms had been modified to fire in full automatic mode:

22 M-16 Type Rifles

20 AK-47 Type Rifles

2 Heckler and Koch SP-89

2 M-11/Nine

The FBI also determined that two AR-15 lower receivers had been modified to fire in full automatic mode.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Rouser2
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ben Shniper
[B]

>>There can be no doubt that some mistakes were made (such as the flares), <<


When you set out to murder innocent people including children and babies with tanks, machingun fire and gas, that is not a "mistake" but a high crime.

In what way did they 'set out to murder innocent people'. Anyone who left the compound was not killed. If anything, it appears people inside were prevented from leaving.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


Well, just like the OKC bombing was "academic" to Tim McVeigh. I guess it all works out even in the end.

JK

McVeigh gave no warnings. Three months warning was given to those at waco.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


McVeigh gave no warnings. Three months warning was given to those at waco.

You mean David Koresh had 3 months warning, but he wasn't important enough to be grabbed away from the compound when he made his weekly runs to town to go shopping. No, burning the church down was more important.

But like I mentioned, it was probably academic to McVeigh. Notice how no other churches were burned down with people in them after OKC.

JK

[Ravenwood]

AUP, a couple of questions on the evidence:
You would think that the highly trained experts could tell the difference between a M-16 (& its variants) which is full auto & an AR-15 which is semi auto. what we get is "22 M-16 type" rifles. If they had M-16s, why didn't they just say so. Could it be that the weapons were so damaged after the inferno that they could not reliably identify or determine what they were? if so, how did they know they were fully automatic? The same goes for the "AK-47" type rifles (AK clones in the US require a completely new trigger group assembly to make them full auto) were they AK-47s, which are illegal without federal permit or were they simply semi auto copies (most people are ignorant of the internal differences) BTW, the Heckelr & Koch SP-89 is a civillian version of the H&K PDW & is also not readily converted without a new trigger group assembly. Just holding up bad nastly looking "black rifles" may convince your average joe, but I'm a bit more skeptical after the first round of lies (what happened to the meth lab?) Moving onto the grenades...All that ammo cooked off, but grenades with fulminate primers & flake TNT filling stayed intact...Hmmm...I'd be thinking twice there (& BTW did you know you can legally own grenade components-I have 3 dummy rifle grenades for my Garand (as well as the launcher & guess what? They are "Grenade Components!) I guess I'm just trying to point out that the post inferno evidence appears suspect & almost made to justify (IMHO) an unecessary use of lethal force. I honestly believe they were kooks & I also believe that they had no right to fire on law enforcement, but the ATF also had laws to follow, & by obfuscating evidence that they goofed, they do disservice tho the law enforcement profession.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


You mean David Koresh had 3 months warning, but he wasn't important enough to be grabbed away from the compound when he made his weekly runs to town to go shopping. No, burning the church down was more important.

But like I mentioned, it was probably academic to McVeigh. Notice how no other churches were burned down with people in them after OKC.

JK

You appear to be saying that OKC was a justified action that produced good results.

If the warrant was to search the compound and arrest Koresh, then that is probably what they wanted to do. You don't think that they expected the debacle that followed, do you. They were probably expecting to go there, arrest Koresh, and search the place. It's not like they are supposed to expect a combat situation.

[Rouser2]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by a_unique_person


>>They had warrents, David Koresh promised repeatedly to surrender, but never did.<<

Like I said. No warrant was ever served. Nor was there any attempt to serve a warrant. The Feds came in shooting. At the hearings, the ATF could not even identify the person who had the warrant, nor could they produce it, though a defective warrant had been issued by a judge, the Davidians knew nothing of it.

As to weapons "photographed," after the holocaust, the FBI refused to allow these weapons to be inspected by independent forensic team from Failure Analysis Associates to determine if those weapons had been converted to automatic before or after the holocaust. As to any suggestion of child abuse, Koresh had been repeatedly investigated by State authorities without any evidence of abuse ever having been uncovered. But child abuse is not even within the jurisdiction of the Feds. Even if such abuse did occur, mass murder of both child victims and adult perps hardly seems like a proper remedy.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Ravenwood
AUP, a couple of questions on the evidence:
You would think that the highly trained experts could tell the difference between a M-16 (& its variants) which is full auto & an AR-15 which is semi auto. what we get is "22 M-16 type" rifles. If they had M-16s, why didn't they just say so. Could it be that the weapons were so damaged after the inferno that they could not reliably identify or determine what they were? if so, how did they know they were fully automatic? The same goes for the "AK-47" type rifles (AK clones in the US require a completely new trigger group assembly to make them full auto) were they AK-47s, which are illegal without federal permit or were they simply semi auto copies (most people are ignorant of the internal differences) BTW, the Heckelr & Koch SP-89 is a civillian version of the H&K PDW & is also not readily converted without a new trigger group assembly. Just holding up bad nastly looking "black rifles" may convince your average joe, but I'm a bit more skeptical after the first round of lies (what happened to the meth lab?)



This is all beside the point. The point is, that they had reasonable grounds to suspect that somthing illegal was going on up there. Yes/No.

If they suspect that something illegal was going on, are they allowed to investigate that suspicion? Yes/No.

If a person is suspected of murder, is the law allowed to investigate that case? Sometimes a person is arrested and charged with murder. After a trial, they are found guilty or not guilty.

Is this not the way the legal system works. If the law suspects you of a crime, you not allowed to bail yourself up in a seige and refuse to come out.

[Rouser2]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by a_unique_person
[B]

>>In what way did they 'set out to murder innocent people'. Anyone who left the compound was not killed. If anything, it appears people inside were prevented from leaving. <<

There is plenty of evidence that mass murder was the plan. And the fact is, Davidians who attempted to escape out the back, the only opening the Feds left after demolishing the compound and setting it ablaze (and an area hidden from the view of the media) were merciliously mowed down by machine gun fire and even ground up in tank tracks.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Rouser2
[QUOTE]Originally posted by a_unique_person


>>They had warrents, David Koresh promised repeatedly to surrender, but never did.<<

Like I said. No warrant was ever served. Nor was there any attempt to serve a warrant. The Feds came in shooting. At the hearings, the ATF could not even identify the person who had the warrant, nor could they produce it, though a defective warrant had been issued by a judge, the Davidians knew nothing of it.



It is a little difficult to server a warrant when you are being shot at. This may explain why they never say the warrant. Saying it was 'defective', is a legalilty, in what way was it defective?



As to any suggestion of child abuse, Koresh had been repeatedly investigated by State authorities without any evidence of abuse ever having been uncovered. But child abuse is not even within the jurisdiction of the Feds. Even if such abuse did occur, mass murder of both child victims and adult perps hardly seems like a proper remedy.

Yes the child abuse is beside the point when they were after illegal weapons. Multiple teenage girls bearing his children is child abuse. It does, however, indicate a general contempt for the law.

This concept of mass murder has never been shown. In the article I link to, fires broke out simultaneously in the compound at different locations. Mass suicide seems to me to be at least as likely an explanation.

He did say he would surrender. If you read the link, he honestly appears to have believed god was going to appear and announce armageddon. When that didn't happen, he knew his reign as jesus was over, and like all good sect leaders who can't live with the knowledge that the jig is up, took his followers with him.

[Rouser2]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by a_unique_person
[B]

>>This is all beside the point. The point is, that they had reasonable grounds to suspect that somthing illegal was going on up there. Yes/No.<<

"Something illegal" isn't good enough for a proper Warrant to be issued in the United States. Got to be a lot more specific than that and have "probable cause" as well. You just can't go into someone's home or church on the basis of rumors, much less go in shooting.

>>If they suspect that something illegal was going on, are they allowed to investigate that suspicion? Yes/No.<<

Yes, if they have probable cause and jurisdiction. No, if they don't.

>>If a person is suspected of murder, is the law allowed to investigate that case? <<

No one was suspected of murder prior to the ATF attack. Allegations of murder after the ATF attack were proved to be false.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Rouser2
[QUOTE]Originally posted by a_unique_person
[B]

>>In what way did they 'set out to murder innocent people'. Anyone who left the compound was not killed. If anything, it appears people inside were prevented from leaving. <<

There is plenty of evidence that mass murder was the plan. And the fact is, Davidians who attempted to escape out the back, the only opening the Feds left after demolishing the compound and setting it ablaze (and an area hidden from the view of the media) were merciliously mowed down by machine gun fire and even ground up in tank tracks.

Evidence?

Before the confusion of the fire and the gas, no one was shot.

Once the fire started and there was general firing and mayhem, anything can happen.

Those laying the seige were just as under stress as those in the compound.

[Rouser2]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by a_unique_person
[B]

>>Evidence? >>

The FLIR films shot be FBI heicopters which can be viewed in the Waco Docu, "Waco the Rules of Engagement".

>>Before the confusion of the fire and the gas, no one was shot.<<

The FBI testified that not one shot was fired by them. That was a lie.

>>Those laying the seige were just as under stress as those in the compound. <<

You need to read just what those little children went through before dying. Many were found with their backs broken because of the wretching contortions and convulsions caused by the gas. No. The Killers with the tanks, machine guns and gas had far less "stress" than their poor, hapless victims.

[Rouser2]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by a_unique_person
[B]

>>It is a little difficult to server a warrant when you are being shot at. <<

The ATF came in cattle cars. Koresh opend the door and pleaded for a discussion. The ATF opened fire first. Photographs of the double doors show the bullet holes, from the outside. That door was never recovered as evidence.


>> Saying it was 'defective', is a legalilty, in what way was it defective?<<

It was defective because it was full of extraneous garbage (such as allegations of child abuse) and no probable cause that a crime was being committed.

>>Yes the child abuse is beside the point when they were after illegal weapons. Multiple teenage girls bearing his children is child abuse. It does, however, indicate a general contempt for the law.<<

Those who continually bring up "child abuse" when the Feds had no jurisdiction over such things show their own contempt for the law.


>>This concept of mass murder has never been shown. In the article I link to, fires broke out simultaneously in the compound at different locations. Mass suicide seems to me to be at least as likely an explanation.<<

It has been show on the FLIR tapes. As well as from witnesses within. There were in fact 7 escapees who jumped out of windows. None reported any suicide pacts, and their escape would seem to nulllify any suggestion of a mass suicide.

>>He did say he would surrender. If you read the link, he honestly appears to have believed god was going to appear and announce armageddon. When that didn't happen, he knew his reign as jesus was over, and like all good sect leaders who can't live with the knowledge that the jig is up, took his followers with him.<<

Koresh took no one with him. All of the people who perished in the holocaust, that is to say, all of the adults, since the children had no choice, chose to remain in the compound of theirr own free will. But the fact is, all planned to leave the very day of the holocaust and had their bags packed. And the FBI knew it.

[Ravenwood]

Quoted by AUP:
This is all beside the point. The point is, that they had reasonable grounds to suspect that somthing illegal was going on up there. Yes/No.

If they suspect that something illegal was going on, are they allowed to investigate that suspicion? Yes/No.

If a person is suspected of murder, is the law allowed to investigate that case? Sometimes a person is arrested and charged with murder. After a trial, they are found guilty or not guilty.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, if you suspect something is illegal, you investigate. You do not stage a paramilitary assault involving dynamic entry & full auto weapons except as a last resort. There were numerous options open to the ATF, & they chose wrong, escalated the situation & were now unable to control it. A truck borne assault with multiple tactical entry teams was the last thing they should have done, let's face it-this is what they were mentally preparing for, why let them have the confrontation that would validate their skewed beliefs? The whole thing was a misapplication of force, & then they tried to cover it up with lies & misdirection. Yes, they had grounds to serve a warrant, but they chose to do it in the form of an assault. If they wanted to grab Koresh, they could have taken him numerous times while he was out jogging & unarmed, away from his followers. Why didn't they, probably because it would not have been as "newsworthy" as a dawn raid, where dozens of kids were"rescued" 100's of guns confiscated (sounds pretty heroic that way...) but instead, they triggered a firefight & siege. Nope, I think they should have chosen another way to take him down... And I don't think they should have lied to bolster their case (what about that supposed meth lab?)

[Ladewig]

Yes, they had grounds to serve a warrant, but they chose to do it in the form of an assault.

or more precisely, a videotaped assault. I still don't understand why the raid was videotaped - it is not standard BATF proceedure.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Ravenwood
Quoted by AUP:
This is all beside the point. The point is, that they had reasonable grounds to suspect that somthing illegal was going on up there. Yes/No.

If they suspect that something illegal was going on, are they allowed to investigate that suspicion? Yes/No.

If a person is suspected of murder, is the law allowed to investigate that case? Sometimes a person is arrested and charged with murder. After a trial, they are found guilty or not guilty.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, if you suspect something is illegal, you investigate. You do not stage a paramilitary assault involving dynamic entry & full auto weapons except as a last resort. There were numerous options open to the ATF, & they chose wrong, escalated the situation & were now unable to control it.



You are an ATF team investigating a doomsday cult, lead by an unstable person who thinks he is jesus christ, that is suspected of having automatic weapons.

I am not one in favour of police using too much force. In this case, their suspicions were more than proven right.



A truck borne assault with multiple tactical entry teams was the last thing they should have done, let's face it-this is what they were mentally preparing for, why let them have the confrontation that would validate their skewed beliefs? The whole thing was a misapplication of force, & then they tried to cover it up with lies & misdirection. Yes, they had grounds to serve a warrant, but they chose to do it in the form of an assault. If they wanted to grab Koresh, they could have taken him numerous times while he was out jogging & unarmed, away from his followers. Why didn't they, probably because it would not have been as "newsworthy" as a dawn raid, where dozens of kids were"rescued" 100's of guns confiscated (sounds pretty heroic that way...) but instead, they triggered a firefight & siege



Maybe so. The ATF paid with their blood. I think that some senior people inside the ATF should have taken responsibility for the stuff ups. Maybe Janet Reno should have resigned. To accuse them of trying to make it all newsworthy, is mere fantasy.

It doesn't take away from the fact that once things were out of control and then stabilised, there were numerous opportunities to surrender peacefully.



. Nope, I think they should have chosen another way to take him down... And I don't think they should have lied to bolster their case (what about that supposed meth lab?)

meth lab is besides the point. The warrant to search was an investigation, not a trial to prove guilt.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Rouser2
[QUOTE]Originally posted by a_unique_person
[B]

Koresh took no one with him. All of the people who perished in the holocaust, that is to say, all of the adults, since the children had no choice, chose to remain in the compound of theirr own free will. But the fact is, all planned to leave the very day of the holocaust and had their bags packed. And the FBI knew it.

You don't think that he had it planned to bring them with him. Planning to leave that day with your bags packed? Just as plausible as any other theory.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Ladewig


or more precisely, a videotaped assault. I still don't understand why the raid was videotaped - it is not standard BATF proceedure.

They wouldn't normally be serving a warrant on someone as loony.

[Ravenwood]

Quote by AUP:
It doesn't take away from the fact that once things were out of control and then stabilised, there were numerous opportunities to surrender peacefully.
__________________________________________________ __
It never stabilized-the Armageddon they feared was at their doorstep. Koresh told them that one day the Government would come after them to kill them, & to all appearances, for them them, that day was at hand. They had no reason (in their skewed vision) to trust or believe the Feds, after all, they came in shooting first, as well as using stun grenades. Heck of a way to serve a warrant, huh?
__________________________________________________ __
Maybe so. The ATF paid with their blood. I think that some senior people inside the ATF should have taken responsibility for the stuff ups. Maybe Janet Reno should have resigned. To accuse them of trying to make it all newsworthy, is mere fantasy.

It doesn't take away from the fact that once things were out of control and then stabilised, there were numerous opportunities to surrender peacefully.
__________________________________________________ __

There would have been less of a risk of life if they walked up to the door & said "Mr. Koresh, we have a warrant for you arrest. Please come quietly." If they were not trying to make it newsworthy, why were TV news crews brought along to film the raid? There is TV footage of the initial assault (showing at least 2 incidents of freindly fire & 1 guy shooting himself in the leg while climbing a ladder.) Again, how can they trust a government that brought in tanks to serve a warrant, as well as used sleep deprivation tactics in attempt to force them to surrender. That dosen't sound like a stable situation to me.
__________________________________________________ __
meth lab is besides the point. The warrant to search was an investigation, not a trial to prove guilt.
__________________________________________________ __
The meth lab issue was used to get the military to help in the seige. Constitutional issues aside, faking evidence to get a warrant is a criminal act. The ends do not justify the means in this case.
*edited for spelling*

[Doubt]

Originally posted by Rouser2
[QUOTE]Originally posted by a_unique_person
[B]

You need to read just what those little children went through before dying. Many were found with their backs broken because of the wretching contortions and convulsions caused by the gas. No. The Killers with the tanks, machine guns and gas had far less "stress" than their poor, hapless victims.

Normally I don’t get involved in conspiracy threads, but this is too much.

I spent several years in the military, (Army and national guard,) And I was exposed to CS gas on numerous occasions. CS is a training tool for the Army. I have never seen anyone go into convulsions from CS gas. I have seen puking, dry heaves, crying, and a few grown men acting like idiots when exposed. I do understand the CS can do some nasty things to asthmatics, but how many of those kids were likely to be asthmatics?

I doubt it is possible to even break ones own back from any kind of convulsion.

That information looks like BS to me. Rouser, what is your source for this information and is there anything to confirm any of this? Anybody know if it is possible to break a back via conclusions?

[Ravenwood]

To the best of my knowledge, the ones who died in the bunker were never exposed to the CS (unfortunately the CEV that delivered the CS drove over the hidden underground bunker & buried them all alive...) It was an unfortunate loss of life, but the crew of CEV (& the Feds) had no idea of the location of the bunker or even if there were any people in it. Actually, the ATF did a poor job of recon for the whole operation (they had no idea of any fortifications or defendible locations within the compound, & the came in a large cattle truck & drove into the middle of the compound, where they were surrounded. If the Davidians had really been prepared & carrying all those full autos, it would have been an even worse bloodbath.) The problem with the Waco tragedy is that some people hype what happened & it obscures the real wrongdoing that occured (on both sides) As another person who has had to be exposed to CS, I cannot see the effects that Rouser described.

[Rouser2]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by a_unique_person
[B]


>>You are an ATF team investigating a doomsday cult, lead by an unstable person who thinks he is jesus christ, that is suspected of having automatic weapons.

I am not one in favour of police using too much force. In this case, their suspicions were more than proven right<<

It should be pointed out to "Unique Person" that it is not a crime to be a member of a "doomsday cult", whatever that is. That epithet could in fact be applied to any number of mainstream religions including many Christian denominations subscribing to the "Rapture" theology. Nor is it the province of Law Enforcement to check on all religious "cults" they deem politically incorrect, especially in view of their sworn obligation to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution, which guarantees freedom of religious worship as well as The Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Let us all be mindful, that it is a crime in some countries to NOT believe in a particular religion. Thus, if we are to protect our own bellief systems, we must protect and defend the rights of all belief systems, including those which mainstream belief systems consider incorrect.

[Rouser2]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Doubt
[B]


>>Normally I don’t get involved in conspiracy threads, but this is too much.

I spent several years in the military, (Army and national guard,) And I was exposed to CS gas on numerous occasions. CS is a training tool for the Army. I have never seen anyone go into convulsions from CS gas. I have seen puking, dry heaves, crying, and a few grown men acting like idiots when exposed. I do understand the CS can do some nasty things to asthmatics, but how many of those kids were likely to be asthmatics?

I doubt it is possible to even break ones own back from any kind of convulsion.

That information looks like BS to me. Rouser, what is your source for this information and is there anything to confirm any of this? Anybody know if it is possible to break a back via conclusions?<<


Not CS gas. Cyanide.

"Besides gun shot wounds, the majority of bodies had high levels of hydrogen cyanide--the deadly poison produced when CS burns. The backward bowed corpse of this eight year old girl shows what cyanide does to the human body. It makes muscles contract so violently that they can actually break bones..." --

Scripted from "Waco, The Rules of Engagement"

"About 15 seconds after inhalation of a high concentration of cyanide vapor concentration there is a transient hyperpnea followed in 15-30 seconds by the onset of convulsions. Respiratory activity stops two to three minutes later, and cardiac activity ceases several minutes later still, or at about six to eight minutes after exposure"

From:

--UNITED STATES ARMY
MEDICAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE OF CHEMICAL DEFENSE
MEDICAL MANAGEMENT OF
CHEMICAL CASUALTIES
HANDBOOK
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/doctrine/army/mmcch/Cyanide.htm#OVERVIEW

I wonder why the ATF didn't use all the available means at their disposal of finding out what makes this particular cult tick? I am sure that if they had investigated the psychology of the Koresh cult, they would have realized that going in with assault rifles was probably not a good idea.

The government was soooo wrong in this case, I can't believe reasoned people are defending them. What was the hurry? Why not just let them hole up and surrender one by one? But they didn't, they decided to go in with tanks and knock the walls down.

Although I wish people didn't believe wacky things, they have a right to believe what they want. I do believe Koresh was a pedophile, but as another poster said, you don't kill the perps AND the victims. They knew there were children in there, they chose to kill those children. People have a Constitutional right to be WACkOS. They really do.

I don't think there was any good evidence that they were breaking other laws other than child abuse, and we will never truly know now, because most are dead. I think the government threw that in as an afterthought to try to gain public support. If they were so worried about it and concerned for the children, child protection would have been in their long before the ATF raid.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Doubt


Normally I don’t get involved in conspiracy threads, but this is too much.

I spent several years in the military, (Army and national guard,) And I was exposed to CS gas on numerous occasions. CS is a training tool for the Army. I have never seen anyone go into convulsions from CS gas. I have seen puking, dry heaves, crying, and a few grown men acting like idiots when exposed. I do understand the CS can do some nasty things to asthmatics, but how many of those kids were likely to be asthmatics?

I doubt it is possible to even break ones own back from any kind of convulsion.

That information looks like BS to me. Rouser, what is your source for this information and is there anything to confirm any of this? Anybody know if it is possible to break a back via conclusions?

Thanks, for that. I post a few 'anti american' posts on this board, but i have my priorities. replacing the US with a bunch of post-opacalyptics is not my idea of an advance in world politics.

The main reason for much of the anti-government paranoia that appears to have been raised in regard to this issue was the anti-democrat angle.

republicans, who wouldn't want their hard earned billions put at risk to back the lunatic fringe, were lining up to back a wacko at waco for the mere point scoring they could make at clinton's expense.

Any paranoid theory that had the vaguest chance of appearing legitimate was floated and passed on. You even have the spectacle of JK saying that the Oklahoma bombing was valid payback.

Lets get this straight.

The weapons that were found were more than enough cause to serve a warrant on the place.
The seige that resulted was more than enough justification to anticipate trouble there.
There are plenty of wacos out there to be afraid of.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Denise
I wonder why the ATF didn't use all the available means at their disposal of finding out what makes this particular cult tick?



The ATF? Maybe there needs to be a re-allocation of responsibilities to agencies. ATF doesn't sound like a rational mix to me.

I am sure that if they had investigated the psychology of the Koresh cult, they would have realized that going in with assault rifles was probably not a good idea.



The government was soooo wrong in this case, I can't believe reasoned people are defending them. What was the hurry? Why not just let them hole up and surrender one by one? But they didn't, they decided to go in with tanks and knock the walls down.



Three months? After three months, the people outside are suffering just as much as those outside, and getting pretty hungry for revenge. How much of those precious tax payer dollars were being spent on one man, david koresh, who got teenage girls pregnant and was trying, in his own amateurish way, to convert semi-automatic rifles into automatic rifles.

[/b][/quote]

Although I wish people didn't believe wacky things, they have a right to believe what they want. I do believe Koresh was a pedophile, but as another poster said, you don't kill the perps AND the victims. They knew there were children in there, they chose to kill those children. People have a Constitutional right to be WACkOS. They really do.

[/b][/quote]

Hang on, they have a right to be wackos and paedophiles? Do you know how many lives one paedophile can f**k up?



I don't think there was any good evidence that they were breaking other laws other than child abuse, and we will never truly know now, because most are dead. I think the government threw that in as an afterthought to try to gain public support. If they were so worried about it and concerned for the children, child protection would have been in their long before the ATF raid.

All those that surrendered, did, and were not shot. They could have lived. As I have said earlier, those higher up should have taken responsibility too. The references to child abuse were, according to one earlier post, included in the intial warrant. Curiously enough, the inclusion of this made the warrant invalid. Go figure.

I thought the ATF initiated the raid. The departmend of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms. Am I wrong?

Disregard above post, I work 12 hour shifts and just got off and am a weebit tired. Sound of hand whooshing over head.

Anyhow to address some of the points you made. People do have a right to be wackos, pedophelia is not allowed but the point the other poster made was that you are killing both.

Who cares how much tax money is spent? Are you equating lives with money? The question is if the Federal Government has a right to do what it did. I think they did not and do not.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Denise
Disregard above post, I work 12 hour shifts and just got off and am a weebit tired. Sound of hand whooshing over head.

Anyhow to address some of the points you made. People do have a right to be wackos, pedophelia is not allowed but the point the other poster made was that you are killing both.

Who cares how much tax money is spent? Are you equating lives with money? The question is if the Federal Government has a right to do what it did. I think they did not and do not.

Money is not the point from my point of view, I suppose, but it seems to figure often in discussions about anything the government does.

Lives, are, however, often equated to money, just ask your friendly HMO, or the starving in Africa.

The fire. It was intentionally started by the govt? No argument has ever been raised that it was. The most that has been raised is that it was a side effect of the teargas.

So bulldozing a tank into an occupied building is not the same as trying to hurt them? I don't understand?:(

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Denise
So bulldozing a tank into an occupied building is not the same as trying to hurt them? I don't understand?:(

Am I a fan of the US govt? No. But at least there are some rules governing them. Where there some human fallibilties present? Yes. But what would you expect after three months of insanity. If it was me, I would have given them a week.

[Doubt]

Originally posted by Rouser2


Not CS gas. Cyanide.

"Besides gun shot wounds, the majority of bodies had high levels of hydrogen cyanide--the deadly poison produced when CS burns. The backward bowed corpse of this eight year old girl shows what cyanide does to the human body. It makes muscles contract so violently that they can actually break bones..." --

Scripted from "Waco, The Rules of Engagement"



Rouser,

It still looks like BS and here is why:

http://homepage.twd.net/donpeace/cs.html

The above link contains information on CS gas, and has a model of the chemical structure. CS has hydrogen, carbon, nitrogen and chlorine as its parts. CS is flammable. All that hydrogen and carbon burn quite nicely. The potential danger of creating cyanide would have to involve the carbon-nitrogen structures on the end.

Looking up cyanide I found the following page, which is in PDF format:

http://atsdr1.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp8-c3.pdf

This page shows four different types of cyanide. The types include hydrogen cyanide, potassium cyanide, sodium cyanide, and calcium cyanide. Three out of 4 of these are unlikely to result from CS reacting in air because we do not have a source for the potassium, sodium or calcium. That leaves hydrogen cyanide. (Chemical structure is HCN.) All the parts are there in CS. But from the bottom of the first PDF page we get the following:

“Hydrogen cyanide is a fire hazard and may be explosive when an excess of strong acid is added to hydrogen cyanide.”

In short, both cyanide and CS are flammable.

It has been over a decade since I was in a chemistry class, but as I remember it, hydrocarbon bonds are pretty weak and are the first thing to burn. In the absence of oxygen, heated hydrocarbons fall apart. (I do know that last bit from first hand experience thanks to having worked in the heat treat industry for 5 years.) The end result is that you are quite unlikely to produce a flammable gas in a fire!

In an oxygen poor environment, you could get incomplete combustion. But the hydrogen would be the first thing to burn. Also, that fire at Waco looked like it had plenty of oxygen.

So I have to ask, what is “Waco, rules of engagement”? Is it a book? Who wrote it?

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


You appear to be saying that OKC was a justified action that produced good results.

If the warrant was to search the compound and arrest Koresh, then that is probably what they wanted to do. You don't think that they expected the debacle that followed, do you. They were probably expecting to go there, arrest Koresh, and search the place. It's not like they are supposed to expect a combat situation.

No, you said that the burning down of the church with hundreds of children inside at the Branch Davidian compound was "academic". There was no follow-up investigation and no one was held responsible for it and that is one of the reasons McVeigh loaded tens of thousands of pounds of ammonium nitrate on a truck and blew up OKC. The other reason McVeigh did it, as he explained after capture, was over Ruby Ridge where Randy Weaver's wife was shot through the chest by a sniper while she was holding her infant son. Then Weaver got a telephone call the next morning by the same guys who shot his wife through the chest who asked him what his wife wanted for breakfast, knowing they had executed her the day before.

These were the reasons McVeigh blew up a few hundred people himself. I didn't say it was right--quite the opposite--but when you have people responsible for upholding the law killing innocent harmless civilians and not being held accountable for it, it is then ludicrous not to expect some crazy to retaliate like McVeigh did.

To McVeigh, the lack of accountability by Janet Reno's "stormtroopers" (as McVeigh described federal law-enforcement) drove him to an "academic" retaliation in search of accountability. I don't like what McVeigh did but it demonstrates the importance that the system needs to keep itself accountable, especially when innocent people are killed. There is no reason to give guys like McVeigh the excuse to build massive bombs and blow up unsuspecting buildings full of people and children.

And like I mentioned, notice how there have not been any churches burned to the ground with people inside of them since the OKC bombing.

JK

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


No, you said that the burning down of the church with hundreds of children inside at the Branch Davidian compound was "academic".



You have misrepresented me. What I actually said was



Anyone can start a church. The concept really doesn't mean that much. There is just as much evidence that the fire was started by the davidians themselves as by the bat.

All that is academic, in the sense that they could have just surrendered. People did surrender. Surrender, no risk of fire or gas either way.



My point was that the fire would have been completely beside the point if they had surrendered, as there would not have been a fire, no matter which side started it.



There was no follow-up investigation and no one was held responsible for it and that is one of the reasons McVeigh loaded tens of thousands of pounds of ammonium nitrate on a truck and blew up OKC.



heres one



DATE=7/21/2000
TYPE=CORRESPONDENT REPORT
TITLE=WACO INVESTIGATION (L)
NUMBER=2-264668
BYLINE=MICHAEL LELAND
DATELINE=CHICAGO
CONTENT=
VOICED AT:

INTRO: An investigation has declared the United
States government did nothing wrong when it took
action in 1993 to end a standoff in Waco, Texas,
headquarters of a religious sect known as the Branch
Davidians. Authorities surrounded the sect members'
compound in Waco for 51 days. As they tried to move
in, a fire destroyed the site and left 80 members of
the group dead. VOA's Michael Leland has more.

TEXT: A report by the government's special counsel in
the case, former U-S Senator John Danforth, sought to
answer what Mr. Danforth called "four dark questions":
Did U-S government agents start the fire that killed
the Davidians? Did government agents shoot at
Davidians on the day of the fire? Was the U-S
military improperly used in ending the standoff? And
did the U-S government engage in a major cover-up
afterwards? Mr. Danforth says he has concluded with
100-percent certainty that the answer to all of those
questions is "no."

/// DANFORTH ACT ///

Responsibility for the tragedy at Waco rests
with certain of the Branch Davidians and their
leader, David Koresh, who shot and killed four
[gopvernment] A-T-F agents, wounded 20 others,
shot at F-B-I agents trying to insert tear gas
into the complex, burned down the complex and
shot at least 20 of their own people, including
five children.

/// END ACT ///


I think if you tried you could find more.



The other reason McVeigh did it, as he explained after capture, was over Ruby Ridge where Randy Weaver's wife was shot through the chest by a sniper while she was holding her infant son. Then Weaver got a telephone call the next morning by the same guys who shot his wife through the chest who asked him what his wife wanted for breakfast, knowing they had executed her the day before.



Don't know much about this case. Another seige where people refuse to surrender and fight it out in the courts, as far as I can tell.





These were the reasons McVeigh blew up a few hundred people himself. I didn't say it was right--quite the opposite--but when you have people responsible for upholding the law killing innocent harmless civilians and not being held accountable for it, it is then ludicrous not to expect some crazy to retaliate like McVeigh did.

To McVeigh, the lack of accountability by Janet Reno's "stormtroopers" (as McVeigh described federal law-enforcement) drove him to an "academic" retaliation in search of accountability. I don't like what McVeigh did but it demonstrates the importance that the system needs to keep itself accountable, especially when innocent people are killed. There is no reason to give guys like McVeigh the excuse to build massive bombs and blow up unsuspecting buildings full of people and children.



There is no argument from me about holding the government accountable. That is why there is a democratic system of voting and free press.



And like I mentioned, notice how there have not been any churches burned to the ground with people inside of them since the OKC bombing.

JK

Calling WACO a church is like calling Scientology a religion.

[Rouser2]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by a_unique_person
[B]

>>Lets get this straight.
The weapons that were found were more than enough cause to serve a warrant on the place.<<

Let's get this straight. You don't base justification for a un-served search warrant for weapons found after the fact. And the only illegal weapons found, were collected by the very agency guilty of the high crime of extinguising the lives of 89 people including 18 totally innocent children. And that very same agency would not allow those weapons to be inspected by any independent forensic source to determine if they had been altered to illegal/automatic before or after the fiery holocaust. We have it on documented record that the FBI has a history of frame-ups including duplicity and falsification and alteration of evidence


>>There are plenty of wacos out there to be afraid of.<<


You mean wackos, not wacos. There are indeed. Especially those with guns, tanks and gas who kill innocents under color of law.

[Rouser2]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by a_unique_person
[B]

>>The references to child abuse were, according to one earlier post, included in the intial warrant. Curiously enough, the inclusion of this made the warrant invalid. Go figure.<<

Not invalid. Defective. A search warrant must contain probable cause of commission of a crime for which the prosecutorial body has jurisdiction. The State of Texas had jurisdiction over allegations of child abuse. They repeatedly investigated; they repeated found nothing. At the Waco hearings, the Feds had to admit they had in fact no contemporeanous evidence of child abuse.

[Rouser2]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by a_unique_person
[B]

>>Am I a fan of the US govt? No. But at least there are some rules governing them. <<

Oh, yeah, sure. Like the Constitution, for instance.


>>Where there some human fallibilties present? Yes. But what would you expect after three months of insanity. If it was me, I would have given them a week. >>


Just out of curiosity, if it had been your own children in there, how long would you have given them?

[Rouser2]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Doubt
[B]

Rouser,

>>It still looks like BS and here is why:<<

>>In an oxygen poor environment, you could get incomplete combustion. But the hydrogen would be the first thing to burn. Also, that fire at Waco looked like it had plenty of oxygen.<<

So what are you saying? That the children did not die in the holocaust? That some of the bodies found were not bowed and contorted? That several of the bodies did not contain hydrogen Cyanide? That cyanide does not kill, horrifically? That the US Army medical information I posted was bogus?

>>So I have to ask, what is “Waco, rules of engagement”? Is it a book? Who wrote it?<<

It was a documentary film produced by former CNN producer Mike McNulty in 1993 which garnered an Academy Award nomination and is still widely available in libraries and video stores. Educate yourself.

[Rouser2]

Regarding the Danforth investigation. All anyone really has to know about the integrity of the investigation could have been gleaned at the news conference at which Danforth announced the Commission's conclusions which included the pronouncement that Koresh and the Davidians started the fires, and that the evidence for that were the audio tapes from bugs planted by the FBI. Well, I've heard those tapes, too. They are virtually unintelligible, but with "helpful" subtitles provided by the FBI, you might "hear" or think you hear, voices saying things like "Light the fire." But without help from the FBI's script, you could just as well hear," "There's a fire!" or "Put out the fire!" But I mention the Danforth news conference because there was at least one reporter who asked a very good question of Mr. D. He queried," "Mr. Danforth, did you yourself listen to those audio tapes????" Danforth admitted he had not, but merely relied on the transcripts provided by the FBI. Thus we have shades of the same kind of other government investigations headed by "distinguised" persons and commissions such as those of the murders of JFK, MLK, RFK, Vince Foster, the OKC bombing, etc., etc., etc., where the prime suspect of the crime and/or the coverup (the government itself) provides all of the "evidence". Thus, you can take that Danforth Report and put it in its proper place -- right on the trash heap of history along with the Warren Report and the Report of the Third Reich on the burningof the Reichstag.

[Doubt]

Originally posted by Rouser2


So what are you saying? That the children did not die in the holocaust? That some of the bodies found were not bowed and contorted? That several of the bodies did not contain hydrogen Cyanide? That cyanide does not kill, horrifically? That the US Army medical information I posted was bogus?

*snip*

It was a documentary film produced by former CNN producer Mike McNulty in 1993 which garnered an Academy Award nomination and is still widely available in libraries and video stores. Educate yourself.

What I am saying is that I smell a rat. I don't know what else is wrong with that documentary, but the cyanide being produced by CS is highly unlikely to be true. That makes me wonder about the rest of it.

If there was cyanide in the kids, then you need to look for an alternative explanation. Keep in mind that these people were looking for some sort of apocalypse. What other information sources claim the kids had cyanide in them?

At the very least, the people who made that documentary did not do their home work. At worst, this is a deception. I have not seen anything else on this from another source. It took me less than 15 min. to determine that HCN is flammable. How much time did they spend putting together this documentary?

Just because somebody used to work for CNN does not automatically give them credibility. I know of at least one former CNN anchor is now doing infomercials.

Based on what I have looked at so far, the only education that I need is to know what the motivation of the producer was.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Rouser2
[QUOTE]Originally posted by a_unique_person
[B]

>>Am I a fan of the US govt? No. But at least there are some rules governing them. <<

Oh, yeah, sure. Like the Constitution, for instance.


>>Where there some human fallibilties present? Yes. But what would you expect after three months of insanity. If it was me, I would have given them a week. >>


Just out of curiosity, if it had been your own children in there, how long would you have given them?

I would have told them to surrender, of course.

[Ravenwood]

Excuse me, Rouser, but where do you get the knowledge that CS gives of cyanide? I've been gassed more than I care to remember & have not suffered any ill effects aside from undignified behavior, hacking up an immense amount of snot & a bloody nose from walking into a tree. Nasty stuff, but hardly fatal.
BTW, I suggest using something more then "rules of engagement" for your sources, as it is a biased propaganda piece, which also trots out a truckload of mis-information.

[Doubt]

Originally posted by Ravenwood
Excuse me, Rouser, but where do you get the knowledge that CS gives of cyanide? I've been gassed more than I care to remember & have not suffered any ill effects aside from undignified behavior, hacking up an immense amount of snot & a bloody nose from walking into a tree. Nasty stuff, but hardly fatal.
BTW, I suggest using something more then "rules of engagement" for your sources, as it is a biased propaganda piece, which also trots out a truckload of mis-information.

Bloody nose from CS……..LOL :D

Did you go to basic at Ft. Leonardwood? The gas chamber there is a legend. They have a large oak tree right out side the exit door. People who ignore instructions often run out of the room and meet the tree up close!

I kept my wits and walked out, and then puked.

[Ravenwood]

Guilty as charged....:D

[Rouser2]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Doubt


>>What I am saying is that I smell a rat. I don't know what else is wrong with that documentary, but the cyanide being produced by CS is highly unlikely to be true. That makes me wonder about the rest of it.<<

Your doubts about something you have not seen nor read are noted. And just what government school did you attend?

"According to Aldrich Chemical Company, in their Manufacturing Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) it is clear how dangerous CS can be. CS is highly flammable and explosive when concentrated within closed quarters. There are strict warnings not to use CS indoors because of the danger of a fire caused by something as small as an electrical spark. When CS burns, it emits carbon monoxide, hydrogen cyanide and hydrogen chloride gases." ---http://www.austinchronicle.com/issues/dispatch/2000-07-07/pols_feature2.html


>>If there was cyanide in the kids, then you need to look for an alternative explanation.
Keep in mind that these people were looking for some sort of apocalypse. <<

There was cyanide found in 44 dead Davidians. None in their digestive tracts.

>>What other information sources claim the kids had cyanide in them?<<

The official autopsy reports.

>> At the very least, the people who made that documentary did not do their home work. At worst, this is a deception. <<

You have not seen the docu, nor have you noted nor checked any sources. Did that government school teach you that your opinion is just as good as anyone elses? While you may be entitled to your own opinions, you are not entitled to your own facts.

>>I've not seen anything else on this from another source. It took me less than 15 min. to determine that HCN is flammable. How much time did they spend putting together this documentary?<<

At least a year. And how much time have you spent advancing conclusions in utter ignorance of any facts?

[Rouser2]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by a_unique_person
[B]
Re: How long would it take Mr. Unique Person to go in with guns, tanks, gas and flames if his own child were there?????


"I would have told them to surrender, of course."

The original question ducked, of course.

[Rouser2]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ravenwood

>>Excuse me, Rouser, but where do you get the knowledge that CS gives of cyanide? I've been gassed more than I care to remember & have not suffered any ill effects aside from undignified behavior, hacking up an immense amount of snot & a bloody nose from walking into a tree. Nasty stuff, but hardly fatal.<<

CS gas can be fatal in any number of adverse conditions including close quarters and heat along with combinations of Mentline Chloride which can produce letal gases such as carbon monoxide and Hydrogen Cyanide gas. Sources for the information are companies that produce it such as Aldrich Chemical. CS gas, used by both the US in the Vietnam War and by Sadamm Hussien on his own people, was banned in warfare by treaty in 1993. But that ban didn't apply to governments using it on its own people, which the US and the Clinton Admin did at Waco.

>>BTW, I suggest using something more then "rules of engagement" for your sources, as it is a biased propaganda piece, which also trots out a truckload of mis-information.<<

Oh, is that so? And you have seen the film? Can you cite just one single item in that "truckload" of mis-information???? Just one?

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
You have misrepresented me. What I actually said was

I didn't misrepresent you. You said that the action at Waco was "academic". That means you think it was a textbook operation and I completely disagree. It was the most poorly executed criminal posse roundups in the history if the United States and a church was burned down in the process that was full of people.

My point was that the fire would have been completely beside the point if they had surrendered, as there would not have been a fire, no matter which side started it.

I know what your point was. You described it clearly enough. Your conclusion is that no matter what the reason was, the folks inside the Branch Davidian compound should have wandered out and surrendered. This isn't China. This is America. The police need a warrant signed by a judge to invade churches as military units.

heres one

I have already read it.

I think if you tried you could find more.

I have read plenty of flawed reports on it like the one you posted.

Don't know much about this case. Another seige where people refuse to surrender and fight it out in the courts, as far as I can tell.

They don't deserve to be killed, do they? What you are saying is that if police show up at someone's house the people inside are guilty until proven innocent. You have no idea what the law is all about in this country. People are innocent until proven guilty. Randy Weaver's wife didn't have to get shot through the chest by a sniper while she was holding her newborn baby in her arms. She was not a criminal. She was assassinated by a sniper and that is why when her husband did go to court he won $millions for her illegal death. But nothing happened to the sniper that murdered his wife. Nothing. That is unlawful and that was one of the motivations that caused McVeigh to build his bomb.

There is no argument from me about holding the government accountable. That is why there is a democratic system of voting and free press.

Voting didn't stop Weaver's wife from getting shot through the chest, did it? Voting didn't stop the church at Waco from getting burned down with hundreds of people inside either.

Calling WACO a church is like calling Scientology a religion.

Waco was a church. It had a large cross on top of it, the very building that the people were hiding in. Saying that the Branch Davidian compound wasn't a church is like saying the OKC building wasn't a federal building.


JK

[DavidJames]

The people in the compound could have left at anytime. They chose to stay and according to the official report they were killed by " ...the Branch Davidians and David Koresh... ".

(orginally posted by a_unique_person )
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/waco/timeline.html

You can lump this conspiracy theory in with the Kennedy assassination and moon landing hoax.

[Questioninggeller]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Because it must be time to start discussing this topic in it's own thread.

From what I can tell, a bunch of Wackos, led by a psycopathic paedophile, converting semi-automatic weapons illegally into fully automatic weapons, committed mass suicide.

Now, I could be wrong, but from what I have found on the internet, people did actually surrender during the seige, without being mown down in a hail of bullets.

The rest of the sect could have done the same, and fought the issue out in the courts.

Why didn't they just surrender and end the seige? It was going to have to end somehow.

You should rent:
Waco:Rules of Engagement

It gives the opposite side of your argument, plus you can see tanks from the FBI footage shooting at people and even running over one member of the Davidans. Plus it goes over the history and explains that David Koresh was not the founder. Also has great coverage of the Senate investigation presenting both sides very well.

Here is some info at Amazon
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1567301738/qid%3D1033433961/sr%3D11-1/ref%3Dsr%5F11%5F1/103-7599641-0826261

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Mike B.
Putting aside guilt for a second, one thing always struck me as odd.

After this happened, then Attorney-General Janet Reno went to press conferences and said she took "full repsonsibility" for what happened.

The press had a field day praising her courage, etc.

Wouldn't you think taking full responsibilty would mean at the very least you would resign???:confused: As I remember she later said it wasn't her fault. So while she was responsible it wasn't her fault.

[Questioninggeller]

Fact is the AFT at the time was suffering from bad publicly at the time and needed good press. Koresh the others found out the AFT was investigating them so Koresh invited the AFT to look at the weapons. The AFT declined... for reasons unkown (it maybe that they wanted this investigation to be a media coup)... then with a search warrant to look at the arms, a bunch of video tape, and a bunch of armed AFT agents went to the compound. The AFT said the video tape was made of the raid was "accidently" deleted (as stated during the Senate investigation) and the other such evidence "lost" that could have showed either the AFT at fault or the Davidians at fault. Also instead of closing the place down to investigate the fire, the firefighters were held back while FBI crews tore down the burned building. And no crime scene photos were taken.

Anyway even if the gas used is safe and only causes vomiting, the FBI knew the Davidans had gas masks, which DO NOT fit on young children. I do not know what that gas can do to a two year old but I am willing to bet it can't be good. Also isn't the gas used flamable?

The CBS report of the FBI air camera (that filmed everything) never aired because the examing company declined let the information be aired "to volite findings they found" including video of the tanks running over a person. The media was not allowed behind the compound where the base of operations was happening, but their video exists.

Whether or not they were crazy has nothing to do with the FBI being responsible (or partly resposnible) for the deaths from the fire. I think the people were crazy, but the FBI once again should be held accountable for the wrong doings.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Questioninggeller
Fact is the AFT at the time was suffering from bad publicly at the time and needed good press. Koresh the others found out the AFT was investigating them so Koresh invited the AFT to look at the weapons. The AFT declined... for reasons unkown (it maybe that they wanted this investigation to be a media coup)... then with a search warrant to look at the arms, a bunch of video tape, and a bunch of armed AFT agents went to the compound.



Given the reaction to the raid, and the subsequent siege, I wouldn't be too keen to go in their either. It would also mean a 'saddam' inspection was possible, with everything hidden away that was suspect.



The AFT said the video tape was made of the raid was "accidently" deleted (as stated during the Senate investigation) and the other such evidence "lost" that could have showed either the AFT at fault or the Davidians at fault. Also instead of closing the place down to investigate the fire, the firefighters were held back while FBI crews tore down the burned building. And no crime scene photos were taken.

Anyway even if the gas used is safe and only causes vomiting, the FBI knew the Davidans had gas masks, which DO NOT fit on young children. I do not know what that gas can do to a two year old but I am willing to bet it can't be good. Also isn't the gas used flamable?

The CBS report of the FBI air camera (that filmed everything) never aired because the examing company declined let the information be aired "to volite findings they found" including video of the tanks running over a person. The media was not allowed behind the compound where the base of operations was happening, but their video exists.

Whether or not they were crazy has nothing to do with the FBI being responsible (or partly resposnible) for the deaths from the fire. I think the people were crazy, but the FBI once again should be held accountable for the wrong doings.

I have no problem with that. I have said before that responsibility needs to be taken for what turned out to be a disaster. At the same time, the majority of the blame has to be placed on Koresh and his friends for committing what would probably have been found to be criminal acts anyway.

You have to ask yourself, though, what state a country is in when the right to bear arms and convert them to weapons of war, overrides the need to protect children from a serial abuser.

As for the complaints about sending in the tanks, I can't agree with that, but then the US seems to have a general policy of being over reliant on force. Maybe the US citizens don't like seeing what happens in other countries at the end of US military power. At least in this case, they had more than fair warning, and the first attempts were to use the tanks to put gas into the place, not as assault weapons. As for the person being run over, when you are driving a tank, you can't actually see much, and the whole place was in total confusion by that point. I wouldn't let the firemen in in that case either, as there were weapons being fired, loonies on the loose, and innocent firemen could have been killed too.

As for the place being a church(JK), I would expect saddam could use this as a tip too, and place crosses on his chemical plants. I hear they ward off vampires too.

I would feel more scared of a place that won't control general access to military weapons than one that botched up an attempt to control those who have them. There have been plenty of massacres using them to serve as a fair warning.

[Doubt]

Rouser,

Interesting information you have posted this time. I do have to correct myself on one issue. Cyanide is produced as a byproduct of burning CS. It is a result of incomplete combustion.

Last night I had a talk with a friend who is a chemical engineer. He confirmed that cyanide could be produced from burning CS gas. However, the amount produced would depend on how much oxygen is available. To state it in two sentences:

The amount of hydrogen cyanide produced would be inversely proportional to the amount of oxygen available to the fire. Since both cyanide and CS are flammable, a portion of the resulting cyanide would also be burned in the fire.

Rouser, do you dispute that Cyanide is flammable? It is a fact, as I pointed out in my second post and provided a link.

How much cyanide was produced? I don't know. From your own source:

http://www.austinchronicle.com/issues/dispatch/2000-07-07/pols_feature2.html

"And according to the coroner's report, a quarter of the deaths at Mount Carmel were caused by carbon monoxide asphyxiation, while another 27% died of smoke inhalation."

Also from the same article:

"There were many variables that may have limited the effectiveness of the tear gas at Mount Carmel. High winds may have blown some of the gas out. Some of the insiders, like Doyle, used a gas mask. Others may have found areas where the gas effects were limited. But Larsen, who holds 47 U.S. patents on chemical processes, told the court that using even the lowest estimates for tear gas concentrations inside Mount Carmel, "many of the deaths of occupants, particularly of the children, were caused directly or indirectly by the effects" of the methylene chloride."

Nothing in there about the cyanide killing anyone, just that they had it in there system. The Austin Chronicle refers to the coroner's report. That last quote was from an expert for the Davidians!

What about those autopsy results? See this page. No one here died from Cyanide. Also they don't like your documentary very much. One of them died from a stab wound!

http://www.public-action.com/SkyWriter/WacoMuseum/death/map/d_list00.html

The public action site does seem a little strange. Check out there other stories. Not exactly a pro government site. But that is all I could find on the autopsies. What is your source for them?

Also, one of the main means of deploying CS is to use a grenade. The grenade burns. Any chance anybody ever died from the cyanide the grenade produces? While training at Ft. Benning, some of the instructors used to throw these things at us after throwing a white smoke grenade. They hoped we would not notice and get a face full of gas. That trick worked once. After that we noticed the smell, and put our masks on first. Never did die from the cyanide produced!

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m7a.htm

Also see the following:

About your doc.

http://www.Public-Action.com/SkyWriter/WacoMuseum/burial/doc/wre_rev1.html

http://www.Public-Action.com/SkyWriter/WacoMuseum/burial/doc/wre_rev2.html

The PBS doc.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/waco/topten2.html#cs

Medical info on CS

http://clickit.go2net.com/search?cid=239159&site=srch&area=srch.noncomm.fastws&shape=textlink&cp=dogpile&rawto=http://www.phrusa.org/research/chemical_weapons/chemjama.html

From the CDC about cyanide

http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/tfacts8.html

I still need to take a close look at that CDC web site. It may be possible to use that information to estimate the quantity of cyanide produced.

In the mean time, I still don't see any reason to conclude that anyone was killed by cyanide. Do you have any other sources.

As for my education, do you think the "government" schools that I attended taught me a politically biased form of chemistry? I will ignore the rest of your ad hominem attack for now.

[Rouser2]

Doubt wrote:

>>In the mean time, I still don't see any reason to conclude that anyone was killed by cyanide. Do you have any other sources<<

It is impossible to cogently discuss any topic where all one does is post and cite "links". This board is not for book reading nor dissertation writing. If you have a point, make it. If you have a "source" cite it. But to simply challenge me to read through all your garbage to try to find out just what your point is, is pointless.

This discussion thread stemmed from some inane comment made by someone else -- "Unique Person", I believe that the whole thing, while tragic, was just as tragic and "stressful" for the Federal murderers as for their hapless victims. I merely responded by trying to point out, that the innocents inside, including children and babies didn't just die, but died the most horrible kind of death, where some of the bodies were found so contorted that it appeared they had suffered convulsions which was probably caused by cyanide poisoning. The point is not the cause of death, but the horror -- the horror of what those innocents experienced before they died -- the result of a gas attack of the kind banned in warfare by international treaty. As to whether the acutal cause of death was carbon monoxide, or hydrogen cyanide or smoke inhalation or fire -- all that is beside the point. That those poor victims did experience the kind of convulsions that cyanide produces, including breaking their bones so they were found bowed and contorted is the point. To compare that kind of "stress" as the poster called it, to any "stress" experienced by the attacking Federal Brownshirts is ludicrous. That CS gas combined with heat and/or Meth Chloride can produce cyanide, and that those contorted bodies were so found is enough evidence to conclude that cyanide may have indeed caused the most terrible kind of suffering, if not the cause of death itself. All you need to do to educate yourself is to view the docu yourself. Quit relying on the hearsay of others. See for yourself those pathetic, burned, contorted bodies of innocent children and then come back on this board and tell me they didn't die a horrible death -- and save the chemistry lesson for another board.

[Doubt]

Rouser,

That appeal to emotion is all well and good. But the links provided are there to show what I looked at in trying to verify death by hydrogen cyanide. I found nothing to back up that claim.

My point is that a lot of information put out there is probably not correct. A documentary is not evidence all by itself. That is why I went looking. One of the many sites I did not post a link two was one by the producers of the "Rules of engagement" Documentary. I did not see any support there either.

Without back up, documentaries like WTROE are at best hot air and at worst lies. I only went after the one area that I know a little about. Do you think that is the only problem with the WTROE Documentary?

This is the best set of conclusions that I can make with the cited evidence:

1. Burning CS can produce hydrogen Cyanide, but both are flammable gases.
2. Many of the bodies in the compound had cyanide in them.
3. The cause of death, in the available data, was never ruled to be the cyanide poisoning.

I have not looked into the issue of convolutions and breaking bones. I will not bother since I have never heard of this from carbon monoxide poisoning.

Would I look at the WTROE documentary? Sure, if it were free. I am not going to spend my money on it. If I were to spend money on this subject, I would use the freedom of information act and get copies of the autopsy reports instead. Which do you think would be more informative? Do you have another source?

Also, the Meth Chloride works like an anaesthetic. It likely knocked people out if the concentration was high enough. (If it did not kill them all by itself.) It is not needed to produce cyanide.

Did these people die a needless death? Yes.
Was the tragedy at Waco the fault of the Feds? In part, yes.
Did the Feds set out to murder everybody? Don't know.
Do some people have something to gain from telling stories about Waco? The documentary costs $30.00 per tape. Where do the proceeds go?

I did a lot more than cite links. I looked at them and saw what they had to say. I also pointed out that there is no back up for death by cyanide in part by using your own source.

What other evidence is there to back this claim?

[Rouser2]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Doubt
[B]Rouser,

>>That appeal to emotion is all well and good. But the links provided are there to show what I looked at in trying to verify death by hydrogen cyanide. I found nothing to back up that claim.<<

What claim? I never made a claim of "death by hydrogen cyanaide." I made the claim that there was evidence of bone breaking contortions. That claim was challenged that CS gas does not produce such contortions. But the point is, cyanide does. I quote from my own post:

>>You need to read just what those little children went through before dying. Many were found with their backs broken because of the wretching contortions and convulsions caused by the gas.<<


>>My point is that a lot of information put out there is probably not correct. <<

A point made without any reference, nor knowledge, nor basis. Gawd, that government school really did a number on you!

>>A documentary is not evidence all by itself. <<

Of course not. But you didn't even bother to view it and see just how extensive was the evidence for the claims made, which did not include death by cynaide, but contorted bodies probably caused by hydrogen cynanide poisoning -- a possible consequence of mixing CS gas with Meth Chloride.

>>That is why I went looking.<<

Looking everywhere but at the video itself, which at 2 or 3 bucks at Blockbuster is just too much!

>> One of the many sites I did not post a link two was one by the producers of the "Rules of engagement" Documentary. I did not see any support there either.<<

Support for what? Neither I nor the Documentary made a claim for death by cyanide poisoning, but only showed the dead, charred, deformed bodies and alluded to the fact that this is possible evidence of hydorgen cyanide poisoning. This death via cyanide business is your own constructed straw man. Fact is, if you did any real checking at all, you would know that death via cyanide poisoning is very difficult to diagnose, due to the rapid dissapation of cyanide, which is why clandestine Murders, Inc. such as the CIA/KGB have been alleged to have used it for their own black operations. You can just spray some of the stuff in the victim's face. He soon dies, and the autospy reads "Death due to heart attack".

>>Without back up, documentaries like WTROE are at best hot air and at worst lies. <<

Without backup, know-nothing critics like you who are too cheap to even rent the $2 video you criticize are spewers of nothing but pointless hot air.

>>I only went after the one area that I know a little about. Do you think that is the only problem with the WTROE Documentary?>>

As I have pointed out, there is no problem with your allegation because the Docu never makes the claim of death via cyanide and neither do I. Did you ever get your own reading comprehension tested at that government school?

>>I have not looked into the issue of convolutions and breaking bones. I will not bother since I have never heard of this from carbon monoxide poisoning.>>

I thought we were talking about cyanide. And if you never heard of convulsions caused by cyanide, then you didn't bother to read the US Army medical information at the Link I posted.

>>Would I look at the WTROE documentary? Sure, if it were free.<<

Well then I've got good news for you, you poor hapless, penniless graduate of the government school. There's a thing that nearly all local lilbraries have called Inter-Library Loan. If your local library doesn't have it, you can search your region, state or entire country and get it completely and totally free so you won't have to steal 2 bucks to rent it from Blockbuster.

>>The documentary costs $30.00 per tape. Where do the proceeds go?<<

The last I heard it went to pay off a several hundred thousand dollar debt incurred by the producers from the film's production, which should be good news for people like you, who would think of the product as somehow unclean if it made any money at all.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Rouser2
Doubt wrote:

>>In the mean time, I still don't see any reason to conclude that anyone was killed by cyanide. Do you have any other sources<<

It is impossible to cogently discuss any topic where all one does is post and cite "links". This board is not for book reading nor dissertation writing. If you have a point, make it. If you have a "source" cite it. But to simply challenge me to read through all your garbage to try to find out just what your point is, is pointless.

This discussion thread stemmed from some inane comment made by someone else -- "Unique Person", I believe that the whole thing, while tragic, was just as tragic and "stressful" for the Federal murderers as for their hapless victims. I merely responded by trying to point out, that the innocents inside, including children and babies didn't just die, but died the most horrible kind of death, where some of the bodies were found so contorted that it appeared they had suffered convulsions which was probably caused by cyanide poisoning. The point is not the cause of death, but the horror -- the horror of what those innocents experienced before they died -- the result of a gas attack of the kind banned in warfare by international treaty. As to whether the acutal cause of death was carbon monoxide, or hydrogen cyanide or smoke inhalation or fire -- all that is beside the point. That those poor victims did experience the kind of convulsions that cyanide produces, including breaking their bones so they were found bowed and contorted is the point. To compare that kind of "stress" as the poster called it, to any "stress" experienced by the attacking Federal Brownshirts is ludicrous. That CS gas combined with heat and/or Meth Chloride can produce cyanide, and that those contorted bodies were so found is enough evidence to conclude that cyanide may have indeed caused the most terrible kind of suffering, if not the cause of death itself. All you need to do to educate yourself is to view the docu yourself. Quit relying on the hearsay of others. See for yourself those pathetic, burned, contorted bodies of innocent children and then come back on this board and tell me they didn't die a horrible death -- and save the chemistry lesson for another board.

If we are getting into appeals to emotion, how about we mention the horror, the horror, of the murdered agents family knowing their daddy wasn't going to be coming home.

Or the horror, the horror, of pubescent teenage girls, being forcefully raped and impregnated by David Koresh.

The whole rumpus was stirred up by the republicans who never let a chance pass by to attack clinton.

If you really want to help innocent children dying every day, there are plenty left.

The actual horror that killed those children was the fire that was started by koresh and his refusal to let them go free, but keeping them as hostages to his own insane ego.

[Doubt]

Rouser,

Originally posted by Rouser2


What claim? I never made a claim of "death by hydrogen cyanide." I made the claim that there was evidence of bone breaking contortions. That claim was challenged that CS gas does not produce such contortions. But the point is, cyanide does. I quote from my own post:

>>You need to read just what those little children went through before dying. Many were found with their backs broken because of the wretching contortions and convulsions caused by the gas.<<



Your words here:



The backward bowed corpse of this eight year old girl shows what cyanide does to the human body. It makes muscles contract so violently that they can actually break bones..." --



So if you are not saying that she died from cyanide, but only suffered bone breaking contractions from it? So from your non-claim, she must have first suffered the contractions, and then died from carbon monoxide poisoning? If that is not the case, tell me what you think happened.

Then there is this:

Me:
>>My point is that a lot of information put out there is probably not correct. <<

You


A point made without any reference, nor knowledge, nor basis. Gawd, that government school really did a number on you!


I did read the references you posted. I guess you could not bother to read any of mine. Do you have any source of info besides the Documentary that backs up your suggestions that they suffered from hydrogen cyanide while they died from carbon monoxide poisoning?


Me:
>>A documentary is not evidence all by itself. <<


Then you again:


Of course not. But you didn't even bother to view it and see just how extensive was the evidence for the claims made, which did not include death by cynaide, but contorted bodies probably caused by hydrogen cynanide poisoning -- a possible consequence of mixing CS gas with Meth Chloride.
[QUOTE][B]

1.) First you agree that the documentary is not evidence, and then you call it evidence again!

2.) None of the sources I found state that the Meth Chloride either helped or hindered the formation of cyanide. Do you have a source for this?


[B][QUOTE]
Support for what? Neither I nor the Documentary made a claim for death by cyanide poisoning, but only showed the dead, charred, deformed bodies and alluded to the fact that this is possible evidence of hydorgen cyanide poisoning. This death via cyanide business is your own constructed straw man. Fact is, if you did any real checking at all, you would know that death via cyanide poisoning is very difficult to diagnose, due to the rapid dissapation of cyanide, which is why clandestine Murders, Inc. such as the CIA/KGB have been alleged to have used it for their own black operations. You can just spray some of the stuff in the victim's face. He soon dies, and the autospy reads "Death due to heart attack".



OK, first you say that deformed bodies are possible evidence of cyanide poisoning. They you say that cyanide poisoning is very difficult to diagnose? Those two ideas appear to be contradictions. Help me out on this one.

Also, You talk about how fast cyanide dissipates, and talk about the KGB using it to kill people. So people assassinated with cyanide don’t have convulsions that break bones but people that get poisoned in Texas do? At Waco they looked for cyanide, and found it. They found it but did not list it as a cause of death or even a possible cause of death.

Are contorted bodies evidence of cyanide poisoning? From your own source again, namely that FAS page you cited:

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/doctrine/army/mmcch/Cyanide.htm#OVERVIEW

“Full recovery is usually relatively fast after cyanide intoxication. Those with mild to moderate effects from the agent can usually return to duty within hours, and those successfully treated after severe effects can return within a day.”

Gee I guess that would be pretty hard for a solider to return to duty with broken bones. The contorted corpses are NOT evidence of cyanide poisoning!

If your video “alluded to the fact that this is possible evidence of hydrogen cyanide poisoning.” Then your video is a sham. The use of “Alluded” and “possible” imply speculation. Where is the “fact” in possible cyanide poisoning?

What school did you go to? The school of contradictory evidence?

[Rouser2]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by a_unique_person
[B]

>>If we are getting into appeals to emotion, how about we mention the horror, the horror, of the murdered agents family knowing their daddy wasn't going to be coming home.<<

I'd hardly compare that to the back breaking contortions caused by cynanide poisoning of innocent children. Those daddies were not murdered; they were killed in an act of self defense after those "daddies" chose to shoot at a compound containing innocent children.

>>Or the horror, the horror, of pubescent teenage girls, being forcefully raped and impregnated by David Koresh. <<

There were no pubescent teenage girls forcefully raped. Get your facts straight.

>>The whole rumpus was stirred up by the republicans who never let a chance pass by to attack clinton. <<

I'd hardly describe the mass murder as a "rumpus", but it in fact was started by an out of control agency looking to make national headlines in a seige which they dubbed "Showtime".

>>If you really want to help innocent children dying every day, there are plenty left.<<

I'd start by jailing or executing those who seek to kill innocent children under color of law.

>>The actual horror that killed those children was the fire that was started by koresh<<

You don't know who or what started the fire, but without the tank attack, there would have been no fire.

>> and his refusal to let them go free,<<

No one was held hostage. Get your facts straight.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Rouser2
[QUOTE]Originally posted by a_unique_person
[B]

>>If we are getting into appeals to emotion, how about we mention the horror, the horror, of the murdered agents family knowing their daddy wasn't going to be coming home.<<

I'd hardly compare that to the back breaking contortions caused by cynanide poisoning of innocent children. Those daddies were not murdered; they were killed in an act of self defense after those "daddies" chose to shoot at a compound containing innocent children.



They shot a dog, apparently.



>>Or the horror, the horror, of pubescent teenage girls, being forcefully raped and impregnated by David Koresh. <<

There were no pubescent teenage girls forcefully raped. Get your facts straight.



Oh, so they liked it. Either way, it is statutory rape if they are under the age of consent.



>>The whole rumpus was stirred up by the republicans who never let a chance pass by to attack clinton. <<

I'd hardly describe the mass murder as a "rumpus", but it in fact was started by an out of control agency looking to make national headlines in a seige which they dubbed "Showtime".



Get the agencies under control, by all means. The FBI was the personal fiefdom of a cross-dressing homosexual who had no compunction in revealing or inventing the personal details of anyone he didn't feel was rabidly anti-communist.

But I still want the David Koreshs of the world brought under control, too. These guys are every bit as frightening, I would place him in the same category as Manson.



>>If you really want to help innocent children dying every day, there are plenty left.<<

I'd start by jailing or executing those who seek to kill innocent children under color of law.



I don't believe they actually said to them selves that morning, 'How can we kill these kids, and make it as painful as possible'. Do you?



>>The actual horror that killed those children was the fire that was started by koresh<<

You don't know who or what started the fire, but without the tank attack, there would have been no fire.



without the refusal to surrender there would have been no tanks pumping in the gas. They had three months to surrender, people did, and were not killed.



>> and his refusal to let them go free,<<

No one was held hostage. Get your facts straight.

So why didn't they let the kids go? Why did that mother pin the message to her childs clothes that quite clearly stated that she felt she was under Koresh's control and that what happened was up to him?

[Rouser2]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Doubt
[B]Rouser,

>>So if you are not saying that she died from cyanide, but only suffered bone breaking contractions from it? So from your non-claim, she must have first suffered the contractions, and then died from carbon monoxide poisoning? If that is not the case, tell me what you think happened.<<

I do not make any conclusions about the exact agent that caused the girl to die. That is not the point.

>>OK, first you say that deformed bodies are possible evidence of cyanide poisoning. They you say that cyanide poisoning is very difficult to diagnose? Those two ideas appear to be contradictions. Help me out on this one.<<

Not an easy task. The two points are not contradictory. A contorted body is evidence of cyanide poisoning. A dead body may or may not be caused by cyanide when there are other deadly agents such as smoke, fire, carbon monoxide, etc., etc, etc. available as well. Even if death is caused via cyanide, it would be difficult to diagnose due to rapid dissipation.

Are contorted bodies evidence of cyanide poisoning? From your own source again, namely that FAS page you cited:

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/doctrine/army/mmcch/Cyanide.htm#OVERVIEW

“Full recovery is usually relatively fast after cyanide intoxication. Those with mild to moderate effects from the agent can usually return to duty within hours, and those successfully treated after severe effects can return within a day.”

>>Gee I guess that would be pretty hard for a solider to return to duty with broken bones. The contorted corpses are NOT evidence of cyanide poisoning! <<

I think you are now becoming a real bore -- and sinking into kindergarten nitwittery. Obviously, that passage refers to "mild" exposure. Do you read and comprehend the words "mild" and "moderate"? But the same source refers to death and convulsions.


"About 15 seconds after inhalation of a high concentration of cyanide vapor concentration there is a transient hyperpnea followed in 15-30 seconds by the onset of convulsions. Respiratory activity stops two to three minutes later, and cardiac activity ceases several minutes later still, or at about six to eight minutes after exposure.
The onset and progression of signs and symptoms after ingestion of cyanide or after inhalation of a lower concentration of vapor are slower."

I think your attempt to completely discredit a documentary film which you have not seen and refuse to see via refutation of a point the film doesn't even make is at a dead end.

[Rouser2]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by a_unique_person
[B]

>>Oh, so they liked it. Either way, it is statutory rape if they are under the age of consent.<<

You said forceable rape. That is false. Statuory rape? Maybe. Maybe not. A good reason to kill the chidlren and the perp?

>>I don't believe they actually said to them selves that morning, 'How can we kill these kids, and make it as painful as possible'. Do you?<<

I think they were given orders to use tanks, gas and bullets to accomplish their mission. And they knew there were children there.

>>without the refusal to surrender there would have been no tanks pumping in the gas. They had three months to surrender, people did, and were not killed.<<

And that is justification for mass murder of them, including the children?

>>So why didn't they let the kids go? <<

The children had to be with parents. Koresh held no one.

>>Why did that mother pin the message to her childs clothes that quite clearly stated that she felt she was under Koresh's control <<

I think that is something you just made up. But being under physical control is one thing. They were not under Koresh's physical control. Psychological control? Perhaps.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Rouser2
[QUOTE]Originally posted by a_unique_person
[B]

>>Oh, so they liked it. Either way, it is statutory rape if they are under the age of consent.<<

You said forceable rape. That is false. Statuory rape? Maybe. Maybe not. A good reason to kill the chidlren and the perp?



Pubescent girl? about 14, say. Do you think she could hardly wait?



>>I don't believe they actually said to them selves that morning, 'How can we kill these kids, and make it as painful as possible'. Do you?<<

I think they were given orders to use tanks, gas and bullets to accomplish their mission. And they knew there were children there.



The process took hours, the tanks were used so no one would get shot. How long does it take to just put your hands up, surrender and come out? The fire was started by Koresh.



>>without the refusal to surrender there would have been no tanks pumping in the gas. They had three months to surrender, people did, and were not killed.<<

And that is justification for mass murder of them, including the children?



OK, what would you have done?



>>So why didn't they let the kids go? <<

The children had to be with parents. Koresh held no one.



Some of the parents sent their kids out.



>>Why did that mother pin the message to her childs clothes that quite clearly stated that she felt she was under Koresh's control <<

I think that is something you just made up. But being under physical control is one thing. They were not under Koresh's physical control. Psychological control? Perhaps.



FRIDAY, MARCH 5:
Nine-year-old Heather JONES leaves compound wearing a note pinned to her jacket on which her mother says that, once the children are out, the adults will die. KORESH and his top aide, Steve SCHNEIDER, deny they are contemplating suicide. The FBI seeks the advice of experts and Davidians on likelihood of mass suicide by the Davidians and receives "inconsistent information." The FBI concludes that the Davidians have a one-year supply of food, including abundant military rations or MREs (meals ready to eat). KORESH continues preaching and threatening violence. [ Scruggs 49-52]



source (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/waco/timeline.html)

Have you read the timeline?

dealing with an unpredictable madman (THURSDAY, MARCH 4:)

[Doubt]

Rouser,

"A contorted body is evidence of cyanide poisoning."

Your evidence to back up this claim is what?

Show me a case where convulsions resulted in broken bones? The medical information on the FAS site does not mention convulsions that result in broken bones.

"Obviously, that passage refers to "mild" exposure. Do you read and comprehend the words "mild" and "moderate"? But the same source refers to death and convulsions."

No, it does not refer to mild exposure. It refers to mild and severe effects. Convulsions are severe effects. For you idea to be true, there should be a section on really,really severe effects. Also the use of the terms mild and severe in that section appear to correspond with the concept of mild and severe exposure you cited this time.

If you still don't get it, read the triage, return to duty section of the FAS page. Then compare it to the one for mustard gas, which also has a section at the end for long term effects. There are no long term effects for cyanide, which means no broken bones.

This is a long one, but mustard gas is first with lewisite second.

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/doctrine/army/mmcch/Vesicant.htm#_Toc349023728

In short, you have no evidence of cyanide poisoning affecting the victims at Waco.

[Rouser2]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by a_unique_person
[B]

>>Pubescent girl? about 14, say. Do you think she could hardly wait?<<


In Texas, 14 is legal -- if married.


>>The process took hours, the tanks were used so no one would get shot.<<

The tanks were used to shoot those who tried to escape as well as to fire incidiary projectiles into the compound.

>> How long does it take to just put your hands up, surrender and come out? <<

How long does it take to shoot to death those trying to surrender.

>> The fire was started by Koresh. <<

You already said that about 10 times. Of course, you have not a scintilla of proof.


>>OK, what would you have done?<<

If I were the local County Sheriff, I would have called in a posse and arrested all of the illegal Federals violating the rights of the innocent people inside that compound.

>>Some of the parents sent their kids out.<<

Which proves there was no one held against their will and no plan for mass suicide.

>>source (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/waco/timeline.html)

Have you read the timeline? <<

Do you have a point?

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by Doubt
Rouser,

"A contorted body is evidence of cyanide poisoning."

Your evidence to back up this claim is what?

Already given it. Read the Army Manuel, soldier.


>>Show me a case where convulsions resulted in broken bones?<<


The little girl shown on the WTROE Docu. I've seen it. I've seen her -- the dead little girl. You haven't and don't want to.

>>The medical information on the FAS site does not mention convulsions that result in broken bones.<<

Convulsions can result in broken bones. Especially violent convulsions. So can sneezing.


"Obviously, that passage refers to "mild" exposure. Do you read and comprehend the words "mild" and "moderate"? But the same source refers to death and convulsions."

No, it does not refer to mild exposure. It refers to mild and severe effects. <<

Meaning mild effects due to mild exposure. Could I interest you an a little experment? Why don't you inhale some industrial grade Hydrogen Cyanide for awhile and report on the effects.

>>Convulsions are severe effects. For you idea to be true, there should be a section on really,really severe effects. <<

There is.

??If you still don't get it, read the triage, return to duty section of the FAS page. Then compare it to the one for mustard gas, which also has a section at the end for long term effects. There are no long term effects for cyanide, which means no broken bones.<<

The long term effects of cyanide poisoning are buried six feet under. Why don't you try it?

>>This is a long one, but mustard gas is first with lewisite second.<<

Do you have a point?

>>In short, you have no evidence of cyanide poisoning affecting the victims at Waco. <<

Except for 44 people noted with high levels in their dead bodies and at least one little girl with a backwards bowed body, charred, deformed and dead. But, how would you know? Obviously, a gorverment school product whose mind is made up and will not be confused by facts and doesn't even want to see any.

[Ravenwood]

Quoted by Rouser:
Oh, is that so? And you have seen the film? Can you cite just one single item in that "truckload" of mis-information???? Just one?
__________________________________________________ __

For starters, the analysis of the FLIR data. Occam's razor...
For an another independant analysis:
http://www.megafoundation.org/Ubiquity/UbiqFall01/Waco.htm
Second, the ludicrous claim of the footage of the "tank" (it was a M728 combat engineering vehicle) "firing" into the gym. The CEV mounts a 165mm demolition gun. Do you have any idea of what the muzzle blast of a cut down 165mm gun looks like? I honestly believe that that tiny flash is a reflection off of sheetrock...which leads me to the fact that the CEV did not fire any pyrotechnic rounds as claimed, the facts bear out that the CS was PUMPED in via a deployment system mounted on the CEV (them demo gun was never used) all pyrotechnic CS delivery systems that were used in the siege were 40mm or smaller, & certainly not on the CEV. (they were either man portable or on the Bradleys)

[DavidJames]

">> The fire was started by Koresh. <<

You already said that about 10 times. Of course, you have not a scintilla of proof."

Wrong, you have been given the proof but choose to ignored it because you don't like it. Have you read the official report? Can you site genuine evidence to contradict this report?

Davidians walked out of the compound and lived. Those that chose to stay, died, because of Koresh. This is supported by the evidence and facts uncovered by the Danforth report.

If you want to claim otherwise, please provide the genuine evidence to support those claims, otherwise, good day.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Ravenwood
I honestly believe that that tiny flash is a reflection off of sheetrock...

I don't know from tanks or muzzle blasts, but I've studied lighting and the effect that lighting has on videotape, and I've seen the video. It is most definitely not a reflection. Several photographic experts testified to that as well.

[rdtjr]

I don't know from tanks or muzzle blasts, but I've studied lighting and the effect that lighting has on videotape, and I've seen the video. It is most definitely not a reflection. Several photographic experts testified to that as well.

I've seen the whole video and it is most certainly sheet rock. If you use the same stop frame video techniques so popular among Moon Hoax believers, then yes it looks a little like a jet of flame. But viewing even an additional five seconds of that infamous video clip clearly shows a piece of sheet rock or dry wall falling and sliding at an angle across the APC.

I once saw a tragic interview with one of the key ultra-right-wing anti-gov't nuts who produces and distributes these tapes to the uncritical believers. She clearly clipped and froze the video at a point where it did appear a jet a flame was coming out of the APC. The interviewer showed an uncut continuation of the same video which clearly showed the piece of wall falling away. She asked the woman why she would knowlingly edit and distribute the tape promoting something the full video clearly didn't show. The woman refused to look at the tape and repeated, "I don't care. I know what it shows."

That clip of video she was selling is one of the key pieces of "evidence" offered by the Branch Davidian apologists and it is a bald faced lie.

...Oh, and I'm saying this because it's a real pet peeve of mine: Stop saying "holocaust"! What happened there was a tragedy, no matter who's fault it was... but a holocaust it is not. Calling Waco or Ruby Ridge "holocaust" cheapens the word and, at least IMO, cheapens your position since the scale and magnitude of the tragedy is obviously no where near the actual Holocaust of WWII.

[shanek]

Originally posted by rdtjr
I've seen the whole video and it is most certainly sheet rock. If you use the same stop frame video techniques so popular among Moon Hoax believers, then yes it looks a little like a jet of flame. But viewing even an additional five seconds of that infamous video clip clearly shows a piece of sheet rock or dry wall falling and sliding at an angle across the APC.

Yes, I've viewed the whole video. Light reflecting off the sheet rock would look completely different. Unless the sheet rock just happened to be facing directly at the camera, and just happened to be concave, and the concavity happened to be at just the right amount. (Not to mention that sheet rock isn't exactly a great reflector to begin with.)

Ditto with this "reflection" from a window. The reflection of the sun off of a window would look completely different; it wouldn't cover the whole window unless the above "happeneds" also applied. So, either we've witnessed a once-in-the-entire-history-of-the-universe event, or something else was going on. Neither one was a reflection.

[Ravenwood]

At the risk of sounding foolish, IF they did fire the demolition gun (a short barreled 165mm as opposed to the 120mm main gun on the Abrams) into the gym as the video supposes, where is the muzzle blast, shockwave & blow back of debris? I don't think you fully understand how much energy is released at the moment of firing. A point blank shot into the gym should have obscured the CEV in a maelstrom of debris & smoke.

[Doubt]

Rouser,

I did read the manual. (Or web page in this case.)

1.) The word contortion is never used.
2.) No synonym of contortion is ever used.
3.) That word is manual. Not Manuel! (LOL!)

If it is there, show me a quote. U.S. Army manuals are written in very simple terms using declarative statements whenever possible. They don't make subtle inferences. Until you do show me a quote, you have nothing.

(Note, I spell check most of my posts since I am a bad speller. You should do the same. Many of your posts would look a lot better if you did.)

I have seen the picture of the little girl. I also spoiled my lunch yesterday looking at the autopsy photos. In most cases, you could hardly tell they were human. The bodies were burned. Guess what holds bones together? (Hint, not more bone.)

The FAS page refers to mild effects and severe effects. Show me a statement that says that either is from mild exposure. Remember what I said about army manuals not being subtle. I can tell you never looked at the mustard gas page. It is a bit more explicit. It even talks about secondary infections from the tissue damage. If a Chemical warfare agent caused broken bones, they would have talked about it. That is why I included it.

Again, show me some proof. Show me a quote from the FAS page that says anything about broken bones as a side effect of the convulsions.

People do sometimes break bones when they sneeze, but that is not a typical result. Do your own experiment. Sneeze and tell me if you break a bone.

All you have is the video. Get some proof or give up.

Also, Ravenwood has provided you with accurate information on the CEV gun. Nice to have a fellow combat engineer around.Last I knew, that gun only had one type of round to fire. It was a "watermellon" charge filled with C4.

(Edited to replace biological with chemical.)

[Ravenwood]

Yes, a 165mm HEP round filled with 37 POUNDS of C-4 plastic explosive (12 pounds more than a satchel charge). A point blank shot into a enclosed building & all they have on film is a little flash...:rolleyes: If that CEV had touched off it main gun, there would have been nothing but rubble & splinters. (in fact, I can't think of a trained crew that would have fired at that range anyway. I'd be willing to bet the concussion at that range would have been horrific for the crew-anyone else would be atomized)
& before the conspiracy people bring up the "other ammunition" there are only two types of rounds for the gun. the HEP watermelon & a 40mm sub caliber training round (cheaper & safer to shoot) which requires installation of an adapter, meaning you can't readily change between the two.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Ravenwood
Yes, a 165mm HEP round filled with 37 POUNDS of C-4 plastic explosive (12 pounds more than a satchel charge). A point blank shot into a enclosed building & all they have on film is a little flash...:rolleyes: If that CEV had touched off it main gun, there would have been nothing but rubble & splinters. (in fact, I can't think of a trained crew that would have fired at that range anyway. I'd be willing to bet the concussion at that range would have been horrific for the crew-anyone else would be atomized)
& before the conspiracy people bring up the "other ammunition" there are only two types of rounds for the gun. the HEP watermelon & a 40mm sub caliber training round (cheaper & safer to shoot) which requires installation of an adapter, meaning you can't readily change between the two.

Are people claiming that a 165mm round was fired into a wooden building at point blank range? There wouldn't be a building left, the guys in the vehicle wouldn't be feeling to happy either.

I mean if you are going to have a conspiracy theory, try to make it believable, unless you are just making one for the entertainment value.

If a girl was burned in the fire, she would be in agony. With the fire and building collapsing, anything would be possible.

As the PBS timeline shows, the longer the seige went on, the more likely Koresh was to want a mass suicide/murder. Dammed if they do, dammed if they don't.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Rouser2
[QUOTE]Originally posted by a_unique_person
[B]

>>Pubescent girl? about 14, say. Do you think she could hardly wait?<<


In Texas, 14 is legal -- if married.



Yes, well, that's texas I suppose. He wasn't married to them, and i doubt they all fell in love with him.




>>The process took hours, the tanks were used so no one would get shot.<<

The tanks were used to shoot those who tried to escape as well as to fire incidiary projectiles into the compound.



comment later.



>> How long does it take to just put your hands up, surrender and come out? <<

How long does it take to shoot to death those trying to surrender.



The psychologists were worried that if it went on too long, the suicide that eventuated would occur.



>> The fire was started by Koresh. <<

You already said that about 10 times. Of course, you have not a scintilla of proof.



More than you



>>OK, what would you have done?<<

If I were the local County Sheriff, I would have called in a posse and arrested all of the illegal Federals violating the rights of the innocent people inside that compound.



So, if people are suspected of serious arms violations, and statutory rape, then is no way you can ever invetigate the crime?



>>Some of the parents sent their kids out.<<

Which proves there was no one held against their will and no plan for mass suicide.

>>source (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/waco/timeline.html)

Have you read the timeline? <<

Do you have a point?

The girl with the message pinned to her, clearyly here parent was concerned, but unable to leave.

Read how long Koresh rambled on about absolute rubbish.

[rdtjr]

Yes, I've viewed the whole video. Light reflecting off the sheet rock would look completely different. Unless the sheet rock just happened to be facing directly at the camera, and just happened to be concave, and the concavity happened to be at just the right amount. (Not to mention that sheet rock isn't exactly a great reflector to begin with.)

What's this insistence on a reflection? First of all "reflection" is a misleading word... everything reflects light... if it didn't you wouldn't be able to see it, or you would perceive it as black. Second, a white piece of wall doesn't need to be concave or anything else to scatter the majority of the spectrum back towards your little pupils, or a camera lens. I can quite clearly see the white shutters around my neighbor's windows even when they are in shadow... heck, I can even see them at night when illuminated only by the moon. They don't need to be concave, convex, or possess any characteristics of a polished surface to reflect light.

Watching the video it is very, very clear that a piece of wall falls on the APC. As the APC slowly withdraws that piece of wall slowly slides off the front of the APC. If you pause the video at during the first few seconds of the APC withdrawing it can look somewhat like a spurt of flame is leaving the forward left section of the vehicle... not even anywhere near the ram ("muzzle"). Watch even an additional five seconds of video and it is very clear that a large piece of white wall is sliding down the front of the vehicle. Claiming otherwise, when the whole wall is clearly seen falling to the ground, and editing the footage so as not to show that what you claim in not true, is nothing more than malicious attempt to obscure the obvious facts.

I guess it would be helpful if someone here could find at post a link to the video clip.

[Rouser2]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by rdtjr


To: Rdtir, Ravernwood, Shanek, Doubt, Unique Person, et al.

I'm going to try to clear up one slight problem which all or most of you seem to have. This problem occurs amongst persons who believe they can intelligently discuss a topic, when in fact they don't know what the hell they're talking about. This comes from, among other things, the belief (probably instilled in a government school) that every opinion counts -- even if expressed out of complete ignorance. The problem is, you people are talking about something you call "the video". The problem is, that with people who haven't seen (or refuse to see) one or all or even any of the videos that are out there, and in your ignorance you are confusing one with the other. On the discussion of flashes, and fire from CEV's etc., etc., etc., that has nothing whatever to do with the documentary, "Waco, The Rules of Engagement" and the flashes on the FLIR emanating from tanks and from behind cover. You people are confusing a video put out by a certain person who has so discredited herself, (she once called on everyone in the Patriot movement to march on Washington with guns, and "arrest" the congress) that responsible people in the Patriot movement believe she is actually a government agent/provocateur. The video she put out and narrates shows edited footage from TV outakes, which appears to be a tank or CEV shooting fire into the compound, but subsquent footage released by a more responsible producer, shows that this was actually building material -- dry wall or some such -- reflecting in the sun. No serious Branch Davidian apologist endorses this film, except perhaps for those who are indeed in the employ of the government. But this is the consequence of keeping your collective heads in the sand and steadfastly remaining ignorant while lettiing others do your homework and thinking for you. As to discussions of the images on the FLIR, I leave that to a later post.

[Rouser2]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by DavidJames


>>Wrong, you have been given the proof but choose to ignored it because you don't like it. <<


Yes, I've cited John Danforth's "proof". Audio tapes which he hadn't even listened to himself, and in their place transcripts provided by the prime suspect in the mass murder -- the FBI.

>>Have you read the official report? Can you site genuine evidence to contradict this report? <<

Yes and yes.

>>Davidians walked out of the compound and lived. Those that chose to stay, died, because of Koresh. This is supported by the evidence and facts uncovered by the Danforth report. <<

And what does the Danforth report say about the decision to "stay" and "die" by the children and the babies???

[Rouser2]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by a_unique_person
[B]

>>Yes, well, that's texas I suppose. He wasn't married to them, and i doubt they all fell in love with him.<<

You are ignorant of the subtleties of Texas law. There is such a thing as Common Law Marriage which the local Sheriff cited as a problem with charging Koresh with anythiing -- even if they had any proof.

>>The psychologists were worried that if it went on too long, the suicide that eventuated would occur.<<

Originally, psychiatrist Alan Stone brought in by the FBI thought the problem was the crazies on the inside of the compound. But he soon discovered it was the crazies on the outside that were in fact the problem.


>>So, if people are suspected of serious arms violations, and statutory rape, then is no way you can ever invetigate the crime?>>

There were plenty of investigations of child abuse and all came up empty. As to gun violations, Koresh personally invited the ATF to come in any time. Get your facts straight.

[DavidJames]

"Yes, I've cited John Danforth's "proof". Audio tapes which he hadn't even listened to himself"

This doesn't make any sense at all.

"And what does the Danforth report say about the decision to "stay" and "die" by the children and the babies???"

The report was commissioned to determine responsibility for the tragedy. The children and babies died for the same reason the adults did, because Koresh killed them by starting the fire.

This case is closed, nothing more to see hear, we now return you to your regularly scheduled conspiracy theory.

ps. I must thank you, however, for your dismissal of the "video" it does put those woo-woo anti-government conspiracy theorists in their place.

" This problem occurs amongst persons who believe they can intelligently discuss a topic, when in fact they don't know what the hell they're talking about. This comes from, among other things, the belief (probably instilled in a government school) that every opinion counts -- even if expressed out of complete ignorance."

This is an excellent statement, one you should read, reread and then adhere to.

[rdtjr]

Gee Rouser, it sure seems like Shanek is proposing that above. So, either he is not to be taken seriously according to you or there are still many folks out there believing this claptrap.

What about the other questions these folks asked about the introduction of explosive or flammable items by the APC? Where are the other physical signs that would clearly be evident from watching the normal footage of the assault? So far no one else is seeing it. If you are claiming that there is evidence of these things, but it is being suppressed, then burden of proof is on you.

In regards to the FLIR flares, every legitimate expert who has viewed those overhead videos said that most of the flashes could be ruled out as not consistent with the discharge of firearms. There were a few that they could not rule out conclusively... but that, by no means, results in the unexplained flares being ipso facto declared gun shots. They also demonstrated a number of flares from areas were there were no known gov't or BD personnel. Unless you can match up the appearance of a person on the ground footage with a flare in an open field as recorded in the FLIR footage, you don't have a leg to stand on. Again the burden of proof is on you to show otherwise.

For the record, no, I have not seen the video you are referring to. From everything you are saying the contentions made in that video do not match up with facts in evidence in other footage I have seen and the testimony of experts. I don't need to see the video from people with an obvious agenda anymore than I need to see Bart Sibrel's latest "Moon Hoax" video to know that the evidence is poor and the so-called experts little better than untrained hobbyists. So far, everything you have presented here has been either a clear misinterpretation of available evidence (like the CS/cyanide thing) or had been pure assertion on the part of yourself or other "believers".

And keep in mind that the deliberate murder you are saying happened is quite separate from why the gov't was there and if they were totally right to be there. I believe there are quite cogent legal reasons (well covered already in the media, though you don't seem to be hitting them very squarely) that the gov't might not have crossed all their legal T's and dotted all their I's. There is reason to be concerned about that and make sure it doesn't happen that way again. It is quite another thing to say the Federal Gov't engaged in willful murder. I see some proof of the former and none of the latter.

Show me proof, not an assertion and not something flimsy like the CS/cyanide bit. I have yet to hear any that stand up to much scrutiny. But my experience tells me you'll move on to other items as easily dismantled as the cyanide "evidence" until you are left with nothing more that pure assertions. Then you'll circle back hoping to sell your previously discredited "evidence" to other less wary. It's how most conspiracists and hoax believers operate.

[shanek]

Originally posted by rdtjr
What's this insistence on a reflection? First of all "reflection" is a misleading word... everything reflects light... if it didn't you wouldn't be able to see it, or you would perceive it as black.

Ever heard of "specularity"?

Second, a white piece of wall doesn't need to be concave or anything else to scatter the majority of the spectrum back towards your little pupils, or a camera lens.

Bull. White wall will only reflect a tiny minority of it. You'd need a mirror to reflect most of it--and even then, the specular reflection would be that of the light source, not the object, unless the object were concave as I described.

Okay, Joker-*, riddle me this: If a little peice of drywall made that bright a flash, then why wasn't the white van completely overexposed?

(*-Yes, I know the Riddler says this and not the Joker. Wanna make something of it? :D)

They don't need to be concave, convex, or possess any characteristics of a polished surface to reflect light.

To reflect that much light they do!

[shanek]

Originally posted by rdtjr
Gee Rouser, it sure seems like Shanek is proposing that above.

I'm not proposing anything. I'm just saying that the flash in the bit of video I saw (no, this wasn't the discredited Linda Thompson video) could in no way be a reflection off a piece of drywall. I don't even know how you could set the shutter speed to make the drywall that bright without overexposing the white van seen as the tank backs up.

[rdtjr]

How much light? Have you measured it? Compared to what? If not how do you know too much is coming through?

It wasn't really "a little piece of dry wall", it was a whole wall.

I guess you'll have to post the picture you're talking and produce some measurements of the amount of light produced by your flash so we can see the evidence. So far, I'm still only hearing conjecture.

But so long as conjecture is the rule of proof around here, I've got a shell casing fired from behind the grassy knoll around here somewhere to sell you.

[Rouser2]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Doubt


>>Show me a case where convulsions resulted in broken bones? <<

Oh, that is hardly necessary. Your continually shifting arguments about cyande are becoming so Mickey Mouse that I will merely refer your to the Disney Online First Aid Handbook link, and read for yourself about convulsions and broken bones.l

>>5. If the child is breathing and has a pulse after the seizure, evaluate the situation to determine if you need medical help. Check for possible injuries, including broken bones.

from Disney online, first aid handbook

>>http://familyfun.go.com/raisingkids/child/health/firstaidguide/dony69hl_conv/

[Rouser2]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ravenwood
[B]Quoted by Rouser:
Oh, is that so? And you have seen the film? Can you cite just one single item in that "truckload" of mis-information???? Just one?
__________________________________________________ __

>>For starters, the analysis of the FLIR data. Occam's razor...
For an another independant analysis:<<

What you have posted is a link to an unknown author on some obscure website offering an opinion. You do not cite any evidence of "misinformation" in WTROE which you obviously have not even seen for yourself. If you can make a cogent argument for just one single piece of "mis-information". Do it. I don't need to be referred to any anonymous websites by which you attempt to have others to do your thinking for you.

>>Second, the ludicrous claim of the footage of the "tank" (it was a M728 combat engineering vehicle) "firing" into the gym. The CEV mounts a 165mm demolition gun. Do you have any idea of what the muzzle blast of a cut down 165mm gun looks like? I honestly believe that that tiny flash is a reflection off of sheetrock..<<<

etc., etc., etc. As I have previoulsy posted you are confusing one video which you have not seen with another.

[Rouser2]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by DavidJames

QUOTE]Originally posted by DavidJames

>>The report was commissioned to determine responsibility for the tragedy. The children and babies died for the same reason the adults did, because Koresh killed them by starting the fire.<<

And that is a conclusion -- repeated for the uphteenth time -- but a conclusion unsupported by any fact. It's the old Big Lie propaganda techniqe that Hitler and Goebbles used so well. But lofty pronouncements or conclusions without facts in suport thereof are worthless.

>>ps. I must thank you, however, for your dismissal of the "video" it does put those woo-woo anti-government conspiracy theorists in their place.<<

My dismissal of the so-called "video" was intended to put the know-nothings on this board in their place -- not the true patriots of this country who merely seek a return to obedience of the Supreme Law -- The Constitution.

[Doubt]

Originally posted by Rouser2
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Doubt


>>Show me a case where convulsions resulted in broken bones? <<

Oh, that is hardly necessary. Your continually shifting arguments about cyande are becoming so Mickey Mouse that I will merely refer your to the Disney Online First Aid Handbook link, and read for yourself about convulsions and broken bones.l

>>5. If the child is breathing and has a pulse after the seizure, evaluate the situation to determine if you need medical help. Check for possible injuries, including broken bones.

from Disney online, first aid handbook

>>http://familyfun.go.com/raisingkids/child/health/firstaidguide/dony69hl_conv/

Very good Rouser. That is the best argument you have made so far.

I wonder how much work you had to do to find it.

Only two problems:

1.) The page did not say if the broken bones were likely to come from the seizure or from falling that comes with the seizure. One of the causes listed for seizure on that page is head injuries. (Trauma anyone?)

2.) What is the probability of suffering a broken bone from a seizure? Pleas repeat the sneeze experiment until you have some proof! :D

I would look up number two, but I have a busy weekend that is about to start. Maybe Sunday if I can stay awake then.

This is one of the best cases of ad hoc reasoning that I have seen yet.

[Rouser2]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by rdtjr

>>In regards to the FLIR flares, every legitimate expert who has viewed those overhead videos said that most of the flashes could be ruled out as not consistent with the discharge of firearms. <<

Oh, my goodness! Is that so????!! Name one. "Expert", that is.

>>Unless you can match up the appearance of a person on the ground footage with a flare in an open field as recorded in the FLIR footage, you don't have a leg to stand on. <<

Do you want names and social security numbers? How about a nice Bradley tank?

>>Again the burden of proof is on you to show otherwise.<<

>>For the record, no, I have not seen the video you are referring to. <<

No? Gosh, I would have never known.

>>From everything you are saying the contentions made in that video do not match up with facts in evidence in other footage I have seen and the testimony of experts.<<

In other words, having not seen any evidence besides the brainwash the government has served up, and the unnamed "experts" you rely on, you conclude that there is no other evidence -- and if there is, you refuse to view it.

>> I don't need to see the video from people with an obvious agenda anymore than I need to see Bart Sibrel's latest "Moon Hoax" video to know that the evidence is poor and the so-called experts little better than untrained hobbyists. <<

Oh, is that so? And just which phony "experts" do you now refer to?

??So far, everything you have presented here has been either a clear misinterpretation of available evidence (like the CS/cyanide thing) or had been pure assertion on the part of yourself or other "believers".<<

The CS/Cynide connection is real and a scientific fact as cited and sourced in numerous posts. And unlike you and your cadre of know-nothings on this board, I do not deal in assertions, but only FACTS. Got ANY?????

[rdtjr]

Originally posted by Rouser2

The CS/Cynide connection is real and a scientific fact as cited and sourced in numerous posts. And unlike you and your cadre of know-nothings on this board, I do not deal in assertions, but only FACTS. Got ANY?????

Hmmm, well your assertions about CS gas breaking down into enough cyanide to have caused the deaths have so far been successfully questioned.

From Doubter:

The amount of hydrogen cyanide produced would be inversely proportional to the amount of oxygen available to the fire. Since both cyanide and CS are flammable, a portion of the resulting cyanide would also be burned in the fire.

Rouser, do you dispute that Cyanide is flammable? It is a fact, as I pointed out in my second post and provided a link.

How much cyanide was produced? I don't know. From your own source:

http://www.austinchronicle.com/issu...s_feature2.html

"And according to the coroner's report, a quarter of the deaths at Mount Carmel were caused by carbon monoxide asphyxiation, while another 27% died of smoke inhalation."


Oh, right I forgot you said:

...real and a scientific fact as cited and sourced in numerous posts...

Gee, so now a message board posting is sufficient as a source? No wonder you believe all this stuff. Sounds like an assertion to me. Doubter provided an explanation of how the chemistry works and provided useful links. You have yet to present information that disputes that... other than your assertions that it isn't true, of course.

The experts I've heard on the evidence were those who's expertise was sufficient to be admissable in court. What are the credentials of your experts? And yes, until they are credentialed I have no more cause to believe in them then in any of Bart Sibrel's phony-baloney experts and evidence.


Do you want names and social security numbers? How about a nice Bradley tank?

No, just show me where a person appears on a normal video, that a FLIR footage "flare" is evident from the same exact location and also prove to me that those two pieces of footage intersect the same moment in time.

As for the "tank": Ever seen IR footage of a machine gun or artillery piece being fired? I have. Heck, you can see it on the History channel if you pick your shows.... evidence of the firing of machine guns or a main gun would be extremely evident in the FLIR footage and news footage. And if that's not what you're trying to say, why bring the "tank" up at all?


In other words, having not seen any evidence besides the brainwash the government has served up, and the unnamed "experts" you rely on, you conclude that there is no other evidence -- and if there is, you refuse to view it.


Nah, it's just after seeing one piece of tripe after another the smell starts to become recognizable. I mentioned Bart Sibrel and his moon hoax tapes as an example because, so far, everything that you have brought as evidence bears striking resemblence to the pseudo-science he puts forth as evidence. And yes, his "experts" are generally cranks with falsified credentials. In Sibrel's world he is a former NBC journalist because he used to be a camerman for an NBC affiliate and an employee of Walmart's 1-hour photoshop qualifies as a "photgraphic expert".

I mentioned the testimony of experts on issues like the FLIR flares because they found (under-oath in a court of law) most of the flares were not evident of gun shots and that for the remainder there was no way to conclusively tell for sure. If the experts on your conspiracy tape say otherwise tell us what they explanation are of the current accepted examination. FYI - Because the other experts are part of the gov't conspiracy isn't an acceptable answer. I think around here a scientific explanation that stands-up under scrutiny is the rule.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Rouser2
[B]Originally posted by DavidJames

QUOTE]Originally posted by DavidJames

>>The report was commissioned to determine responsibility for the tragedy. The children and babies died for the same reason the adults did, because Koresh killed them by starting the fire.<<

And that is a conclusion -- repeated for the uphteenth time -- but a conclusion unsupported by any fact. It's the old Big Lie propaganda techniqe that Hitler and Goebbles used so well. But lofty pronouncements or conclusions without facts in suport thereof are worthless.



So where are your facts about how the fire was started?

[Rouser2]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by rdtjr


>>Gee, so now a message board posting is sufficient as a source?<<

Message board? I've cited nothing from a message board.


>> No wonder you believe all this stuff. Sounds like an assertion to me. Doubter provided an explanation of how the chemistry works and provided useful links. You have yet to present information that disputes that... other than your assertions that it isn't true, of course.<<

I've never asserted anything about chemistry except for the basic facts that if you mix and disperse CS gas with Meth Chorlide and add heat and fire, it can produce Hydrogen Cyanide.

>>The experts I've heard on the evidence were those who's expertise was sufficient to be admissable in court. <<

Funny, you can't even name a single one.

>>What are the credentials of your experts? <<

Experts on what?

>>No, just show me where a person appears on a normal video, that a FLIR footage "flare" is evident from the same exact location and also prove to me that those two pieces of footage intersect the same moment in time.<<

There were no cameras nor media allowed in any position to view the back of the compound where the action in question was taking place. You didn't know that?

>>As for the "tank": Ever seen IR footage of a machine gun or artillery piece being fired? <<

Yes. I saw automatic weapons fire on the FLIR film taken by the FBI in the Docu "Waco the Rules of Engagement" -- the docu you call conspiracy "tripe" and refuse to view for yourself. But then perhaps you can't afford the 2 bucks.

>>Nah, it's just after seeing one piece of tripe after another the smell starts to become recognizable. I mentioned Bart Sibrel and his moon hoax tapes as an example because, so far, everything that you have brought as evidence bears striking resemblence to the pseudo-science he puts forth as evidence. And yes, his "experts" are generally cranks with falsified credentials.<<

Would you say that the inventor of the FLIR technology is a "crank" with falsified credentials?


>>I mentioned the testimony of experts on issues like the FLIR flares because they found (under-oath in a court of law) most of the flares were not evident of gun shots and that for the remainder there was no way to conclusively tell for sure. <<

Court of law, eh? And just what court was that?

>>If the experts on your conspiracy tape say otherwise tell us what they explanation are of the current accepted examination. <<

Accepted examination? Accepted by whom? Examined by whom? What "explanation" ? You can't even describe it or summarize it in your own words?

>>FYI - Because the other experts are part of the gov't conspiracy isn't an acceptable answer. I think around here a scientific explanation that stands-up under scrutiny is the rule.<<

Ohhh. Gotta be science around here, eh? Wow! You mean like measurement, observation, and replication? Got any of that?

[Rouser2]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by a_unique_person
[B]

>>So where are your facts about how the fire was started?<<

I do not know how the fire started and neither do you. But I do know that there would have been no fire if the government officials had not perjured their oath to uphold the Constitution.

[DavidJames]

"I do not know how the fire started and neither do you. But I do know that there would have been no fire if the government officials had not perjured their oath to uphold the Constitution."

The Danforth report completely exonerates the govt of any part in starting the fire. I don't believe they know exactly how the fire did start, but they do state emphatically who didn't start it. Hint, it wasn't the ATF, FBI, Police, Army etc. etc. etc.

Those are the facts, not gossip, rumor, innuendo or empty accusations of hysterical conspiracy theorists.

Hereby ends my involvement in this thread. I suggest it be moved to the paranormal section where it has belongs.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Rouser2
[QUOTE]Originally posted by a_unique_person
[B]

>>So where are your facts about how the fire was started?<<

I do not know how the fire started and neither do you. But I do know that there would have been no fire if the government officials had not perjured their oath to uphold the Constitution.

I believe they have to uphold the law and investigate crime?

[Rouser2]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by DavidJames

Re: >>The Danforth report completely exonerates the govt of any part in starting the fire. I don't believe they know exactly how the fire did start, but they do state emphatically who didn't start it. Hint, it wasn't the ATF, FBI, Police, Army etc. etc. etc.

Those are the facts, not gossip, rumor, innuendo or empty accusations of hysterical conspiracy theorists. <<

No. Those are conclusions, not facts. Do you understand the difference?

>>Hereby ends my involvement in this thread. I suggest it be moved to the paranormal section where it has belongs.<<

Now that I've set you straight, you can go hide.

[Rouser2]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by a_unique_person
[B]

>>I believe they have to uphold the law and investigate crime? <<


And just what "crime" would that be? The right of the People to keep and bear arms?

[Mike B.]

Rouser2,

You frequently use the accusation of people, "attending a government school." Could you elaborate on this? You are no doubt talking of public schools here in America. (Or do you have a more specific meaning for this?) What type of "brain-washing" do you feel goes on in them?

I went to Parochial schools as a youngster. I would say they certainly attempted to brainwash us into the belief that saying rosaries in May will get our anscestors out of purgatory.

What then is the ideal type of school for you?

Thanks,
Mike B.

[Rouser2]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mike B.
[B]Rouser2,

>>What then is the ideal type of school for you?<<

Forget the ideal. At a minimum a student should be taught the difference between fact and conclusion. A student should be taught how to think. A cursory glance at this particular thread and the proponents of the Official Government Waco story, shows little understanding of the basic rules of logic and argument and search of truth. Just where did these poor hapless know-nothings get the idea that you could critique a journalistic work without ever having seen it? My guess is, the Government School and all that implies -- self esteem before achievement, egalitarianism before excellence, feelings before substance, and opinions before knowledge -- which is not necessarily a public school but any school where students are taught by word and deed to assume the supremacy of Authority.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Rouser2
[QUOTE]Originally posted by a_unique_person
[B]

>>I believe they have to uphold the law and investigate crime? <<


And just what "crime" would that be? The right of the People to keep and bear arms?

Not automatic weapons.

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


>>Not automatic weapons. <<


Actually, that is also incorrect. Automatic weapons were "legal" at the time of the ATF raid -- legal so long as if you had them and paid the registration tax. But of course there was no probable cause that the Davidians even had such weapons.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Rouser2
<<


Actually, that is also incorrect. Automatic weapons were "legal" at the time of the ATF raid -- legal so long as if you had them and paid the registration tax. But of course there was no probable cause that the Davidians even had such weapons.

So they didn't have them legally, as they were modifying, or attempting to modify semi to auto.

And if they go there when Koresh invites them, how long would he have to hide the evidence, or get an ambush ready?

How do you know they had no probable cause?

[Rouser2]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by a_unique_person
[B]

RE: >>How do you know they had no probable cause?<<

Read the Warrant and the Affidavit application. Education yourself. Where is the probable cause?

http://www.jaedworks.com/shoebox/waco.html

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Rouser2
[QUOTE]Originally posted by a_unique_person
[B]

RE: >>How do you know they had no probable cause?<<

Read the Warrant and the Affidavit application. Education yourself. Where is the probable cause?

http://www.jaedworks.com/shoebox/waco.html

Thanks for that, it is all there in the warrant.



them to the "Mag Bag", he was met most of the time by Woodrow Kendrick, and on other occasions by Steve Schneider. They would have him wait while they telephoned the Mount Carmel Center to tell them that UPS was coming with a C.O.D. package. He would be instructed to take the package(s) to the Mount Carmel Center, he was usually met by Perry Jones or, on occasion, by Steve Schneider, who would pay the C.O.D. charges in cash and would accept delivery of the shipments.

On this same date, June 8,1992, I interviewed Glen Deruiter, Manager, Sarco Inc., Stirling, New Jersy, and learned from him that in May of 1992, their company shipped one M-16 parts set kit with a sling and magazine to the "Mag-Bag" in the name of David Koresh. The total value of these items was $284.95

Also on June 8,1992, I interviewed Cynthia Alco, Owner/Manager, Nesard Gun Parts Company, Barrington, Illinois, and learned from her that in May of 1992, her company shipped to the "Mag-Bag", two (2) M-16 machinegun car kits and two (2) M-16 machinegun E2 kits. These kits contain all the parts of an M-16 machinegun, except for the lower receiver unit which is the "firearm" by lawful definition. Ms. Alco stated that the total amount of sales to the Mag-Bag was $1227.00. Within the past month, I have spoken with Curtis Bartlett, Firearms Technician with BATF and have learned that Nesard Company has been under investigation in the past by ATF for engaging in a scheme to supply parts which would enable individuals to construct illegal weapons from various component parts.

On June 9, 1992, I requested that a search of the records of the National Fireamrs Registration and Transfer Record, Washington, D.C., to determine if Vernon W. Howell and/or Paul G. Fatta, one of Howell's closest follwers, had any machineguns or other NFA weapons registered to them. The result of the search was negative.

[Ravenwood]

Interesting indeed...I checked with Model one (NESARD's new incarnation) & they still offer the full auto parts (although they are selling full auto sears for .50 cents...I don't know about the quality there) & the CAR-15 barrels are 11.5" (ILLEGAL to own under ATF rules if you have a normal AR-15 lower receiver. you must have a title 3 or designated AR-15 pistol reciever) All the legal CAR barrels have a 5.5" muzzle brake welded on to make them a legal 16", so AUP would be right, the ATF had a legit warrant for the barrels anyway (I don't think Koresh had any registered OA-63's or the media would have been waving that nasty machine pistol around to bolster the FBI's case) Evidently NESARD did get into trouble offering full auto kits (possession of which is not illegal UNLESS you own a weapon of the type it was intended for, in which case the ATF has every right under federal law to go after you, just like the barrels. An interesting side note: althought the CAR-15 & E2 upper receivers do not allow full auto fire, they are still machine gun parts, & if he did not pay his tax stamp for those parts, well the ATF has grounds there too.) I stick by my earlier statement that while I do believe the ATF grossly mishandled the situation, as well as outright lied on some parts of the investigation, there nonetheless appears to be wrongdoing on the part of Koresh that did fall under their area of responsibility.

[Rouser2]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by a_unique_person
[B]

Re: >>Thanks for that, it is all there in the warrant.<<

Like I said, there is nothing in the warrant nor the application affidavit which cites any probable cause for any federal gun crime -- your cut and pasted excerpt notwithstanding.

[Rouser2]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ravenwood

Re: >>Evidently NESARD did get into trouble offering full auto kits (possession of which is not illegal UNLESS you own a weapon of the type it was intended for, in which case the ATF has every right under federal law to go after you, just like the barrels. An interesting side note: althought the CAR-15 & E2 upper receivers do not allow full auto fire, they are still machine gun parts, & if he did not pay his tax stamp for those parts, well the ATF has grounds there too.) <<


And just what federal statute would that be??

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Rouser2
[QUOTE]Originally posted by a_unique_person
[B]

Re: >>Thanks for that, it is all there in the warrant.<<

Like I said, there is nothing in the warrant nor the application affidavit which cites any probable cause for any federal gun crime -- your cut and pasted excerpt notwithstanding.

You said he had to have registered a machinegun, no registration could be found. He was to have paid tax, he didn't pay it.

[Ravenwood]

Well Rouser, that would be 5845(b) of The National Firearms Act / Title 26, United States Code, Chapter 53 / Internal Revenue Code.
The types of firearms that must be registered in the National Firearm Registration and Transfer Record are defined in the NFA and in 27 CFR Part 179. What are some examples? Some examples of the types of firearms that must be registered are:
Machine guns; The frames or receivers of machine guns; Any combination of parts designed and intended for use in converting weapons into machine guns; Any part designed and intended solely and exclusively for converting a weapon into a machine gun; Any combination of parts from which a machine gun can be assembled if the parts are in the possession or under the control of a person; Silencers and any part designed and intended for fabricating a silencer; Short-barreled rifles; Short-barreled shotguns; Destructive devices; and, "Any other weapons." Anti-tank guns (over caliber .50); Bazookas; and, Mortars.

The BATF says that M16 parts - by themselves - are "machine gun" parts, not "conversion kit" parts. Furthermore, the BATF says that any "after market" "AR15 type" rifles assembled with "M16 type" fire control parts must have all such parts removed and altered to "AR15/SP1 Sporter" (semi-auto only) configuration, or you will be in possession of an unregistered machine gun and once again, facing a felony charge.
*edited to add: The above information comes from a big pile of NRA-ILA material taking up a large portion of my workshop & is probably reprinted all over the place...*

[Rouser2]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by a_unique_person


REL:

>>You said he had to have registered a machinegun, no registration could be found. He was to have paid tax, he didn't pay it.<<

If they had automatic weapons, yes. But there was no probable cause that the Davidians had such weapons.

[Ravenwood]

under 5845(b), the E2 kits are Machine gun parts, & coupled with the fact that they had some registered AR-15 receivers, the ATF had grounds to investigate the matter of possible illegal full auto weapons (Heck, they were already investigating NESARD for selling the stuff) BTW, under the same statute, owning a M-16 upper reciever of any barrel under 16" (overall) if you do not own a registered OA-63 type pistol or registered title 3 reciever, but own any other type of AR-15/SP-1 receiver will also get you busted by the ATF.

[Rouser2]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ravenwood

Re: >>Well Rouser, that would be 5845(b) of The National Firearms Act / Title 26, United States Code, Chapter 53 / Internal Revenue Code.
The types of firearms that must be registered in the National Firearm Registration and Transfer Record are defined in the NFA and in 27 CFR Part 179. What are some examples? Some examples of the types of firearms that must be registered are:
Machine guns; The frames or receivers of machine guns; Any combination of parts designed and intended for use in converting weapons into machine guns; Any part designed and intended solely and exclusively for converting a weapon into a machine gun...<<

The operative words which disqualify the items listed in the Warrant and in Agent Aguilerar's affidavit application are the words "solely and exclusively".

"The legal errors in the affidavit were compounded by much more serious factual errors. Besides asserting knowledge of federal weapons laws, Special Agent Aguilera asserted a knowledge of firearms. [68] He then went on to claim that Koresh had ordered M16 "EZ kits." [69] Aguilera did not note that the kit is called an "E2" kit, not "EZ" (as in "easy" convertibility). The E2 kit is a spare parts kit, not a kit to convert a semi-automatic to full automatic. The E2 kit contains the same spare parts that fit in a semi- automatic Colt AR-15 Sporter or an automatic Colt M16 assault rifle, since the two guns use many common parts."

From: Hamline Journal of Public Law and Policy
Volume 18, number 1, Fall 1996

THE UNWARRANTED WARRANT: THE WACO SEARCH WARRANT AND THE DECLINE OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT

by David B. Kopel & Paul H. Blackman


http://i2i.org/SuptDocs/Waco/warrant2.htm

Thus those spare parts are not solely and exclusively machine gun parts. To attribute such ownership of potential machine gun parts to intent to unlawfully assemble a machine gun is akin to owning the ingredients to unlawfully make alcohol as this Liberty magazine article points out:

"Let us suppose your spouse goes to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms and tells them that you are distilling alcohol without a proper license. The ATF checks with your supermarket and learns that you have over the past few years on numerous occasions purchased sugar and on a few occasions purchased yeast, and verifies with your local utility that you have purchased water. You have acquired all the ingredients needed to manufacture alcohol. The ATF also checks the Treasury's records and verifies that you have *22 never acquired a license to make alcohol.
In every detail, this situation is identical to the Davidians': there is testimony from an angry former close associate anxious to cause you trouble, there is evidence that you acquired the means to manufacture a product whose manufacture requires a license and there is evidence that you had not obtained the license. Is this evidence--"probable cause'--sufficient for you to lose your right to privacy in your home as guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment? "

Thus, such a construction and interpretation of the law would make virtually anyone in the US subject to the kind of dynamic (shoot first, deliver warrant later) entry as the Feds employed in the attack on the Branch Davidians -- an intrepretation hardly consistent with the written intent of the law.

[Ravenwood]

You may stand on your soap box all you wish, but NESARD's E2 kit contained an A2 upper reciever, barrel & handguards. These are parts for an M-16, regardless if they can also go on an AR-15 receiver. The law classifies them as machine gun parts. (the law also classifies the little foregrip on the HK PDW as a machine gun part, as well as the folding stock for the MAC-10/11. Go figure) As stupid as it may sound, the ATF regards the possession of ANY machine gun parts as reason to investigate. (sad to say, if they had gone to "fred's house of sporting goods" & purchased an Olympic Arms HBAR-the same type of parts, fully assembled on a receiver, no one at the ATF would have even noticed or cared, but because they were buying parts from a dealer under investigation for selling full auto part kits, they get the extra scrutiny...) None of the offenses were grounds for a dynamic entry, but they were grounds for a warrant. If the law says that you cannot own machine gun parts, that's what it says. Follow the law or challenge it in court. I know that the ATF has trouble finding their butts with both hands & a maglite, & it is no doubt they screwed up the wording of the warrant, but sorry, the NESARD E2 kit & CAR-15 kit did contain parts classified as machine gun parts, & Koresh did not have a title 3 stamp, so they did have jurisdiction on this case.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Rouser2
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ravenwood


http://i2i.org/SuptDocs/Waco/warrant2.htm

Thus those spare parts are not solely and exclusively machine gun parts. To attribute such ownership of potential machine gun parts to intent to unlawfully assemble a machine gun is akin to owning the ingredients to unlawfully make alcohol as this Liberty magazine article points out:

"Let us suppose your spouse goes to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms and tells them that you are distilling alcohol without a proper license. The ATF checks with your supermarket and learns that you have over the past few years on numerous occasions purchased sugar and on a few occasions purchased yeast, and verifies with your local utility that you have purchased water. You have acquired all the ingredients needed to manufacture alcohol. The ATF also checks the Treasury's records and verifies that you have *22 never acquired a license to make alcohol.
In every detail, this situation is identical to the Davidians': there is testimony from an angry former close associate anxious to cause you trouble, there is evidence that you acquired the means to manufacture a product whose manufacture requires a license and there is evidence that you had not obtained the license. Is this evidence--"probable cause'--sufficient for you to lose your right to privacy in your home as guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment? "

Thus, such a construction and interpretation of the law would make virtually anyone in the US subject to the kind of dynamic (shoot first, deliver warrant later) entry as the Feds employed in the attack on the Branch Davidians -- an intrepretation hardly consistent with the written intent of the law.

You could go over any legal document and find some technical errors in it. There was obviously an investigation into people buying the illegal parts for sale from the supplier under investigation. My ears would prick up when a doomsday cult was buying such parts. The legal definition of 'probable' would keep a billion dollars worth of lawyers arguing for years as it is so undefinable, in the end it comes up as a value judgement for the udge who ok'd the warrent to decide. They could have just surrendered and fought it out in court. My bet is they would have won, not because they weren't doing something illegal, but because they would have used such technicalities to win the case even though they did have illegal weapons. And they did have illegal weapons.

As for the metaphor you have used, there is a whole magnitude of difference between illegal alcohol and automatic weapons.

[Rouser2]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ravenwood

Re: >>If the law says that you cannot own machine gun parts, that's what it says.<<


That is not what it says. But a man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still. The law specifically says "solely and exclusively" machine gun parts which I have pointed out before, and which you choose to ignore, just as the storm-trooping ATF chose to ignore. It's time for a little more law 'n order in the United States beginning with the Oath-Takers in the Federal Government.

[Rouser2]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by a_unique_person

RE:
>>There was obviously an investigation into people buying the illegal parts for sale from the supplier under investigation. My ears would prick up when a doomsday cult was buying such parts.<<

Your ears would "prick up" if anybody not of your own kind would buy a can of beans. But the parts were NOT illegal, and that is the whole point.

[Ravenwood]

http://hcl.chass.ncsu.edu/garson/dye/docs/firearms.htm

The National Firearms Act
Title 26, United States Code
INTERNAL REVENUE CODE
CHAPTER 53 -- MACHINE GUNS, DESTRUCTIVE DEVICES, AND CERTAIN OTHER FIREARMS
Section 5845. Definitions
For the purpose of this chapter --

b) Machinegun. -- The term "machinegun" means any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger. The term shall also include the frame or receiver of any such weapon, any part designed and intended solely and exclusively, or combination of parts designed and intended, for use in converting a weapon into a machinegun, and any combination of parts from which a machinegun can be assembled if such parts are in the possession or under the control of a person.

You have to look at the complete wording of the law. The uncut full M-16 bolt carrier included in the NESARD E2 kit is not found in AR-15s, only M-16s. Put on a modified receiver, it can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot. The combination of the complete A2 upper with uncut bolt is considered a combination of parts from which a machinegun can be assembled if such parts are in the possession or under the control of a person. All that is missing is a lower receiver with a full auto sear kit. According to the BATF, IIRC, two pre-ban lower receivers (which lack the sear block, allowing the full auto parts to be easily inserted) were purchased by the Davidians, so coupled with the E2 kits, it would not be unreasonable to say that they were in possession of a combination of parts from which a machinegun can be assembled if such parts are in the possession or under the control of a person.

[Rouser2]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ravenwood


Re: >>The combination of the complete A2 upper with uncut bolt is considered a combination of parts from which a machinegun can be assembled if such parts are in the possession or under the control of a person. <<

But not "solely and exclusively" can an E2 kit be used for such purpose. That's the rub.

[Ravenwood]

section b states: or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger. An AR-15 with an unblocked lower receiver, & the M-16 parts in the E2 kit is a weapon that can be readily restored to shoot automatically, all that is missing is a sear & a couple of springs. That fits the definition.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Rouser2
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ravenwood

Re: >>If the law says that you cannot own machine gun parts, that's what it says.<<


That is not what it says. But a man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still. The law specifically says "solely and exclusively" machine gun parts which I have pointed out before, and which you choose to ignore, just as the storm-trooping ATF chose to ignore. It's time for a little more law 'n order in the United States beginning with the Oath-Takers in the Federal Government.

You are picking on one technicality in the law. Ravenwood believes it is correct, you don't. Once again, you can fight this out in a court, and no one gets hurt.

Once again, reasonable belief, and as the guns collected proved, that is exactly what they were up to.

[Ravenwood]

DOH! I forgot to add that the M-16 bolt carrier that comes with the NESARD E2 kit is "Solely and exclusively" a machine gun part. although it can be interchanged with a properly headspaced AR-15 bolt & carrier, it is not the same thing as an AR-15 bolt carrier, thus it is a machine gun part (as dumb as that seems, because it does not make the weapon fully automatic...) However, going back to the previous article (b) the combination of aforementioned parts on a unblocked lower IS "readily restorable to fire in a fully automatic mode" in fact, you don't even need power tools to make the conversion. (I have seen some real neanderthal conversion plans for just this operation, & as crude as they are, they will work!) I must say, as against the ATF's shoddy work on this case I used to be, I am beginning to think that they actually had some good grounds to get a warrant without embellishing any of the facts...

[Rouser2]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by a_unique_person
[B]


>>Once again, reasonable belief, and as the guns collected proved, that is exactly what they were up to. <<

What the guns collected (and uninspected ) proved is that there are still a whole lot of gullible Americans who want to believe that the same agency that framed Lee Harvey Oswald and tried to frame Richard Jewel had a shred of integrity left after framing David Koresh and murdering 89 innocents.

[Rouser2]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ravenwood

>>the M-16 bolt carrier that comes with the NESARD E2 kit is "Solely and exclusively" a machine gun part. although it can be interchanged with a properly headspaced AR-15 bolt & carrier, it is not the same thing as an AR-15 bolt carrier, thus it is a machine gun part (as dumb as that seems, because it does not make the weapon fully automatic...) <<


"Interchanged" ? Thus an interchangeable part which may be used for both a machine gun and a semi-auto does not fit the definition nor criteria of the "solely/exclusively" aspect of the law. Moreover the warrant says nothing about any E-2 kit, but an "E-Z" kit -- a kit which does not exist. The warrant was defective from beginning to end.

[Ravenwood]

One more time. The upper receiver will accept a AR-15 bolt & carrier (designed for semi automatic fire) or an M-16 bolt & carrier designed for select(automatic) fire. The M-16 bolt & carrier was never designed or intended to be used semiautomatic only sporting rifle. The AR-15 has a modified (cut down & lighter) bolt carrier because it is not intended to fire in the full automatic mode. It also has a lighter barrel not designed to handle the stresses of full auto fire. The M-16 has heavier more robust parts that were designed to take the stress involved in a full auto weapon. They were never designed to be put on a sporting rifle. the AR-15 is a "stripped down" variant of a military weapon, which was designed first, so to say that it dosen't fit the criteria is foolish. The weapon is readily convertable to full auto with those parts & that alone is a violation-never mind that the CAR-15 kits contained illegal 11.5" barrels-another violation (being in possession of a receiver & barrel under 16" without a class 3 permit ) AND the CAR-15 kits also contained M-16 parts (bolt, bolt carrier, key, etc...) As a gunsmith, I am absolutely positive that if I had a NESARD kit (either one) in front of me right now, as well as a complete unblocked lower receiver, within 15 minutes I would have a full auto weapon. plain & simple. I have had to deal with the BATF for over 5 years & am quite familiar with jumping through their hoops & making sure that they know that I am not violating any laws. Based on the information you provided I am now quite sure they had a reason to investigate him (not assault his house) & if they had been more tactful they probably would have convicted him on some very real violations.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Rouser2
[QUOTE]Originally posted by a_unique_person
[B]


>>Once again, reasonable belief, and as the guns collected proved, that is exactly what they were up to. <<

What the guns collected (and uninspected ) proved is that there are still a whole lot of gullible Americans who want to believe that the same agency that framed Lee Harvey Oswald and tried to frame Richard Jewel had a shred of integrity left after framing David Koresh and murdering 89 innocents.

An agency that was run by a cross dressing homosexual (not that there's anything wrong with that), who acts as if he is standing for all that is wholesome and good in america while prying into everyone else's life to get the dirt on them, certainly shows there is an overwhelming necessity for openess and regulation.

As ravenwood has shown, however, what they were on to in this case deserved to go to trial at least.

[Rouser2]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ravenwood

Re: >>. I have had to deal with the BATF for over 5 years & am quite familiar with jumping through their hoops <<

Good for you. Perhaps you'll never get what this is all about till one day they come after you. That aside, and all of your technical jargon aside, you have read the legal argument of 1996 Hamline Journal of Public Law and Policy by David B. Kopel, Paul H. Blackman. Specifically what errors of fact or law are in that argument?

http://i2i.org/SuptDocs/Waco/warrant2.htm

[Rouser2]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by a_unique_person
[B]

Re:

>>An agency that was run by a cross dressing homosexual (not that there's anything wrong with that), <<

Then why do you continually bring it up? J. Edgar was as corrupt as can be. But there is no evidence to suggest he was a cross-dressing homosexual except for one author's uncorroborated assertions. Nor was Hoover in charge of the FBI at the time of the Waco Holocaust.

>>As ravenwood has shown, however, what they were on to in this case deserved to go to trial at least. >>

What they were onto, was a bunch of people who were different then average, everyday Americans -- but people who exercised their right to keep and bear arms -- a perfect time for "Showtime" to show all Americans just what can happen if they take that Constitution and all those alleged rights too seriously.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Rouser2
Originally posted by a_unique_person


Re:

>>An agency that was run by a cross dressing homosexual (not that there's anything wrong with that), <<

Then why do you continually bring it up? J. Edgar was as corrupt as can be. But there is no evidence to suggest he was a cross-dressing homosexual except for one author's uncorroborated assertions. Nor was Hoover in charge of the FBI at the time of the Waco Holocaust.



This is the first time I have brought it up. Like I say, I don't care if he wanted to parade around in the back end of a theatrical horse costume. It was just amazing that someone who had no compunction about invading everyone else's personal lives had such an interesting one.

He lived, a single male, in a house, with another single male, for many years. I leave you to draw your own conclusions.

>>As ravenwood has shown, however, what they were on to in this case deserved to go to trial at least. >>

What they were onto, was a bunch of people who were different then average, everyday Americans -- but people who exercised their right to keep and bear arms -- a perfect time for "Showtime" to show all Americans just what can happen if they take that Constitution and all those alleged rights too seriously.

There is a right to keep and bear arms, and a requirement to obey the law. In situations like this, a court is the obvious place to work out the legalities.

[Rouser2]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by a_unique_person
[B]

RE:

>>This is the first time I have brought it up. <<

Not so.

>> Like I say, I don't care if he wanted to parade around in the back end of a theatrical horse costume. It was just amazing that someone who had no compunction about invading everyone else's personal lives had such an interesting one.<<

But you don't know that.

>>He lived, a single male, in a house, with another single male, for many years. I leave you to draw your own conclusions.<<

My conclusion is, that you judge people based on hearsay. That includes J. Edgar, David Koresh and the Branch Davidians. And you don't even remember when you've done it.

>>There is a right to keep and bear arms, and a requirement to obey the law. <<

And the Supreme Law trumps all other "laws".


>>In situations like this, a court is the obvious place to work out the legalities. <<

Then you don't shoot first and work out the legalities later. The ATF shot first and they came there to shoot ("Showtime").

[Ravenwood]

I think one of the problems here is that you do not understand that while the E2 & CAR-15 kits do not make an AR-15 into a machine gun, they make them "readily restorable" I have been building AR-15's for over 5 years & I can tell you that those kits contain M-16 (albiet poor quality) parts. NESARD also was selling the CAR kits with 11.5" Barrels-also a violation (I should know, I've had to silver solder on more FN flash hiders to those stupid barrels to comply with the BATF. (The FN flash hider is 5.5", so by permenantly affixing it, you now have a 16" barrel) I was always in agreement on the grenade hulls & explosives charges, I think the ATF went overboard on that, But I have now doubt that they were in their rights on a warrant for the machine gun parts. I am surprised about the sten CAD templates. I have a sten in my workshop with a solid aluminum reciever, it hangs on the wall in plain view, the BATF agents who drop by for "visits" have played with it, & it is a 100% real sten Mk. II (sans receiver) & all it would take to make it a functioning weapon would be to machine a receiver & bolt. (piece of cake-a sten is one of the most basic & simple of the machine pistol family) They have never objected or even brought it up as a problem. Why they brought it up in the Waco case is beyond me. If you are going to keep going back to BATF irregularities I suggest you familiarize yourself with what makes a M-16 different from an AR-15 (not much) & reread the part about "readily restorable". As a gunsmith, this is one of the things we must be very aware of when we build custom AR-15's, & I think Mr. Koresh did not pay close attention tho those points (or he was trying to build them-He did after all waste his money on those totally legal "hell-fire" kits, which dont work, BTW)

[Rouser2]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ravenwood

Re: >>I think one of the problems here is that you do not understand that while the E2 & CAR-15 kits do not make an AR-15 into a machine gun, they make them "readily restorable" <<


Perhaps one of the problems here is that you do not choose to answer the questions posed. Or did you not read my previous post? Specifically, without any more obsfucation and jargon to illustrate how much you know about guns, the question posed was just what specific errors in fact or law does the Hamline Journal of Public law contain in its legal argument which alleges a defective warrant???

[Ravenwood]

I'm a gunsmith, not a lawyer. I offered my opinions on the section of the law I am familiar with and how it applied to the situation.

Originally posted by Ravenwood

The National Firearms Act
Title 26, United States Code
INTERNAL REVENUE CODE
CHAPTER 53 -- MACHINE GUNS, DESTRUCTIVE DEVICES, AND CERTAIN OTHER FIREARMS
Section 5845. Definitions
For the purpose of this chapter --

b) Machinegun. -- The term "machinegun" means any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger.

What alarms me is that by the letter of the law, a double-barreled shotgun could be considered a "machinegun", as it can be made to fire both barrels with one trigger pull. A reasonable judge would probably let you walk on that one, but who knows? Sloppy law writing.

[Doubt]

Bumping to save this thread.

Rouser is back and this may be needed for a reference.

[a_unique_person]

Whoa, getting some bad flashbacks here.