All right, y'all, welcome to the Scott Horton Show.
I'm the Director of the Libertarian Institute, Editorial Director of Antiwar.com, author of the book Fool's Errand, Time to End the War in Afghanistan, and the brand new Enough Already, Time to End the War on Terrorism, and I've recorded more than 5,500 interviews since 2003, almost all on foreign policy, and all available for you at scotthorton.org.
You can sign up for the podcast feed there, and the full interview archive is also available at youtube.com slash scotthortonshow.
All right, you guys, introducing Barbara Grant.
She has made this new documentary that just came out in July, I think, called When the Government Lied, Waco's Infrared Deception.
Welcome to the show.
How are you doing, Barbara?
I'm doing very well today.
Thank you, Scott.
Very happy to have you here.
And is that correct?
This documentary just came out a couple months ago?
Yes, I just produced it a couple months ago.
That's correct.
Okay, great.
So obviously, the story goes back more than 25 years now, and so I'm curious how you got into this, when you first saw the footage, what, in fact, before that, if you could please tell us, because I saw at the beginning here that you're a real engineer involved in this technology, in other words, you know, a very top of the line kind of expert in the field of infrared footage and cameras and all these things.
So I guess if you could first describe that and then describe how you got involved in this investigation.
Well, okay, my background is in the field of radiometry, which has to do with optical radiation propagation and measurement.
And I did my graduate work in remote sensing, so systems that look down at the earth and take pictures.
And so that is related to a lot of things, including cameras for many different uses, whether they are orbiting or whether they're being used closer to the earth.
So when the Waco tragedy occurred in 1993, I didn't pay any attention to it because I was working on a satellite.
We were actually trying to get a weather satellite in orbit to replace two that were beyond their operational lifetime.
So that's a full-time job, as you can imagine.
And I didn't pay attention to this situation until the end of the 1990s, or the year 2000, when the reinvestigation of the controversy came onto the national scene.
So I purchased a copy of a film called Waco, A New Revelation, which was the second film, the first one had been nominated for an Academy Award.
And I was looking at the film again and again and wondering, why have I not heard about this before from the infrared community?
Why haven't we discussed that issue, the issue of the flare at conferences?
And the fact is, people work on a lot of different projects.
So I was thinking, well, yeah, that's probably why.
So I decided to investigate.
And so what I did was track down the expert that they had in that video, Dr. Edward Allard.
I wrote an article about the controversy, and I contacted people with opposing views as well.
And my initial idea was to try and move the project along.
And by that, I mean to add what I could to a national investigation.
I know that's a fairly tall order, but why not try something?
I'm a knowledgeable member of the community.
Let me see what I can do.
So it was a short time after that that I met David Hardy, a Tucson attorney who was working with Ramsey Clark on the Branch Davidian civil trial.
The Davidians were suing the FBI for wrongful death.
And Dave and I were living in the same town, and we started communicating and working together on issues like infrared muzzle flash.
He's a shooter.
I'm an observer.
And so it just went from there.
Okay, great.
And David Hardy, a lot of people know, has done a lot of great work on Waco over the years as well.
So that explains his interest in it.
Now, just to recap a little bit here for people who are new to this subject, the first movie was called Waco, The Rules of Engagement.
And it featured this forward-looking infrared footage.
And then, as you mentioned, the sequel, Waco, A New Revelation, has a much cleaner copy of the footage included in there and appears to show men get out of the back of one of the Bradley fighting vehicles and shoot.
And then there's other clips as well of what appears to be machine gun fire there.
And then, as you say, the government witnesses say, well, I'm skipping ahead, but the government witnesses say, no, that's just sunlight glinting off debris in the yard, that kind of thing.
And the reason this came up again in 99 was because in that same documentary, they proved that there was a military incendiary round or two that were used, even though they did not start the fire.
But they were used that morning and the government had lied about that.
So that was enough to kick off the new investigation, the Danforth investigation of 1999, which included then, and people can watch part three of that series by Mike McNulty and Dan Gifford.
And I forget if Gifford was involved in the third one or not, but it's called The FLIR Project.
And it shows how they rigged the test at Fort Hood to make sure that it would not match up with the Waco footage, which is an important part.
And you don't address that in your video, but I just wanted to mention that for people who want to look at that.
And that is available on YouTube, by the way.
But that's the background of this investigation that you're talking about.
Yes, that's.
Well, actually, I got into this project before The FLIR Project was produced and I was an observer on that test.
So you were an observer on the Fort Hood test?
No, no, no, no, no, no, no.
I was not an observer on the Fort Hood test.
I was into the I was into my investigation during the time of the Fort Hood test.
But basically what had happened was since I had contacted David Hardy, I later started contacting and or being contacted by several people connected with Waco and New Revelation.
One of them was Mike McNulty.
And another very interesting to me was a gentleman by the name of Maurice Cox, who had produced a very detailed report on why the geometry of the flashes on the FLIR tape could not have come from solar reflections.
So I was working in this milieu.
And the really the exciting thing, shocking and exciting, was during the test that David and I did, which was really an initial gunfire test, I hadn't expected to see anything because we had been told by the government repeatedly, oh, muzzle flash just lasts for too short a time.
It can't be captured on infrared.
But there we were at a shooting range looking at the absolute evidence that that that was not true.
And so the FLIR project came later, and there was a much more detailed consideration of the types of weapon, ammunitions, ammunition, flash suppressants, et cetera, that might have been in use at Waco.
So all of this was part of a continuum, really.
And I was an observer on that FLIR test.
I wasn't a project scientist.
I wanted to observe.
And then, so, well, let's get back to the Fort Hood thing in a second, but based on your research, what is it that we're looking at in this footage?
Well, we're looking at when we see the multiple repetitive flashes, I've provided a number of instances of those in my in the in the video.
We're looking at at gunfire, gunfire directed toward the building.
Now, I will say I'm not a weapons expert, so I don't have detailed knowledge on the weapons types, but it's definitely weapons fire.
All right.
But so why are you so sure then?
Well, because I took a number of approaches to reach my conclusion.
The first thing was to test muzzle flash.
And the second thing was I followed I followed what Maurice Cox had done, looking at footage of the tape from a number of different angles and looking at the the path that a sun reflection would take in those particular images.
And the path that a sun reflection would take was very different from what I was seeing in the images.
And not only that, we are not talking about one sun reflection here, supposedly, in the case of the multiple flashes, we're talking about several.
So in order for the sun reflection hypothesis to work as the reason for the flashes, debris would have to be shiny, watered down and precisely positioned for the aircraft's camera to observe them.
So when I made my initial conclusion, I said that these are likely to be from from weapons fire, these flashes, multiple repetitive ones.
And as I studied the problem further over time, I became completely convinced that that is what we're seeing.
I delivered my initial result really basically 20 years ago.
OK, and then now it's important that you don't argue that, no, there's no such thing as sun glint on an infrared camera.
You're just saying that, in fact, I think you say in the documentary that in this one example, they're right.
That is glint.
And we can even use that sort of as a baseline to compare it to these other examples.
Is that correct?
That is absolutely correct.
And the statement that this FLIR will not detect any kind of solar reflections, that's not accurate.
That is not accurate.
Dr. Allard made that statement.
And I think after a period of time, I think he would have was I think he was very willing to go back and look at it again, but he'd had a major stroke beforehand.
You know, that's the other part of this.
Experts were experts who'd concluded gunfire were dropping like flies.
I had contacted Dr. Allard and I was waiting for him to possibly send a report to me so that I could peer review it or maybe give it to some colleagues.
And I hadn't heard from him, hadn't heard from him.
So I called up his home number and a strange voice answered the phone or an unfamiliar voice answered the phone and said that Dr. Allard was not available.
I said, well, when would a better time be to talk to Dr. Allard?
And the man said, there won't be a better time.
Dr. Allard had a stroke yesterday.
So he was in the hospital.
And this was prior to the Fort Hood test.
See, he was going to go out there to observe it.
So his second in command was Mr. Ferdinand Zagel.
Both of these gentlemen had come from the U.S. Army's night vision lab.
So they're very, very good at what they do.
And by the way, what I do want to say, when you are designing an infrared instrument, a thermal infrared instrument, you typically don't design to see solar reflection.
So I think that that was a point that could have been done a little bit differently.
So I contacted Mr. Zagel.
He was on his way to Fort Hood.
And then a short time later, he ended up in the hospital with blood poisoning, supposedly contracted at Fort Hood.
And then there was somebody else, David Hardy said, well, you know, there's this other fellow named Carlos, Carlos Gigliotti.
I was going to say there was, wasn't there one more guy whose last name started with a G?
Yes.
He was a congressional investigator.
Right?
Yes.
He worked for the.
Go ahead.
I'm sorry.
Yes.
He worked for the House Government Reform Committee.
I believe it's called currently the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
And he was out in Laurel, Maryland.
And I'm sorry.
What did you say his name was again?
Before I interrupted you there?
Oh, that's fine.
Carlos Gigliotti, G-H-I-G-L-I-O-T-T-I.
Oh, by the way, I will say there were a number of people who, who looked at this, but these are the specific ones that I had the most to do with.
So anyway, I had contacted Carlos.
I said, I'm trying to put a forum together for my engineering society.
And David Hardy gave me your name and would you be interested?
And I left a message and got a call back very quickly.
And he says, no, no, I'm not interested.
I'm the only one who knows what's going on with the flare.
I have the answer and I will reveal it when I decide to call a press conference.
And I said, can you give me a hint?
Well, he said the FBI lied, but I'm not going to say anymore.
I'm going to call a press conference and, and everyone will be able to hear my results.
Well, that was, I think it was sometime in March.
And then I think it was the late April.
We're talking about the year 2000 here, late April.
I think it was April or May.
Dave Hardy called me and he said, well, Carlos is dead.
So he had been found in his office and nobody had seen him for weeks and he was dead.
Yeah.
I think, I'm not sure if it was Hardy or not, but I'm pretty sure I heard David Hardy on the Carl Wigglesworth show in San Antonio talking about that back then.
It must've been Hardy.
I'm sure it was Hardy.
Hardy has been very involved in this all along the way.
Yeah.
And so, you know, I would talk to- I hope you don't fly around in single engine propeller planes or anything.
I do not.
I take as much care as possible.
You know, everybody's making jokes about this.
One person- Yeah.
It ain't that funny when it's your life on the line, right?
Yeah.
Two people.
Two people.
That's more than a data point.
That's the beginning of the trend.
So it's, so it's very, it's very dark.
The situation is very dark and it was ultimately resolved in the government's favor.
The agents there didn't do anything wrong.
But when I looked at it, I can't really ask the question, did the FBI shoot?
Because all I see are flashes on tape.
I have no information to identify the shooters, right?
But there were, there was more than the FBI there.
The Delta Force was there as well.
And apparently the SAS, you know, this is, this is documented.
So if somebody specifically asked the question, the FBI, did the FBI shoot?
And they answer no, well, that could be a true statement.
I don't know.
You know, I don't have the information to tell.
Others are probably much more expert in that than I am.
Hey, you all.
It's the digital age and dating is no exception.
Well DRAM is a new values-based dating app.
Pick deal breakers and deal makers to find like-minded people that care about the same core values as you.
DRAM can help you find your perfect match locally or anywhere in the world.
And it's video only for more authenticity.
DRAM is free and available for Apple and Android phones and tablets.
To install the app in your browser, go to dram.date.com.
Click the Apple or Android button and use the invite code Scott to sign up.
Now get on out there.
Some of y'all have a problem.
You've got chickens, but you don't want to stand around throwing food at them all day because of all the important stuff you have to do.
Well, the solution to that is to get the Free Range Feeder from freerangefeeder.com.
The all-stainless-steel Free Range Feeder has been developed to satisfy the needs of the poultry chicken hobbyist and the homesteader.
The convertible design allows for four different mounting methods.
Go to freerangefeeder.com or use promo code Scott to get 10% off and get the free e-book.
Subscribe to their newsletter to immediately receive your free copy of Getting Started with Backyard Chickens.
That's freerangefeeder.com slash Scott.
Yeah, in fact, just for the sake of argument, for all you know, some Branch Davidians whacked some FBI agents and took their tank over.
And that's Branch Davidians stealing FBI weapons and getting out of the tank and shooting their own people.
That's not your science, right?
Your science is what's causing that flash.
Other people argue about who's who, and I think you're right, it's probably Delta Force there.
There's got Stephen Berry and Gene Cullen both saying that that's a former special operations officer and a former CIA officer saying that Delta Force guys admitted to them that they were in a firefight with the Branch Davidians in the backyard there that day, which makes perfect sense.
And I'm sure the HRT was part of it as well.
But the real point being just from your expert point of view here is just, right, we don't know what Carlos died of, and we don't know the names of the men pulling those triggers.
But the question is, what are we seeing on this tape?
Is it a muzzle flash or is it not a muzzle flash?
And I wanted to clarify this point with you.
Makes perfect sense to me.
But I ain't no science titian, so what do I know?
But I think that you say in here that, look, it's as simple as a shadow test.
You're going to see a reflection from sunlight when you are lined up in the same angle as the shadow from the sun at that moment, and you're not going to see it when you're not.
And that's just about as simple as that.
That is true for debris lying flat on flat ground.
That is absolutely true.
We have a sequence, or I have a sequence in the video, where someone is picking up a piece of glass and flashing it toward the sensor, and that's how you see it.
So unless that happens, you will not get multiple flashes if you are not at the appropriate angle.
And I do have an example in there where we do see a sun reflection at an appropriate angle.
So the real clincher to the argument of these multiple flashes not being caused by sun reflections is the fact that they are multiple flashes.
You have to have four or five debris surfaces or pieces of debris lined up at a very specific angle to generate something like that.
One, I can imagine, sure, if it's at a certain angle, but here we have several instances of multiple flashes.
So it's the combination of the multiple flashes with what I learned in gunfire testing and research and participating in tests.
It's the combination of those two conditions that leads me to the gunfire conclusion.
All right, now, you make the point in the video that just because there's a figure on the ground doesn't mean that the infrared is going to pick them up.
It's all about relative temperature compared to the background, and you show some examples of that, and that explains why you can see some gunfire where...
And look, this is not 4K footage here that we're looking at.
This is, you know, even compared to the original tapes, this is a dub and probably a dub of a dub or whatever.
Dub of a dub of a dub, something like that, yes.
But however, though, there are points that you can see even in the lower quality footage in the Rules of Engagement, but especially in the higher quality footage in A New Revelation where it's clear to my eyes, and maybe I'm filling in slight gaps here, but I don't think so, that you can just see these black figures, relatively cool figures, getting out of the back of the tank.
And then the muzzle flashes come from those moving black figures.
So there's some footage where I think you're right to say, well, look, just because you can't see a person here doesn't mean they're not there.
But in some of that footage, you can see the guys getting out of the tank and then firing.
Correct or not?
That is correct.
And what the government claimed in this one instance of the CEV at 1124 behind the gym, they said it was heat reflections from the engine and the dark figures were pieces of debris on the ground, debris on the ground.
So when I look at that, I have to say, well, where did it come from?
Where did it come from?
I don't see where that debris came from.
And by the way, why would it be so very shiny in an environment where it had been run over by the tanks for many minutes or the tank for many minutes as it was going back and forth into the gymnasium?
So even things that you think you see, they said, oh, no, it's sun reflection or it's heat reflection or my personal favorite.
It's a combination of instrument artifacts and malfunctions interacting with debris.
I mean, it could have been I don't know.
It could have been the lizard from Geico did it.
Yeah.
Well, no, no.
About that one, though.
I mean, because I mean, that is the thing, right, that this is all an illusion.
This is not just a dub of a dub of a dub, but this is videotape in the first place captured by a machine that does have what they call artifacts of whatever different descriptions.
I don't know.
And and so can you completely dismiss that?
If I'm talking about one flash here and one flash there, I would be much more suspicious.
But, you know, part of the interesting situation is that people that I knew of who analyzed the tape were not given the system parameters of the flare by the investigation.
They were just not given them.
So that leads people that leaves people to assume things like how much spatial detail can you see on the ground and how is the sensor operating?
I would have to say that if if you see these multiple flashes, you see them more than once, you see them in similar circumstances.
It's hard to dismiss that as a scan artifact.
Yeah.
I'm just trying to play devil's advocate.
No, no.
I know that you're right.
I've always known that this is what happened there from before I saw the footage.
I said, well, come on, they're only showing you the front of the house.
We can't see what's going on in the backyard.
And I presume the worst.
And then so maybe that's why, you know, I'm so smart or maybe that's why I'm wrong, right, is because this has been what I thought since the day of the fire.
And when I was just a kid, it's not like I knew anything about it.
I was 16.
But I knew that cops would do stuff like that because they like to sometimes.
But and certainly in this case, their patience had worn out, you know, to put it lightly.
And same for the politicians in Washington, D.C. as well.
But yeah, no, I mean, once I once you see the footage and when a new pardon me, when rules of engagement came out, I went and saw it at the Doby Mall on the big screen when it was brand new.
And yeah, it's just absolutely clear what's happening there.
There's just no question about it.
And then, as I was mentioning in the sequel there, they have a CIA officer and a former Green Beret saying, yeah, you know, I talked to Delta Force guys who told me that, yeah, they did it all right.
So that's good enough for me.
Well, yeah, there are a number of different ways that one can come to that conclusion.
And to me, the evidence, just the technical evidence is compelling.
One thing I will say, which I find to be very interesting, the experts that the government chose to make the definitive decision on whether or not this was gunfire didn't have experience viewing muzzle flash on infrared.
So that to me was a huge weakness.
If you don't know what something looks like on this type of video and you're asked to come to a definitive conclusion and that conclusion is going to be used to settle this matter once and for all, that strikes me as a very poor way to investigate.
Right.
Or a very, you know, deliberate one when you have a predetermined conclusion you're trying to reach.
But now let me ask you this, because, you know, you quote in the video, I forgot who, saying that, you know, one of the developers or somebody, an authority figure here saying that, oh, yeah, no, FLIR is a great way to pick out enemy ground fire.
And that's so then I wondered whether then is that not the purpose of the FLIR in the first place is to pick out enemy ground fire or what?
Well, actually, that wasn't one of the developers of the FLIR.
That was an individual by the name of Paul Beaver, who was an analyst for Jane's information group.
So these people know what they're looking at.
Yes.
He says, oh, yes, it's absolutely useful to do this.
Now, that's not the only thing you look for.
But this gentleman said that he had been in a combat situation and that's how we pick out where the enemy is.
Think about that statement for a moment.
Why does he say it's useful to detect where the enemy is?
That's because you probably can't see people during this type of situation, a cluttered battlefield, people perhaps taking cover somewhere.
But you can see the flashes.
Right.
It makes perfect sense.
Okay.
Now, so can you tell us about the Fort Hood test?
I know, as you said, you weren't directly involved in it, but you were observing it closely.
And, you know, I could rant on and characterize it, but I'd rather hear you.
Okay.
Well, I was not a physical on the ground observer for the Fort Hood test.
But by that time, I was looking at the test protocol.
So there I am going through the protocol and I'm thinking, boy, you know, this took a long time to develop this particular protocol.
So, you know, who's working on it?
Who is working on it?
Because we were only told, I guess, publicly about vectors experts.
There were three experts, I suppose, but they were backed up by people who I believe had significant infrared experience.
Now, I've always heard from, I guess it was Carlos's opinion and maybe Ferdinand Zagel's opinion, oh, these people weren't experts.
They did a lousy job at the test.
It was just terrible.
They're incompetent.
And at the end of the test, a civil trial was going on.
Attorneys for both sides in the civil trial were saying the test proves our point of view.
No, the test proves our point of view.
So some were attributing this to vectors incompetence.
I see it differently.
I think there's a fair amount of intelligence in the test.
There is enough information in the test to throw somebody off who doesn't know what the heck muzzle flash looks like.
And this is the thing that really got me.
They picked specific pieces of debris, of debris, aluminum, glass, curved aluminum, and they lined them up in kind of a hopscotch pattern of eight foot squares.
So the aluminum is here and the glass is here and the tinfoil is here and the crushed glass is over here.
And they were very careful with this debris, which doesn't at all mimic the conditions at Mount Carmel on that very windy, dusty morning.
But they were very careful.
They watered down the field and covered it with tarps the night before.
And so when you had the test instrument, the FLIR, looking at that, I'd have to believe that the results at those specific angles for that specific altitude probably were already known.
Known by whom?
Whatever technical people with vast expertise laid out the debris field.
And see, as an analyst, I look at things like organization versus randomness.
I mean, when things are falling in the middle of this tank assault on April the 19th, they don't fall in specific patterns, but the debris tested was specifically patterned.
And I think that there was a lot of preliminary research and measurement going on at Fort Hood by the test conductors.
In other words, they did the whole test before announcing it, and they had people in communication with their plane and figured out how to make it look like that.
Then they did it again and called it the test.
Sounds like, well, yeah, they knew the the proper imaging angles.
And, you know, it was just very, there was a lot of intelligence behind that test.
That's funny.
I need to go back and watch the FLIR project because, you know, I have always focused so much on how badly they rigged the gun test that I forgot about the part where they rigged the actual glint test, too.
Well, what you see, I think, in the FLIR project, if I'm not mistaken, I haven't looked at it for a while, is, you know, the background conditions at the Fort Hood test did not resemble those at Waco.
Take a look at the Waco FLIR.
Take a look at what you see in the FLIR project.
And it's like, I understand it's very, very, very difficult to replicate a scenario like that.
But when Fred Zagel was looking at the FLIR footage, I believe he said, you know, it's like this, it's like the instrument in the Fort Hood test was not working properly.
Not the instrument in 1993, but the instrument in the test, because according to his expertise, it looked like there was something wrong with the cooler.
Infrared detectors are cooled to very, very low temperatures.
And Fred, who had been looking at this kind of thing for 40 years and designing, building, testing FLIRs for a number of purposes, thought that the Fort Hood instrument wasn't working properly, which led him to conclude that Vector was incompetent.
I think that the motive was darker than that.
Yeah, well, I mean, they could have had, you know, incompetent camera work on top of a rigged test anyway, if it, you know, it could certainly, there's not necessarily exclusive concepts.
But the way I remember it too, and correct me if I'm wrong, or you could plead innocent if you don't remember it this way or whatever.
But the way I remember it too was they chose not a windy day, but a windless day.
And they took a water truck and sprayed down all the dirt just to keep all the dust down as much as possible.
And then they gave them different rifles with extended length barrels.
And they gave them flash suppressant ammunition, which was different ammunition than what the HRT had been assigned.
Or I forget if anyone knew what the Delta Force had, but certainly different than what the HRT was shooting that day.
So, in other words, they made sure that it wouldn't show up the same, you know.
Oh, absolutely.
And that is why I really, I was extremely disappointed at the lack of expertise in the issue of gunfire demonstrated by people whose work decided the issue.
That's ridiculous.
You know, one of the benefits of working with people from different backgrounds is that you all come together and you add something.
So I was I really found it very helpful to work with a person like Hardy and to hear from somebody like Matt Cox.
And in addition to, you know, to other people to get a better idea of what's going on.
But if you have this or that analyst with no experience, no experience looking at muzzle flash and making that decision, oh, my goodness, they're very easy to trick.
And I think the government did a job at it.
You know what, though?
So I don't know how hard it is to get your hands on a vintage 1993 one of these cameras.
But can we do our own FLIR test and get M4s and the proper ammo and the proper conditions and do the opposite?
I know you have some testing with Hardy, but couldn't we reproduce these whole conditions with the plane and everything?
Well, you know, that was exactly what I believe Mike was trying to do.
Mike McNulty in the FLIR project, the testing that Hardy and I did was was preliminary.
And I guess there is some of that in the FLIR project, right?
I'm sorry.
I haven't seen it in so long.
They had a they had a what's called a cooled.
I don't want to get into this too in too much detail, but a cooled mercury cadmium telluride.
That's a detector material, a cryogenically cooled detector, not exactly the same as the one that the FBI had used at Waco.
But it was a similar, actually the same type of detector material, a different design.
So they got as close as they could with that to the to the instrument.
When I said earlier that we did not know what the camera parameters were because the government did not release that information to analysts, that's a significant omission.
The government knows what they were.
They know what they sold, GEC Marconi.
They know what they sold them.
Did the people who put the debris field together have accurate system parameters that analysts were somehow denied?
If so, how does that work when people are claiming that there that there's gunfire on the tape?
Why why weren't analysts given that information?
So I think people know what it is.
They just didn't want to release it as hard as it would be to to watch some of those effects.
Yeah.
OK, so what else am I missing here?
What else are you missing?
It's a good question.
Well, as I said previously, there's a lot of intelligence within what was at the time a very pretty narrowly focused infrared community.
And I would have to say that that my interest was in initially in trying to move the problem along.
So people, a lot of people with more experience than I were reluctant to talk to me or didn't want to tell me too much.
I think that it would have been at a very minimum bad for their careers or or worse.
But they essentially they all agreed with you and no one's serious about.
Oh, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no.
I got a lot of people who stopped answering my phone calls.
Hold on just one second.
Be right back.
So you're constantly buying things from Amazon dot com.
Well, that makes sense.
They bring it right to your house.
So what you do, though, is click through from the link in the right hand margin at Scott Horton dot org.
And I'll get a little bit of a kickback from Amazon's end of the sale.
Won't cost you a thing.
Nice little way to help support the show.
Again, that's right there in the margin at Scott Horton dot org.
Hey, you want to know what industry is recession proof?
Yes, you're right.
Of course, pot.
Scott Horton here to tell you about Green Mill supercritical extractors.
The SFE pro and superproducing parallel pro can be calibrated to produce all different types and qualities of cannabis crude oils for all different purposes.
These extractors are the most important part of your cannabis oil business for precision, versatility and efficiency.
Green Mills supercritical dot com.
Hey, y'all, Scott here.
If you want a real education in history and economics, you should check out Tom Woods's Liberty Classroom.
Tom and a really great group of professors and experts have put together an entire education of everything they didn't teach you in school, but should have.
Follow through from the link in the margin at Scott Horton dot org for Tom Woods's Liberty Classroom.
Well, that's different than disagreeing with you, necessarily.
That's true.
I guess I guess what I'm getting at is I know that there were, you know, as you said, people who weren't really experts on this, who told the government what the government wanted to hear and all of this kind of deal.
But I guess what I'm asking is in the independent community out there, was there anyone on your level who was saying, listen, I think you're barking up the wrong tree with this.
I think that maybe the sunlight people really have a case.
Did anybody else.
I think that the way that I would put this is you're asking if people who were not connected with the test or with the analysis came forward to say, I have reviewed all this.
I've reviewed the report by this expert, that expert, that expert.
I have twenty five, 30 years of experience and I can affirm that this is a solar reflection issue.
The answer to that question is no.
Yeah.
And I think you're not.
But I mean, even talking to you about it, maybe off the record, even.
I didn't have people who who talked to me off the record who came and said, you know what, Barbara, we agree with you, but we've been told by our supervisors to not discuss this.
I didn't get the we agree with you thing or we disagree with you thing.
I got a lot of non-returned phone calls.
Yeah.
And I guess that makes sense, too, that people just don't want to, you know, confront such a controversial issue either way or something.
They they don't.
But I think it would have been really interesting.
And you raise a really good point.
If an independent person with a lot of expertise had done kind of what I did, follow the investigation, follow the testing, use analysis and said, you know, I've been testing gunfire and I have concluded that this is not it.
That would have actually been really interesting.
Yeah.
And, you know, it would have been nice for them to to say, hey, listen, I got a mortgage and I'm afraid, but I think you're right about this.
So good for you or something like that would be OK, too, you know, ain't got to be so afraid.
Or, hey, Barbara, I think you're wrong and I don't want to fight you publicly.
But geez, I here's why I think that what you're overlooking or something, you know, I don't know.
It would have been nice to have gotten a report like that.
I did not receive one.
Yeah.
Well, I mean, that goes to the integrity of your work and just the fact that you're right, obviously, too.
So what the hell?
I mean, what are you going to say?
Yeah, well, I actually came into this problem, you know, fairly late.
So I was not it took me a while, you know, and part of the reason is because this was new territory for me.
Gunfire was not something I knew about.
In fact, when I contacted Edward Allard the first time, I asked him a simple question.
What's around?
I didn't know.
I didn't know anything like that.
And the thing, too, is what really matters.
I hate to put it this way, but it's reality.
Who is paying your salary?
Who is paying your salary?
You see, if you are working for a government lab, the government is paying your salary and they have they may have specific things they want you to do and not to do.
If you're self-employed, you need to get contracts to continue to pay your salary.
And if you're interested in pursuing something like this, you do it on your own time.
So at that time, I'm looking back at this now, but at that time, I don't think they had anything called crowdfunding available.
If I were doing this today, I would get a crowdfunding effort going.
Right.
Well, listen, I mean, this is really important.
I hope that this show can help to make it go viral.
I got to admit, I'm not sure which communities of people online care about this issue anymore.
But have you gotten much response from this?
You know, I have not been able to do much marketing, so I haven't gotten a lot of response to this point.
But I haven't really done a lot of marketing.
But I'll tell you why it's relevant.
When you have a situation, see, the thing that you mentioned at the beginning that just kind of raises many eyebrows is the presence of the military there.
So right now, our situation is quite different.
I mean, there are people worried about people coming to their homes, asking for evidence of vaccination.
I mean, I'm not saying it's happening, but people are thinking, well, this could potentially happen.
There are people who are worried about being able to go to church.
You know, is their church going to be shut down?
And what I see in the Waco incident is a deception, which to me, very cleverly crafted.
It took a lot of expertise, and it was crafted in such a way.
It was actually quite brilliant of the government to hire analysts who didn't know what they were looking at.
They had other expertise, but muzzle flash was not it.
So, you know, you look at something like that and you think, well, it sounds like this was a one-time deal, but their strategy worked then.
Yeah.
Well, look, I mean, isn't that the point?
I mean, Waco was huge.
You know, 80 people were killed that day and all of this.
And several earlier.
Yeah, six people had been killed on the first day, Davidians.
But also, I mean, that's the lesson of it, right, is that, you know, as Bill Hicks said, the great philosopher Bill Hicks said, the lesson is the government always wins and you will lose and they will bust your house down and they will do whatever they want.
And that was what they were trying to teach us.
But that's what we should learn from that, is that that's the eyes that the government looks at the American people through.
You know, we're all a bunch of branch Davidians to them.
And so beware.
Yeah, well, yeah, it's a very scary thing to contemplate.
Now, I do have to say one more thing because it's important to me as I would call myself a Bible-believing Christian.
Where was the Christian community on this?
Where was the Christian community on this?
Well, I'll tell you where they were.
I mean, is that a rhetorical question or you want to know?
Please tell me.
Well, they were demanding that David Koresh be crucified because TV said that he said he was Jesus.
And you know what we do to people like that?
We kill them.
And that was what all of the Southern Baptists and Methodists in Northwest Austin thought.
Well, see, that's really, really unfortunate.
Now, I was not asking a rhetorical question.
I did not know that because I didn't pay attention.
Thin blue line, baby.
Yeah, these people are outlaws and you don't thumb your nose at law enforcement.
Boy, it says in Romans 13, you do whatever the cops say or die.
That was where the Christian community was.
I think that that's a mistake because regardless of somebody's beliefs, we are all under the same system of laws.
Whether somebody goes directly from the Bible or whether they have an unusual religion and point of view, I'm not saying that that should absolve them of every crime, but you have to give people the same consideration, the same consideration for all.
And guess what?
I think that the liberty of Christians in this country to worship freely has been under some assault and I think it's going to get worse.
So let's take a look back at what was the Christian response.
And guess what?
You know, they may be coming for you.
Right.
And I mean, really, in the last generation, it's been the Christians who've gone along the most with religious persecution of Muslims.
When they're by far the minority, they're the ones who are, you know, the canary in the coal mine, whether they're allowed to build a mosque where they want or not.
And it's Christians screaming their heads off that they're not.
And so that's the other thing about Waco, too, is the Branch Davidians are not like your church.
The Branch Davidians are not like a lot of people's churches.
But just as you said, that's not the qualification for whether their rights are to be protected or not.
You know, and that it's supposed to go for everybody, not just different denominations of Protestants, supposed to go for everybody in this country.
Very troubling.
Yeah.
Well, listen, I got to tell you, I appreciate this so much.
When Jim Bovard, I should have said this at the beginning that James Bovard sent me this, who, of course, you know, was holding it down.
The libertarian movement the whole time from the beginning on this.
Isn't that nice?
Yeah, that is very nice.
Thank you.
Yeah, absolutely.
And I just was so excited to see this.
And I think you did a great job on it.
I really hope people will take a look at this.
And you know what?
People love this subject.
It's such an important subject.
So everybody listening, do your part to help spread this around.
Maybe send it to other hosts that you know of radio shows and YouTube shows and whoever you know that could help spread this around.
He'll take an interest in this because this is it.
This is the real smoking gun.
This is the final proof.
This is either the FBI, HRT or the Delta Force Combat Applications Group and or SAS.
I think I don't know if they were pulling triggers.
I know they were there.
But they were shooting the Branch Davidians and killing them as their house was burning down.
That's a fact.
And so, you know, that's really the end all of the whole argument.
You know, forget the first raid.
Forget the siege.
Forget anything.
Forget even who started the fire.
Oh, see, we're not done.
I got to ask about the fire.
What time is it?
Oh, no, I got to go.
Oh, no, I was rambling.
And I got to ask about the fire.
And you mentioned the origin of the fire.
Can I call you back in half an hour?
Please forgive me for being so sloppy.
You know what?
OK, let let me let me be very frank with you.
I have not studied that that part of the problem.
I have not studied that part of the problem.
So that's a fair answer.
That's a fair answer.
Maybe we'll follow up on that someday.
Well, but take take a look at at some of the footage, because you see that very bright flash followed by gunfire, followed by the fire starting.
That's towards the end of the video.
And we do know from from a new revelation that there were pyrotechnic, not incendiary, but pyrotechnic rounds found at all three origins of the fire.
And they were all mislabeled as silencers, too, in the evidence.
You know, they there's more information in that than what I can provide.
And maybe David Hardy knows more.
I mean, David Hardy has a top level view of everything.
And he's very technical, actually.
He's a very technical guy.
In addition to being an attorney, I'm trying to remember if I've ever even interviewed him before.
I must have at least one time.
He would have been interviewed by many people, including, I'm sure, you.
Yeah, he must be in the archive there somewhere or soon enough.
He will be.
But anyway, listen, I'm sorry.
I'm so over time.
But thank you so much.
I'm so grateful for this.
OK, thank you so much.
OK, everybody, that is Barbara Grant.
And you can find the the documentary called When the Government Lied.
Waco's infrared deception.
And you can get it on Vimeo, but it's also on Android and Apple and Roku and Chromecast and whatever, all those things you can find it when the government lied.
Waco's infrared deception.
Of course, the link will be in the show notes of this interview, too.
The Scott Horton Show, antiwar radio can be heard on KPFK 90.7 FM in L.A.
APS radio dot com antiwar dot com Scott Horton dot org and Libertarian Institute dot org.
