UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

HOUSTON DIVISION

 

 

DEBORAH BROWN, et al., Civil Action No. H95-587

Plaintiffs

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al.

Defendants

DECLARATION OF EDWARD F. ALLARD, PhD.

Edward F. Allard declares and states as follows:

1. My name is Edward F. Allard. I have worked for many years in the fieldof radiation physics related to thermal imaging, thermal signatures, thermalsuppression and especially in aspects of those subjects relating to ForwardLooking Infrared [FLIR] military systems.

2. My experience is set forth in my curriculum vitae, which is attachedto this declaration. I received my Bachelor of Science in physics from BostonCollege and my doctorate in physics from the University of Missouri. I holdPatent no. 4,413,668 on a device to suppress thermal signatures and Patentno. 5,013,092 on a microdischarge image intensifier. My inventions and studieswill enable use of uncooled thermal imagers with predicted performance betterthan the current TOW antitank missile night sight; design and calculationfor these required an expert knowledge of photocathodes, photo detectors,signal detection, noise, charge transfer and optics for thermal imagingdevices.

3. I began my career in this field as a supervisor at the Defense Department'sNight Vision Laboratory, later becoming Deputy Director, Systems Development.My team developed and defended a variety of programs in the area, includingthe L3TV systems, the thermal night sight for the Dragon antitank weapon,the night sight for the TOW antitank missile system, and other programs.NVL pioneered the Common Module System that is the foundation of the thermalimaging systems used in Operation Desert Storm.

4. As a defense contractor and government employee, I have analyzed anumber of thermal imaging devices. These include comparisons of L3TV withthermal imagers, comparisons of American and foreign imagers, analyses ofthe thermal imager for the M1 tank, design of thermal pointing systems,construction of a T-62 thermal target for tank gunnery, and countermeasuresto completely hide an M60 tank from enemy FLIR and to reduce FLIR signaturesof tents, trucks, ships, and individual soldiers. The interpretation ofFLIR imagery requires skill and experience. As but a few examples, materialswhich reflect sunlight and thus seem bright in the visual spectrum willoften appear indistinct, or even dark, to a thermal imager; the very reflectiveproperties that make them bright to the eye make them appear cool, and thusdark, to FLIR systems. Interpretation of thermal images requires a knowledgeof the reflective properties of both natural and man-made objects.

5. I have reviewed a FLIR tape depicting the events outside Waco, Texas,on April 19, 1993, which tape was obtained from one of the defense attorneysinvolved in the criminal cases that arose out of those events. My analysisof the tape follows. All times given are those shown in the timeclock shownin the tape. All directions are given from the standpoint of the viewer.

6. At 11:24:31, the FLIR is recording events in the rear of the building,where the Combat Engineering Vehicle [CEV] has partially demolished thearea known as the "gymnasium." The FLIR shows several flashesappearing from a point to the left of the CEV. These are elongated in shape,several feet long, and appear and disappear at a regular rate with regularspacing between them. I note five flashes from one point, appearing anddisappearing at the rate of 7-10 per second. At this location some non-flashingmovement also appears visible. There is no natural explanation for theseflashes. Natural phenomena do not heat and cool in fractions of a second.My expert opinion is that these flashes appear to be the muzzle flashesof a fully-automatic firearm, firing at about 500 rounds per minute cyclicrate. Carefully examined, in slow motion and by frame-to-frame observation,the flashes originate to the left and progress to the right, indicatingthat they are being fired from a source outside the building, and firedinto the building.

7. At 11:42:56, the aircraft bearing the FLIR is circling the side ofthe building. A hot image is visible inside the side, ground floor, windowof the "corner tower." As the aircraft continues its movementthe image vanishes, underscoring the fact that the image is of a hot objectinside the room, the sight of which is lost as the aircraft moves on andalters its perspective through the window.

8. At 11:44:52, a momentary flash of radiation is seen to the rear ofthe central "tower." This may be at a location in the open areato the immediate rear of the building. The flash is visible for ten frames,approximately a third of a second, much longer than the flashes describedabove. It is not possible with these data to determine the cause or sourceof the flash.

9. At 11:47:50, the FLIR is recording events at the front of the building.A CEV has driven into the building, withdrawn, and has a large piece ofrubble lodged on the front of the vehicle. An individual is dimly visibleexiting the vehicle, walking to its front, and dislodging the rubble. TheCEV is at this point halted within a vehicle length, perhaps twenty feet,of the front of the building.

10. At 12:07:40-42, the aircraft bearing the FLIR is circling past theright tower. A heat source, long and narrow in form, quickly appears acrossa window of the tower. Upon careful examination, slow motion and frame-by-frame,I believe this is more likely to be a heat source outside the window, thanone inside it. It is noteworthy that the image does not vanish or fade asthe aircraft flies past, in contrast to the heat signature noted at 11:42:56.

11. At 12:08:32, the FLIR depicts events at the rear of the building,where the large "gymnasium" structure has largely been demolished.Two very bright thermal flashes are visible near to or in the window atthe center, in front of and to one side of the CEV which is stopped there.I see no natural explanation for these flashes. They would not, for instance,be reflections of sunlight off glass.

12. At 12:08:52 there are again radiation flashes, which I believe tobe firearms fire, from the side and rear of the CEV. Again, when carefullyexamined they appear to move in the direction of the building.

13. In brief, my examination of the FLIR tape indicates:

a. An analysis of the tape, field by field, reveals thermal flashes occurringthat have pulse times and time intervals between them consistent with theintervals of automatic weapons fire. Pulses of approximately 1/15 secondoccur. There are no naturally occurring phenomena that could explain theseevents.

b. Other thermal flashes of radiation, approximately 1/3 second in duration,occur in various areas of the building complex. Again, no naturally-occurringphenomena can explain this.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the above is true and correct.

/s/

Edward F. Allard, Phd.

Ads by FindLaw