18 September 2001 Infrared signatures of small arms weapons fire
Author Affiliations +
Abstract
This paper presents the results of two special experiments that were conducted to verify the F.B .1. tapes of April 19th 1993 at Waco, Texas and a follow —on reenactment trail held at Fort Hood ,Texas on March,20 th 2000. The authors consider the results ofthe Fort Hood trails flawed because the rifle type, barrel length, ammunition type, and special events were not considered. In order to rectify this, two special trails were conducted at Fort Collins, Colorado on Sept. 9, 2000 and then at Tucson, Ariz. On Nov.30th. 2000. These trials were conducted at special small arms ranges that could be utilized for these signature experiments. A small FLIRInc Hg.Cd.Te. scanning system of 1990's vintage was used as the primary system. This system had the same scanning characteristics as the original F.B.I. FUR "Nightstalker" as was used at Waco. It is a smaller 2x4 T.D.I. parallel scanning array, feeding analog video into a recorder. In order to compensate for the differences in I.F.O.V. ofthe two systems, [i.e. our system had 2mr, with probably 1/2 mr in the narrow field -of-view vs probably 0.1 mr for "nightstalker' in the same mode }Our system was placed in a Man-High hydraulic lift situated about 250 ft distant form the line of fire, whereas at Waco the "nightstalker" FUR had been aircraft mounted and was circling over the target at a height of about 4000 ft., giving a line-of-sight of about 5000 ft. This system as was the original system used an 8-bit videotape as the recording medium. There is no doubt that the new digital Focal Plane Array systems can capture these transient events This paper presents the results of two special experiments that were conducted to verify the F.B.I. tapes ofApril 19th 1993 at Waco, Texas and a follow —on reenactment trail held at Fort Hood ,Texas on March,20 th 2000. The authors consider the results ofthe Fort Hood trails flawed because the rifle type, barrel length, ammunition type, and special events were not considered. In order to rectify this, two special trails were conducted at Fort Collins, Colorado on Sept. 9, 2000 and then at Tucson, Ariz. On Nov.30th. 2000. These trials were conducted at special small arms ranges that could be utilized for these signature experiments. A small FLIRInc Hg.Cd.Te. scanning system of 1990's vintage was used as the primary system. This system had the same scanning characteristics as the original F.B.I. FUR "Nightstalker" as was used at Waco. It is a smaller 2x4 T.D.I. parallel scanning array, feeding analog video into a recorder. In order to compensate for the differences in I.F.O.V. ofthe two systems, [i.e., but the question is can these old systems with their two fields equaling one frame video technology capture these events? This paper demonstrates that an old system accomplish the task, and do it rather well. By data reduction we have concluded that about 90% ofthe flashes were recorded and about 60% of these were long enough to be captured in both fields. One can detect a single field flash, without a problem, but capturing it takes more sophisticated equipment then was at our command.
© (2001) COPYRIGHT Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE). Downloading of the abstract is permitted for personal use only.
Ferdinand H. Zegel, Ferdinand H. Zegel, } "Infrared signatures of small arms weapons fire", Proc. SPIE 4370, Targets and Backgrounds VII: Characterization and Representation, (18 September 2001); doi: 10.1117/12.440089; https://doi.org/10.1117/12.440089
PROCEEDINGS
13 PAGES


SHARE
RELATED CONTENT


Back to Top