My comment for Sunday on my web site was mainly about my desire to start working on the "final draft" of my book and to get it into print, whether via self-publishing or via a regular publisher. There are still things pending - such as the supposedly imminent release of Ivins' private emails, some additional pictures the FBI is sending me, and the General Accountability Office's (GAO's) review of the Amerithrax investigation. If any of it gets released before I actually send out the CD containing the pdf files the printer will use to print the book, I can always stop and incorporate something that is of great importance. But, I can't just keep waiting and waiting.
I also explained in my Sunday comment why I continue to argue with Anthrax Truthers even though there seems no way to change their minds about anything. That's something else that evidently won't stop until after the GAO releases its review and after my book is printed and fades into history.
I no longer argue with people who have theories about the JFK assassination.
I no longer argue with people who don't believe Americans went to the moon.
There'll come a time when I'll no longer argue with people who have alternative theories about the anthrax attacks of 2001. It's a matter of diminishing returns. I still find it somewhat educational, but it's becoming less and less so.
Ed
Sunday, June 24, 2012
Sunday, June 17, 2012
June 17 - June 23, 2012 Discussions
While waiting for the agent who has my book to tell me what she thinks of it, I've been working on a new supplemental page for my web site. The new page is titled "The illogical al Qaeda Theory." It shows that no two people with an "al Qaeda Theory" about the anthrax case have exactly the same theory. Some believe the anthrax was made in a lab in Afghanistan. Some believe it was made in a lab at George Mason University. Or maybe it was made in a lab in Canada. It doesn't make any difference to these theorists that they don't agree with each other, or that the facts say that all their theories are wrong.
Meanwhile, since Richard Rowley resorted to personal insults in his posts to this blog, I'll be deleting any new posts he attempts to make -- unless he discusses the facts of the case instead of his beliefs.
And, "Anonymous" seems to be working another case these days - an art theft case. He evidently thinks his experience in determining that al Qaeda was behind the anthrax attacks gives him good experience to work on this new case.
I'm waiting on some pictures from the FBI that I want to use in my book. I'm also waiting on some pictures from USAMRIID. I'm waiting on the FBI to release Ivins' personal emails. And, as stated above, I'm waiting on a response from the literary agent who is reading my book.
Waiting is really really really hard work.
Ed
Meanwhile, since Richard Rowley resorted to personal insults in his posts to this blog, I'll be deleting any new posts he attempts to make -- unless he discusses the facts of the case instead of his beliefs.
And, "Anonymous" seems to be working another case these days - an art theft case. He evidently thinks his experience in determining that al Qaeda was behind the anthrax attacks gives him good experience to work on this new case.
I'm waiting on some pictures from the FBI that I want to use in my book. I'm also waiting on some pictures from USAMRIID. I'm waiting on the FBI to release Ivins' personal emails. And, as stated above, I'm waiting on a response from the literary agent who is reading my book.
Waiting is really really really hard work.
Ed
Sunday, June 10, 2012
June 10 - June 16, 2012 Discussions
My comment for Sunday, June 10 was mostly about the agony of waiting to see whether the agent who is reading my new book will want to represent it. I'm hoping to find out late this week. I'm afraid she won't want to represent a controversial book that wasn't written by someone with impeccable credentials, but times are a-changing, and credentials in today's Internet-driven world aren't always the same as they were pre-Internet. Plus, much of the book involves arguments between "experts" with opinions and experts with facts, where both parties have impeccable credentials. However, I'm hopeful that the agent will want to represent my book. It is very badly needed, since it shows the fallacy of most belief-driven arguments.
Meanwhile, I'm finding it hard to keep occupied. I can't work on the final draft of book for two reasons: (1) I need to hold changes to a minimum until the agent gives her opinion on the current version, and (2) I'm waiting on some FOIA requests for pictures and for copies of Ivins' emails. There isn't much point on making revisions until I see whether those requests will produce useful photos and information.
Also meanwhile, "Anonymous" and Richard Rowley continue to argue beliefs and opinions against facts on this interactive blog. Is it really that difficult to understand that opinions and beliefs mean NOTHING if cold, hard facts say that those opinions and beliefs are nonsense?
Ed
Meanwhile, I'm finding it hard to keep occupied. I can't work on the final draft of book for two reasons: (1) I need to hold changes to a minimum until the agent gives her opinion on the current version, and (2) I'm waiting on some FOIA requests for pictures and for copies of Ivins' emails. There isn't much point on making revisions until I see whether those requests will produce useful photos and information.
Also meanwhile, "Anonymous" and Richard Rowley continue to argue beliefs and opinions against facts on this interactive blog. Is it really that difficult to understand that opinions and beliefs mean NOTHING if cold, hard facts say that those opinions and beliefs are nonsense?
Ed
Sunday, June 3, 2012
June 3 - June 9, 2012 Discussions
My entire comment on Sunday June 3 was an analysis of Laurie Garrett's beliefs regarding the anthrax attacks of 2001. On this interactive blog and via emails, "Anonymous" keeps harping on how I haven't read Garrett's book "I Heard The Sirens Scream," which he seemingly feels is Holy Writ proving that Muslim terrorists were behind the anthrax attacks of 2001.
My analysis of Garrett's beliefs, based upon two lengthy interviews she gave to NPR (National Public Radio) and to the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, shows that Garrett has NO real evidence that al Qaeda was behind the anthrax attacks. All she has is a hodge-podge of scrambled, incoherent beliefs that the government screwed up and allowed 9/11 to happen, so they must have also screwed up when they found that Bruce Ivins was responsible for the anthrax attacks and not al Qaeda. She compares the FBI's investigation to the antics of the Three Stooges.
She never mentions the evidence against Ivins, so it's doubtful that she has even bothered to examine it.
She admits that "most experts" don't agree with her. So, she also acknowledges that "most experts" find the Three Stooges to be more believable than her. But, she's too "outraged" by the failings of the U.S. government in allowing 9/11 to happen to care about what "most experts" think about the anthrax attacks.
Ed
My analysis of Garrett's beliefs, based upon two lengthy interviews she gave to NPR (National Public Radio) and to the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, shows that Garrett has NO real evidence that al Qaeda was behind the anthrax attacks. All she has is a hodge-podge of scrambled, incoherent beliefs that the government screwed up and allowed 9/11 to happen, so they must have also screwed up when they found that Bruce Ivins was responsible for the anthrax attacks and not al Qaeda. She compares the FBI's investigation to the antics of the Three Stooges.
She never mentions the evidence against Ivins, so it's doubtful that she has even bothered to examine it.
She admits that "most experts" don't agree with her. So, she also acknowledges that "most experts" find the Three Stooges to be more believable than her. But, she's too "outraged" by the failings of the U.S. government in allowing 9/11 to happen to care about what "most experts" think about the anthrax attacks.
Ed
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)