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
David Relman expressly says the book such as the one you want to publish (your book is about how an imaginary First Grader of your focus wrote the anthrax letters) is not needed.
ReplyDeleteYet you don't know that because you have not read his piece.
Don't you think before you try to get published you should inform yourself about what the experts are saying? I regularly offered to email you books and articles for free precisely so that you would correct your numerous mistakes.
If you don't inform yourself through reading, aren't you the one guilty of a "belief-driven argument"? Punching out each day at 5 p.m. is fine -- unless you want to master a subject and become someone informed enough to be worth publishing. For all of the failings of the DW book, he at least conducted numerous interviews.
Don't you see that you are the best illustration of your own schtick -- which just consists of labeling rather than addressing of merits.
But certainly for you not to even know that Dr. Relman says that your book is NOT needed speaks volumes as to your qualifications to address his points. The new information will be the motherlode of insights that the GAO report promises to shed.
Anonymous wrote: "David Relman expressly says the book such as the one you want to publish ... is not needed."
ReplyDeleteFALSE! That's just another one of your distortions of the facts. Relman wrote:
"A great deal has been written about the 2001 anthrax mailings in the United States, the resulting deaths, and the subsequent investigations. One might legitimately ask whether more is needed."
The obvious answer to his QUESTION is: YES, another book is very much needed.
I've already told you I have a pdf of the Relman review. There is no other place in the review where the word "needed" is used. So, your entire argument is just more True Believer nonsense.
You need to start looking at the FACTS instead of endlessly stating your FALSE BELIEFS.
Ed
Posted by Mister Lake above (partial):
ReplyDelete---------
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?
===================================================
Of course, many times what Mister Lake LABELS a "fact" (usually in CAPS as is his wont) is nothing of the sort.
Richard Rowley wrote: "Of course, many times what Mister Lake LABELS a "fact" (usually in CAPS as is his wont) is nothing of the sort."
ReplyDeleteSo, why don't you cite examples?
I'm always willing to discuss FACTS. I just see no point in arguing BELIEFS and OPINIONS.
It appears that you do not understand FACTS, and that is why you BELIEVE the FACTS aren't really FACTS.
Cite examples, and I'll explain things to you.
Ed
A child did not write the anthrax letters. It is a simple matter for an adult to disguise his handwriting using capital letters. That's a provable fact. There thus would be no reason to involve a child. You don't seem to have had any experience with First Graders. You insist that the lettering demonstrates that the writer just recently learned to write English. Okay.
ReplyDeleteYou need a reality check if you think an agent or publisher would associate themselves with such a baseless theory.
Anonymous wrote: "A child did not write the anthrax letters."
ReplyDeleteI understand that is what you BELIEVE, but the FACTS say otherwise. The FACTS say you are wrong.
Anonymous also wrote: "It is a simple matter for an adult to disguise his handwriting using capital letters."
Maybe so, but that's irrelevant. The FACTS say that a child wrote the anthrax letters. The FACTS say that the adult only wrote the date atop the media letter. So, what adults can or cannot do is irrelevant.
Anonymous also wrote: "There thus would be no reason to involve a child."
Again you argue your BELIEFS. The FACTS say that by using a child to do the handwriting, Ivins found the PERFECT way to get the letters written without risk that the handwriting - disguised or not - could be traced back to him.
If an agent or publisher refuses to accept the FACTS, then I'll self publish. It's a "deal breaker" issue.
Ed
"I understand that is what you BELIEVE, but the FACTS say otherwise [i.e., a First Grader wrote the letters]. The FACTS say you are wrong."
DeleteYou lack self-awareness, Ed, to not realize that you are the true believer.
Anonymous wrote: "You lack self-awareness, Ed, to not realize that you are the true believer."
DeleteA True Believer is someone who believes in something regardless of what the facts say. That's you. The facts say a child wrote the anthrax letter, but you have an alternative theory that is unsupported by the facts.
A scientist or analyst is someone who accepts what the facts say regardless of what other people believe. That's what I'm doing.
It's not about beliefs. It's about what the facts say. You evidently just cannot understand that.
Ed
Richard Rowley wrote: "Of course, many times what Mister Lake LABELS a "fact" (usually in CAPS as is his wont) is nothing of the sort."
ReplyDeleteSo, why don't you cite examples?
========================================================
Okay, for example in your ORIGINAL child-printed-it document you wrote: (paraphrase but close to exact words):
-----------------------------
[some number] FACT: the school year begins in September.
===========================================================
Since one of my surprises when I moved to the state of Indiana years ago was that the school year began (begins) in August, this was an obvious "FACT" (for some reason Mister Lake almost always puts it in caps) that was not a fact (no caps or quotation marks necessary).
This is a minor example (but plenty important enough to make the list that is part and parcel both that original document and of Mister Lake's rhetorical style: make a list of "FACTS" and thereby claim the polemical high ground by saying that your opponents are "ignoring the facts" ).
So, did Mister Lake actually do any research on the question?
Almost certainly not. In about 5 minutes (if you use the right search terms) you can find:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070819134832AA9yjTf
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070821104322AAVpJo3
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110814173636AAGAj54
Etc.
There are a number of states in which the starting date is in August and perhaps one or two in July.
So, what this "FACT" meant was: 'that's the way I think things are, and don't know any better, and no one's corrected me yet and it advances my argument (about how the child 'improved' from the Sept 18th mailing to the Oct 9th mailing), so it's a "FACT"'.
That's NOT the way most people use the word 'fact'. But as I observed a week or two ago, Mister Lake so overuses this word that it approaches self-parody.
(Currently, and for some time, this child-printed-it document was amended on the point so as to read:
--------------
13. The new school year was just starting at the time the letters were written.
-----------
That's vaguer and thereby more accurate.
But it doesn't really explain how an easily-checkable boo-boo become a "FACT" (caps and quotation marks always necessary in this situation).
Of course, if Mister Lake didn't HIMSELF believe that a child printed the Amerithrax letters, he would have labeled the whole hypothesis a "BELIEF" (again with the caps), and disparage the hypothesis on those grounds. It's a polemical trick, but the only one it fools is.....Mister Lake.
Richard Rowley found a place where I allegedly wrote: "[some number] FACT: the school year begins in September."
ReplyDeleteRight. That was an error. I corrected it. I checked when the school year started in Frederick schools and found that it started in late August.
But, that's part of the learning process. That's why I ask people to correct me when they see I made a mistake.
The FACT that the school year started in August and not in September actually helps show that a child wrote the letters, because it gives him more time to learn how to draw certain characters between the writing on the media letter and the addressing of the media envelopes. It certainly doesn't change the hypothesis.
If you go back far enough in my web site, you can find LOTS of mistakes I've made over the years. I try to go back and add NOTES explaining that the information is wrong, but I don't delete the bad information and pretend I was always right.
My web site shows my learning process. Most of my mistakes are still there for all the world to see. About the only thing I correct, wiping out all trace of the mistake, is something that is nearly immediate - something where I made a mistake and almost immediately realize or I'm told that it's an error.
There's just no way to go back into 10 years of writing to correct every mistake I made. And, if I did that, you'd be arguing that I pretend I never made a mistake.
Can't you find any FACT that actually means something? The FACTS about the handwriting are NOT part of the government's case against Ivins. And, when I corrected the "September" error I helped improve the hypothesis. It didn't disprove the hypothesis.
Ed
Ed,
ReplyDeleteIn advocacy, the persuasiveness of an argument can be measured by how many people it persuades.
In 10 years, you have not persuaded anyone of your First Grader Theory.
Get a clue, man. Your argument is unpersuasive.
Anonymous wrote: "In advocacy, the persuasiveness of an argument can be measured by how many people it persuades."
ReplyDeleteIt's not an issue of advocacy, nor persuasiveness. It's about what the facts say. The facts say a child wrote the anthrax letters.
I don't know that I haven't persuaded anyone. Several people have written me to say that the hypothesis is very persuasive. However, I'm not out to persuade people. I'm out to explain what the facts say. The facts say that a child wrote the anthrax letters.
People should be persuaded by the facts, not by me.
If they aren't persuaded, they probably started with a fixed opinion that cannot be changed by facts alone.
Such people usually require having someone in authority tell them what to think and believe.
I'm just not that person.
Ed
No, Ed, that's precisely the issue.
ReplyDeleteYou have uncritically taken the allegations by an AUSA, unsupported even by citation, as if it was evidence.
You lack critical reasoning ability -- going so far as to cite the prosecutor and investigator as the key expert!
A publisher has no reason to publish an argument that in 10 years has never persuaded anyone.
That should be obvious.
Richard Rowley found a place where I allegedly wrote: "[some number] FACT: the school year begins in September."
ReplyDeleteRight. That was an error. I corrected it. I checked when the school year started in Frederick schools and found that it started in late August.
=================================================
Actually, the ORIGINAL statement was as I wrote it: a blanket statement about when 'the school year starts' without a qualification of ANY kind, geographical or otherwise ( and why WOULD you specify Frederick MD, since, when you originally wrote the document, you YOURSELF thought, as you recently indicated, that the perp lived in New Jersey?).
In fact when I sent you a critique (now a few years back)of your child-printed-it hypothesis there was ALREADY a second (revised) version of the document, and that revised version had the same blanket statement: it did NOT specify Frederick, MD or any other location (though whether this was before Ivins' death or after I don't know and would have to go a-huntin' for old emails).
So the version of the child-printed-it hypothesis that is with us today is AT LEAST the 3rd version (possibly the 4th: I'd lost most of my interest in the subject by that time).
One point on which I don't agree with anonymous is: the writing of the book (and not just because it's largely finished).
ReplyDeleteMy idea is: there are a number of reasons to write a book. Sales/money is just one of them. Though I disagree with Mister Lake about much he certainly knows a lot about the course of Amerithrax. And, in the long view, ten, twenty, thirty years from now, after all the hypertext links are no longer working, it will be the monographs that future generations go to to get not just an idea of the Task Force's findings, but the interpretations of various contemporary commentators on Amerithrax.
Mister Lake can speak for himself, but I sense that he almost feels an obligation to get out this second book on Amerithrax, and since his first one was published circa 2003, MOST of the years of the investigation weren't covered by that book.
As to his child-printer hypothesis, this will surely be only a small fraction of the book, perhaps a chapter.
Writing a book is a good mental exercise, especially when it is about a complex case like Amerithrax.
The GAO report indeed promises to be very significant.
DeleteThe GAO report, if it is ever released, will only verify that Ivins was the anthrax mailer. But, it might offer some suggestions on how to avoid letting "Truthers" steer the public in screwball directions on cases that take a long time to solve.
DeleteEd
I've taken a screen shot of this post and we can revisit the issue when the GAO report issues. Only a "true believer" assumes what such a report will say. You are what you call a "true believer."
DeleteAnonymous wrote: "You have uncritically taken the allegations by an AUSA, unsupported even by citation, as if it was evidence."
ReplyDeleteThat's not true. I've looked at the scientific evidence in great detail. Much of what I use to illustrate how Ivins committed the crime isn't even part of the DOJ Summary. They don't say how Ivins made the powders. I do. And I use scientific reports to substantiate my hypothesis. They don't say how Ivins dried the powders. I do. They say the handwriting evidence is inconclusive. I say it is very conclusive, and I illustrate how it is very conclusive. My book is FILLED with fascinating details that aren't part of the Summary Report. What was Ivins planning to do with the ammonium nitrate bomb he was planning to build in early 2000? Rachel Lieber doesn't even mention that bomb.
Anonymous also wrote: "A publisher has no reason to publish an argument that in 10 years has never persuaded anyone."
On the contrary. The handwriting hypothesis could be a very important selling point: (1) It would probably be totally new to 99% of the people who buy the book. I doubt that more than 1% of Americans have ever visited my web site. (2) It is supported by very compelling evidence, including some details that I've never discussed anywhere else before. And, (3) the hypothesis will be controversial. Controversy probably sells more books than anything other factor.
Ed
Richard Rowley wrote: "I sense that he almost feels an obligation to get out this second book on Amerithrax, and since his first one was published circa 2003, .."
ReplyDeleteIt's not an "obligation." It's more like "closure." The case is closed. I want to get my analysis of the case down on paper and made part of the permanent record. My web site isn't a permanent thing. Books are. Two copies of my book will go into the Library of Congress.
My first book was published in March 2005. It contained the child-writer hypothesis, but I've learned a lot since then. For example, at that time I thought the anthrax mailer was most likely a bachelor scientist who lived in New Jersey. I had no idea how he got access to a child. Years later, when I learned that Ivins' wife ran a day care center, it was like pieces were falling together perfectly, verifying the hypothesis.
Richard Rowley also wrote: "As to his child-printer hypothesis, this will surely be only a small fraction of the book, perhaps a chapter."
More like small parts of several chapters and one FULL chapter. The book describes things in the order that they happened. So, when it comes time to write the first letter, I describe it as it most likely happened. Then, a couple weeks later, after 9/11, the media envelopes are addressed. Then, three weeks after that, the senate letter is written and the senate envelopes are addressed. I show the letters and talk about the changes in handwriting at each point.
Chapter 47 (the 2nd to last chapter) is a full chapter titled "Leftover Evidence," which is entirely about the handwriting evidence, explaining in further detail why the FACTS say that a child wrote the letters and addressed the envelopes.
Ed
Since Anonymous seems incapable of summarizing his "al Qaeda theory," I'll try to explain it here as best and as concisely as I can, based upon how I understand it:
ReplyDeletePART 1:
1. The belief is that some scientist member of al Qaeda (or just some Muslim scientist) was given a tour of USAMRIID at some point in time prior to 9/11. While on the tour, the scientist sneaked away, somehow entered Biosafety Level 3 suite B-3 without being seen or leaving a record, and he swiped a sample from flask RMR-1029 which was in the cold storage room in that suite.
2. Although there were many lethal strains of anthrax much more easily available to al Qaeda, the Ames strain was evidently deliberately chosen because it was easily killed by almost any antibiotic and had never been used in any bioweapon.
3. The sample from flask RMR-1029 was then transported to Afghanistan.
4. In a laboratory in Kandahar, Afghanistan, al Qaeda scientists used the sample of Ames to make hundreds of pounds of new anthrax powder.
5. The hundreds of pounds of powder were then transported to the United States in the months just prior to 9/11, apparently as luggage. Along the way, 9/11 terrorist Ahmed Ibrahim A. Al Haznawi somehow got an anthrax infection on his leg. And, 9/11 ring-leader Mohamed Atta had to seek treatment for his hands, which were red from the wrists down, probably as a result of repeatedly cleaning them with bleach, presumably to get kill any spores that might still be on his hands.
6. In Florida, the 9/11 hijackers looked at crop duster aircraft which they planned to use to spray the hundreds of pounds of anthrax powder across some city, presumably in a plan to kill thousands of innocent Americans, maybe tens of thousands. They even planned to install an extra tank next to the pilot to hold all the powder they had.
7. But they couldn't get the loan they needed to buy the crop duster. Evidently, because they were people who lived in desert countries, they didn't understand rain, and one day they must have left the hundreds of pounds of anthrax powder out in the rain, and it was nearly all washed away. Suddenly, all they had left were about seven grams of powder, some crude, some refined.
8. Before leaving Florida, one part of the theory is that they put some anthrax powder into a rent envelope and gave it to their landlady, whose husband worked at American Media, Inc. (AMI) That's one way the AMI building became contaminated with anthrax. The 9/11 terrorists took the rest of the anthrax to New Jersey.
9. But, then in New Jersey they must have been thinking about making more anthrax, since the theory says (according to Laurie Garrett) they visited a place near where a lyophilizer had been recently delivered. But, another theory says it wasn't a lyophilizer, it was a particulate mixer. Whatever it was, they must not have used it, since the belief is that the powder that was used was brought from Afghanistan.
10. In New Jersey, one member of the team was chosen to stay behind and write letters to be sent out with the tiny supply of anthrax powders after the other team members had crashed airliners into the Twin Towers in New York and targets in Washington.
This illustrates what a poor researcher you are.
DeleteI've published at length my theory in an online book.
It's never too late to go back and get your GED, Ed.
I've also uploaded my submission to GAO.
DeleteAnonymous wrote: "I've published at length my theory in an online book."
DeleteThe version of this SUMMARY of the "al Qaeda Theory" I put on my web site includes many links to things you've written.
What I'm doing is SUMMARIZING the "al Qaeda Theory." You write endless irrelevant details, and you don't provide explanations to clarify inconsistencies.
So, this SUMMARY eliminates the need to read endless meaningless crap about who knew who, who met who, who said what in Malaysia in 1984.
Ed
Anonymous wrote: "I've also uploaded my submission to GAO."
DeleteIf the GAO hasn't completed their review by the time my book is printed, I'll send them a copy. That may be what they're waiting for. ;-)
Ed
The fact that your summary bears no relation to my analysis shows your lack of critical reasoning ability and your lack of qualification to analysis.
DeleteI erred in implying the "al Qaeda theory" was your theory. It's a general theory based upon things said by many believers in "al Qaeda theories" - NONE OF WHOM EVIDENTLY FULLY AGREE WITH EACH OTHER.
DeleteSee below for more info.
Ed
PART 2:
ReplyDelete11. Just before 9/11, however, the al Qaeda theory says that an al Qaeda member sent some anthrax and a love letter with a marriage proposal in a large envelope to movie star Jennifer Lopez, c/o The Sun, in Boca Raton, Florida. The letter contained codes which identified the sender as al Qaeda. According to the al Qaeda theory, "A planned marriage refers to a planned attack." The al Qaeda theory says the anthrax in the J-Lo letter killed Bob Stevens
12. A week after 9/11, according to the al Qaeda Theory, the al Qaeda member who had been left behind sent out the letters to Tom Brokaw, Dan Rather, Peter Jennings and The New York Post. The crude version of the anthrax powder was used to convince people that it was made in a garage in the USA, and not in a lab in Afghanistan.
13. According to the al Qaeda theory, the letters were taped shut so that no one would be accidentally exposed. Only the recipients would be affected by the powders. And medical advice was included in the letter. This is because anthrax is like a poison, and using poisons "would violate the hadiths." But, this apparently only applies to sending anthrax by letters, it doesn't apply to spreading anthrax over tens of thousands of innocent people by using a crop duster aircraft.
14. After three weeks, when the first batch of anthrax letters failed to achieve the panic that al Qaeda wanted, a new letter was written. Then, copies of the letter and the last two grams of purified anthrax powder were put into envelopes and sent to Senators Daschle and Leahy. Senator Leahy was specifically chosen because he was behind the "Leahy Law," but both were targeted because of "appropriations to military and security forces that have prevented the militant islamists from achieving their goals."
15. After the anthrax letters killed 5 people and injured 17 others, al Qaeda was apparently happy that they left the hundreds of pounds of anthrax out in the rain to get washed away. They continued to make threats and talk about plans to use anthrax, because they prefer to make threats instead of actually killing people with anthrax or poisons. After all, that "would violate the hadiths."
16. It is also a key part of the "al Qaeda theory" that the FBI failed to "connect the dots." The FBI failed to find all the evidence that points to al Qaeda. They failed to realize that the "false positives" from al Haznawi's body parts were actually "real positives." They failed the realize that the 3 "false positives" from the lab in Afghanistan were the also "real positives" and that the 1,254 negative results actually proved nothing. The FBI failed to find all the anthrax that was going to be used in the crop duster. The FBI failed to find all the connections between al Qaeda and the anthrax attacks that the Anthrax Truthers believe exist but which they cannot find for themselves.
It also appears that nearly every person who has an "al Qaeda theory" has a theory that is slightly different from all other such theories. So, I presume "Anonymous" will disagree with some parts of this summary.
A copy with links has been put on my web site.
Ed
Anonymous wrote: "The fact that your summary bears no relation to my analysis ...."
ReplyDeleteWell, it's not just your "analysis." It contains parts of Laurie Garrett's "analysis," too. And one part comes from "Southack" on FreeRepublic.com. I just merged them all together.
As I've said many times, no two Anthrax Truther theories seem to be identical. So, NO ONE TOTALLY AGREES WITH YOUR THEORY.
I also realized I left out an important part of YOUR theory - the microencapsulation part.
Where do you believe the microencapsulation as done? In Afghanistan? In New Jersey when they were near a place where there was a "particulate mixer"? Or did they have a portable "microencapsulation kit" that they carried with them?
Let me know where I should add it. Or, if we can agree that the microencapsulation part of your theory is a total scientific absurdity, and we can just continue to leave it out.
Ed
Your summary evidences a serious lack of reading comprehension.
DeleteThis morning I found that yesterday there were a lot of new visitors to my web site, and they all came from a Cracked.com article titled 6 Famous News Stories That Forgot to Tell You the Best Part.
DeleteThe article implies that people don't even remember that the anthrax case was solved. It says that the public wasn't told that Bruce Ivins was the anthrax mailer.
That's definitely not the way I remember things. But, it sometimes does seem to be the way the general public remembers things. If there was no trial, then there was no end to the story.
Ed
Okay, I feel a bit of a fifth wheel here in the discussion but shall soldier on: one thing I discovered quite late in life was:
ReplyDeletethe phenomenon of the so-called "availability error" (see:
http://www.skepdic.com/availability.html
One example given in a work where I first read about it was as follows: ask a group of Americans (let's say pre-Arab spring) what is dangerous about traveling to Egypt or the mid-East in general, and they typically say "terrorism". But STATISTICALLY far more Westerners are killed in traffic accidents than in terrorist attacks, yet that is seldom cited by polled Americans. Why? Because seldom will you see even a single news article about the driving conditions in foreign countries. Stories about terrorism were, by contrast, very high in frequency even pre-Sept 11th. People go with what they know about, what they've had drummed into them, what is "available" to them intellectually.
So, I see BOTH those who think Ivins guilty AND those who primarily suspect al Qaeda as being subject, in this instance (Amerithrax), to a form of availability error: you can only truly suspect groups and individuals that you know about (this is a tautology or something close to it).
So "an unknown domestic terrorist group" is almost an automatic non-starter in Amerithrax suspects because it's......unknown.
Richard Rowley wrote: "So "an unknown domestic terrorist group" is almost an automatic non-starter in Amerithrax suspects because it's......unknown."
DeleteYou're still not understanding how FACTS work. FACTS drive the investigation. If the FACTS point to some kind of "domestic terrorist group" that was not previously known, that's where the investigation will go. The investigators won't know that it's an "unknown" group until they figure out who are in the group and discover that the "group" has never been involved in any known crime before.
The suggestion that, because it's an "unknown" group, the investigators will never figure it out is absurd. Whether the group is known or unknown has NOTHING to do with figuring out who did it. It's not unheard of for one group to plant evidence pointing to another group -- particularly in street gang crimes. The investigation - if done properly, and if the evidence can be found - will eventually show that a previously "unknown" group was responsible.
Ed
Richard Rowley wrote: "So, I see BOTH those who think Ivins guilty AND those who primarily suspect al Qaeda as being subject, in this instance (Amerithrax), to a form of availability error: you can only truly suspect groups and individuals that you know about (this is a tautology or something close to it)."
ReplyDeleteYour analysis has to do with BELIEFS, not with analyzing FACTS.
There sometimes seems to be more people who believe the anthrax attacks were the result of some American government conspiracy than people who believe al Qaeda did it.
Then there are people like you who don't think it was al Qaeda OR a government conspiracy, it was some very clever individual with an agenda.
Ivins didn't become a suspect until just about everyone else who had access to flask RMR-1029 was ruled out. And, even then there were people in the FBI who didn't think he did it -- specifically Richard Lambert, who headed the investigation for about 4 years.
But, then Lambert was replaced by Edward Montooth, and they really started investigating Ivins. Soon the pieces started falling together. That's what the last half of my book is all about, how the pieces gradually began falling together until the FACTS made it clear that Ivins was the anthrax killer.
Ed
Hello Mr Lake.
ReplyDeleteI prefer a much simpler solution.
I read some explanations are too complicated and bizarre. I agree that Dr. Bruce Ivins is related to the anthrax murderer .... but there are things I do not understand.
bye.
Joseph from Spain wrote: "I prefer a much simpler solution."
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, the Amerithrax investigation was one of the most COMPLEX investigations in law enforcement history. So, "simple solutions" just weren't available.
Your best bet may be to wait for my book to come out and to buy a copy. ;-)
In my book, I explain the whole case - step by step - first going through how Ivins committed the crime, then going through how the FBI figured out that he did it.
Ed
Partial post by Mister Lake:
ReplyDelete----------
You're still not understanding how FACTS work. FACTS drive the investigation. If the FACTS point to some kind of "domestic terrorist group" that was not previously known, that's where the investigation will go. The investigators won't know that it's an "unknown" group until they figure out who are in the group and discover that the "group" has never been involved in any known crime before.
============================================================
Don't agree. When I was in the military, I was in the signals intelligence field. Though it depends to some extent on continuity (ie knowing already what the traffic is), inevitably there are 'u/i' signals received. Those signals have to be evaluated on a number of bases. But even BEFORE you have idented the signals, you can say certain things: if it is voice intercept, the language spoken, the format used etc.
In Amerithrax the analogues of the above are: the distribution of the mailings, NOT just of the canonical Amerithrax mailings but of all that likely related to the overall undertaking: the St Pete mailings, the Town of Quantico mailing etc. THESE tell you certain things, or at least give you competing working hypotheses based on postmarks, chronology etc.
If the analysis had been better in Amerithrax, they could have, AS A BARE MINIMUM, determined it was a group effort, was unrelated to a political agenda, and thereby eliminated (and eliminated early!) :Hatfill, Ivins, the other persons they suspected of being 'lone wolf' perps. Because no lone wolf could possibly pull off such disparate mailings himself.
Here's something interesting:
ReplyDelete-----------------
Hannity, O'Reilly Hit by Anthrax Scare Letters
Fox News Channel personalities Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly were hit by threatening letters similar to those laden with anthrax sent to Sen. Tom Daschle and NBC News anchor Tom Brokaw, the New York Post reported Thursday.
"In my gut, I know it's the same person," Hannity told his nationally syndicated radio audience Thursday afternoon, explaining that he'd kept quiet about the suspicious letters because they were the subject of an ongoing FBI investigation.
The letters arrived before Sept. 11 but were addressed in the same kind of block letter handwriting used in Daschle and Brokaw missives. They apparently contained no anthrax.
Each line in the printed address clearly sloped downward to the right, the paper said. The envelopes bore a postmark from Indianapolis, where the Post Office discovered yesterday that some of its equipment is contaminated with anthrax.
Hannity said that he'd begun receiving the suspicious mail last winter and again in August.
"When I saw the Tom Daschle envelope and the Tom Brokaw envelope, I immediately was stunned," Hannity told listeners. "It was the exact same handwriting that I had recognized. ... When I saw it I said, 'Oh my God, that's the same guy.'"
The "Hannity & Colmes" co-host revealed that in addition to the letters with an Indianapolis postmark, "one or two were from Trenton (N.J.)," where traces of anthrax have also been reported.
Hannity said he hasn't gotten any more of the letters since the Sept. 11 attacks and hasn't been tested for anthrax exposure.
http://www.anthraxinvestigation.com/misc2.html#nm011101
(End Part I)
(Part 2)
ReplyDeleteSo that was taken from the first of Mister Lake's 3 websites on Amerithrax. And how did he describe it?
--------------------------------------
(from the Timeline section)
August, 2001: Sometime this month, there was apparently a mailing of "threatening letters" to people in the media, including Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity of the Fox News Network. Everyone who has seen these letters says that the handwriting was identical to the anthrax letters.
-----------------------------------------------------------
PRE-9/11 ‘TERRORIST' MAIL CAME FROM INDY
By MURRAY WEISS
November 1, 2001 -- EXCLUSIVE
Threatening letters mailed to the media before the World Trade Center attacks - bearing striking similarities to the current anthrax-tainted letters - were mailed from Indianapolis, where the deadly bacteria was discovered yesterday, The Post has learned.
The pre-Sept. 11 letters were addressed in block letters that virtually match the lettering on the anthrax-laced missives sent to Sen. Thomas Daschle, the New York Post and NBC, law-enforcement sources said.
One source allowed The Post to see copies of envelopes from several of the earlier letters.
Each line of the printed address clearly sloped downward to the right and the handwriting eerily resembled that on the anthrax letters.
Federal investigators checked the return addresses on the letters, the sources said, but none of them was real.
The return address on one letter - addressed to Fox News Channel's Bill O'Reilly - listed the name of Sean Hannity, another FNC personality.
Despite the obvious twisted humor, that letter and about 15 more now are a major focus of the far-flung federal probe, the sources say.
The similarities between the pre-Sept. 11 and post-Twin Tower disaster letters has further fueled a theory at the FBI and Justice Department that the anthrax scare is the work of a twisted home-grown menace rather than a terrorist linked to state-sponsored action or Osama bin Laden.
Source say investigators are eyeing a number of groups, including radical members of a pagan cult.
The Wiccan group fashions itself as modern-day witches seeking religious freedom, but they are not known to be violent.
Investigators are probing whether a disturbed member of the group may have taken a bizarre turn and is targeting the media and the government in particular.
Indiana officials yesterday said that it was a coincidence they tested for - and found - traces of anthrax in a facility that repairs parts from sorting machines used by the U.S. Postal Service.
Inspectors initially started testing for the deadly bacteria in another repair facility, in Topeka, Kan., after several workers experienced flu-like symptoms, said Darla Stafford, spokeswoman for the Greater Indianapolis post office.
She said inspectors then tested in Indianapolis as a precaution because parts from an anthrax-affected post office in Washington, D.C. were recently repaired there.
http://www.anthraxinvestigation.com/nypost.html
(End Part 2)
(Part 3)
ReplyDeleteAnd how did Mister Lake describe THAT on the timeline?
-----------------------------------------------------------
Pre-Sept. 11: Some time prior to September 11, 2001, an unknown number of "threatening letters" (possibly as many as 15) with handwriting very similar to the anthrax letters were mailed from Indianapolis, Indiana, to a number of people in the media. Details of this mailing are very sketchy, mostly what is described HERE.
==========================================================
So in BOTH instances Mister Lake reported that the handwriting of these pre-Amerithrax proper threatening letters was 'very similar'
or (in the August 2001 entry) "identical" to the Amerithrax letters.
=============================================================
I submit all this is more compatible with a group than a single perp, and certainly not with Ivins 'acting alone'.
Partial from previous post by Mister Lake:
ReplyDelete---------------
Ivins didn't become a suspect until just about everyone else who had access to flask RMR-1029 was ruled out. And, even then there were people in the FBI who didn't think he did it -- specifically Richard Lambert, who headed the investigation for about 4 years.
=================================================
What this leaves out is: Lambert liked Hatfill as a suspect. THAT'S why (well, one of the reasons) he didn't think Ivins did it.
Richard Rowley wrote: "Lambert liked Hatfill as a suspect. THAT'S why (well, one of the reasons) he didn't think Ivins did it."
ReplyDeleteRight. At the time, there wasn't enough evidence to arrest anyone. And Lambert appears to have "liked Hatfill as a suspect." But, the EVIDENCE just wasn't there. And, as more evidence was collected, it became clear that Hatfill was innocent and Ivins was guilty.
There's no news bulletin in that.
Your suggestion that your beliefs are right and that the Amerithrax investigators just didn't find the facts which prove you right is just plain absurd. That's "Anonymous's" claim, too. The FBI didn't find the facts which prove al Qeada did it. And Barbara Hatch Rosenberg and others argue that the FBI didn't find the facts which prove that it was a US government conspiracy. And hundreds of Anthrax Truthers each argue that the FBI didn't find the facts which show that their favorite suspect was the anthrax killer.
The FACTS says that Bruce Ivins was the anthrax killer. The belief that there are other facts out there which would show that your favorite suspect is a better suspect than Bruce Ivins is just a fantasy.
And arguments that old news stories prove something that the known facts do not prove just shows how far removed from reality you are.
Ed
Click HERE to read the Cracked.com article titled "6 Famous News Stories That Forgot to Tell You the Best Part."
ReplyDeletePart #6 is about the anthrax attacks. It's titled, "The Anthrax Attacks After 9/11 Were the Work of One Mentally Ill American Scientist."
Looking through the 885 comments about the article, I notice a few of interest:
"You blew it on number 6. In point of fact the FBI knew of a suspect, Dr. Philip Zack, who was caught by the security systems entering the lab where the Anthrax used in the letters was kept, after he had lost his job at the lab for a racially motivated attack on a co-worker, Dr. Ayaad Asaad. But the FBI ever investigated for "political reasons" and Dr, Zack at last report was working at Dugway."
"Judging by the bad spelling in the first letter, my guess is that the anthrax killer is still somewhere off posting on 4chan or YouTube..."
"Both of those anthrax suspects worked at Fort Detrick, which literally borders the back of my apartment. I get the feeling that I'm fucked if there's an outbreak of anything there."
REPLY: "Or you've been used as a test subject without your knowledge, and you're immune to the upcoming zombie apocalypse already because of repeated infections."
"The anthrax story has an even weirder part to it.
If you read the letters he sent, and highlight the A's, T's, C's, and G's, which biology majors recognize as the base pairs of DNA, the letters in the names of the amino acids formed by those sequences of DNA spell out some stupid thing like 'F NYC' or something.
The idea was lifted from a Douglas Hofstader book called the Godel, Escher, Bach, which is one of the coolest books I've ever read."
REPLY: "That's true, he loved secret codes. I mean LOVED them, so much that as you pointed out, some of the letters have one. They're the heavier letters and the code was TTTAATTAT which is itself another code that breaks down to:
TTT is Phenylalanine which is abbreviated F
AAT is Asparagine which is abbreviated N
TAT is Tyrosine which is abbreviated Y
But yeah, secret codes, he had 'em. Then threw the book away and the FBI got their hands on it."
End Part 1.
Part 2:
ReplyDelete""It appears that the perpetrator of the anthrax attacks wasn't a terrorist at all, but a random crazy guy straight from the government's own labs."
REPLY: I'm pretty sure that would still count as a terrorist."
"Just some food for thought. The people within the chem-bio community know that Dr. Bruce Ivins didn't do it. This is a known fact. He killed himself and thus became the perfect scapegoat because the folks investigating did not the real culprit.
REPLY: "And the "bio-chem community" is a better source of information than the FBI for what reason? Did you mean "his close coworkers and friends"? Because that would make more sense, but then again, BTK killer."
REPLY: "Didn't the FBI apologize to his family for using him as a scapegoat about a year ago?"
REPLY: "That's pretty much what it boils down to BWM. His friends and co-workers refuse to believe it was possible. I understand why they feel that way, for the reason you said about BTK, nobody thinks their friends are capable of something terrible.
The overtime, his habit of not disposing of his cultures and the fact that RMR-1029, his strain, was used. By themselves they wouldn't indicate guilt, taken together, with the other weird stuff, it's hard to see anyone else doing it.
And no, they didn't apologize about making him a scapegoat, if they did apologize to anyone it was probably Dr. Hatfill."
REPLY: "Yeah it was Hatfill they apologized to.. They way the government was letting out the info, and how the media reported it DID make it a little confusing to keep up with though.."
Ed
I didn't go through all 900 comments following the Cracked.com article, but in the first few hundred I didn't see ANYONE argue that al Qaeda did it.
ReplyDeleteBut, "Anonymous" might be working on that right now.
Ed
I didn't go through all 900 comments following the Cracked.com article, but in the first few hundred I didn't see ANYONE argue that al Qaeda did it.
ReplyDelete-------------------------------------------------------
From the lanuage I'd say it's a site for young people. And a 20 year old of today was 9 or 10 in 2001, so you can't expect much except the usual 'tude of young people, plus anecdotal stuff.
Richard Rowley wrote: "Lambert liked Hatfill as a suspect. THAT'S why (well, one of the reasons) he didn't think Ivins did it."
ReplyDeleteRight. At the time, there wasn't enough evidence to arrest anyone. And Lambert appears to have "liked Hatfill as a suspect." But, the EVIDENCE just wasn't there. And, as more evidence was collected, it became clear that Hatfill was innocent and Ivins was guilty.
There's no news bulletin in that.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Yes, but once again you are ignoring the chronology: Hatfill was a suspect/person of interest LONGER THAN (a live) Ivins.
Meaning that if Ivins had lived they would have likely dropped the charges, assuming that they got the indictment via grand jury.
His death precluded that.
Richard Rowley wrote: "Yes, but once again you are ignoring the chronology: Hatfill was a suspect/person of interest LONGER THAN (a live) Ivins.
DeleteMeaning that if Ivins had lived they would have likely dropped the charges, assuming that they got the indictment via grand jury."
That is TOTALLY RIDICULOUS reasoning. That's got to be the most ABSURD thing anyone has written on this forum. Do you really believe they would have dropped the charges AFTER getting an indictment. WHY? That makes absolutely NO SENSE WHATSOEVER.
There was a meeting scheduled on the Monday after Ivins committed suicide where the DOJ was going to offer to take the death penalty off the table if Ivins would confess. The government had agreed to pick up the costs for Ivins' defense (approximately 3 million dollars).
The idea that they'd go through MONTHS of grand jury testimony and then drop the charges after the grand jury handed down an indictment is INSANE. It would have the entire WORLD demanding explanations.
How long someone is a "person of interest" is totally meaningless. They just didn't have a better suspect than Hatfill until the pieces started falling together about flask RMR-1029. It took SIX YEARS for the Microbial Forensic work to get done. THAT'S what caused the delay.
Ed
Mister Lake a ways back:
ReplyDelete------
The FACTS says that Bruce Ivins was the anthrax killer.
----------------------------------------------------------
No, the facts in their totality indicate that someone was sending threatening letters at least a month before Amerithrax, letters with printing 'identical' to the Amerithrax letter (the identical is Mister Lake's own word), and these were letters from Indianapolis and Trenton. That indicates a group effort.
The FINAL REPORT just ignores everyting that isn't consistent with their hypothesis: Ivins, acting alone, yadda yadda yadda
Richard Rowley wrote: "No, the facts in their totality indicate that someone was sending threatening letters at least a month before Amerithrax, letters with printing 'identical' to the Amerithrax letter (the identical is Mister Lake's own word), and these were letters from Indianapolis and Trenton. That indicates a group effort."
DeleteYou're twisting things to make them fit your beliefs. There's no reason to believe the handwriting on those hoax letters was "identical" to the attack letters, other than that some NON-EXPERTS said so to the media. I'd bet that there is almost no similarity whatsoever.
I don't recall ever believing that the handwriting was "identical." I doubt that I'd have said such a thing without FACTS. But, I may have quoted someone.
Ed
And arguments that old news stories prove something that the known facts do not prove just shows how far removed from reality you are.
ReplyDelete============================================================
"Old news story"? So if an old news story says that Oswald killed Kennedy it's to be disbelieved because it's an old story?!?!?
YOU YOURSELF, Mister Lake, summarized in your timeline those 'old news stories' when they weren't old, and they indicate that threatening letters to news media personnel were sent from Indy and Trenton BEFORE Amerithrax proper. Letters with printing 'identical' to that of the Amerithrax letters.
THAT reality isn't answered by responding that the news stories are OLD.
Richard Rowley wrote: "YOU YOURSELF, Mister Lake, summarized in your timeline those 'old news stories' when they weren't old, and they indicate that threatening letters to news media personnel were sent from Indy and Trenton BEFORE Amerithrax proper. Letters with printing 'identical' to that of the Amerithrax letters."
DeleteSo what? I was wrong. There weren't enough facts at the time to figure out for certain what what happening.
Just because YOU start with a theory and then distort all the facts to make them fit your theory doesn't mean that's the right way to do things. It certainly doesn't mean I do things your way.
The right way is to start with an open mind and figure things out by looking at the facts.
There was a time when I assumed al Qaeda was behind the attacks, because the only fact I had was that the attacks came so soon after 9/11. But, I wasn't locked into that theory.
Then, NEW FACTS quickly showed that original assumption to be DEAD WRONG. When it was learned the the Ames strain was an American strain, I think I started assuming that Right Wingers were behind the attacks. But, more FACTS soon showed that wasn't true, either.
So, using the new facts, I developed a third theory. That it was a scientist living in New Jersey. But I knew that I had VERY FEW FACTS, and that new facts could shoot down that theory, too. I stated so in my book.
Years later, a mountain of NEW FACTS showed that it wasn't a scientist living in New Jersey, it was a scientist living in Maryland who had a habit of driving long distances to commit his crimes. I looked at the facts and saw that they were compelling. So, I accepted the FBI's conclusion.
So, you probably fantasize that some more facts would change my mind again. It's possible, but it is EXTREMELY UNLIKELY, since the new facts would have to be better than what is now known while ALSO explaining how Ivins was such a good suspect.
I have the feeling, however, that you'll find this totally incomprehensible, since you cannot imagine anyone who doesn't begin with a theory and then distort all the facts to fit that theory.
My point about "old news stories" is that digging them up and using them as PROOF of something is idiotic. There were probably more TOTAL NONSENSE news stories about the anthrax attacks than any other story in the past 100 years.
Ed
Partial post by Mister Lake:
ReplyDelete--------------
Richard Rowley wrote: "No, the facts in their totality indicate that someone was sending threatening letters at least a month before Amerithrax, letters with printing 'identical' to the Amerithrax letter (the identical is Mister Lake's own word), and these were letters from Indianapolis and Trenton. That indicates a group effort."
You're twisting things to make them fit your beliefs. There's no reason to believe the handwriting on those hoax letters was "identical"[...]
============================================
Back to Mister Lake:
------------
I'd bet that there is almost no similarity whatsoever.
---------------------------------
NOW who's "rationalizing"? You wrote the following (copy and paste from Timeline):
--------------
Pre-Sept. 11: Some time prior to September 11, 2001, an unknown number of "threatening letters" (possibly as many as 15) with handwriting very similar to the anthrax letters were mailed from Indianapolis, Indiana, to a number of people in the media.[...]
http://www.anthraxinvestigation.com/index.html#Timeline
-----------------------------------------------------
NOW however, because you realize (and realize big time!) that this is incompatible with the Ivins-did-it hypothesis, you repudiate your prior work (when you had NO REASON to rationalize anything, since there was no known suspect and thus no reason to repudiate anything you discovered).
And from the NY POST article by Murray Weiss dealing with this:
---------------------------------------
(excerpt)
The pre-Sept. 11 letters were addressed in block letters that virtually match the lettering on the anthrax-laced missives sent to Sen. Thomas Daschle, the New York Post and NBC, law-enforcement sources said.
http://www.anthraxinvestigation.com/nypost.html
-------------------------------------------------------
So it was the 'law enforcement sources' who told this to Weiss (and possibly other reporters).
Richard Rowley wrote: "NOW however, because you realize (and realize big time!) that this is incompatible with the Ivins-did-it hypothesis, you repudiate your prior work .."
DeleteThis discussion is getting ridiculous. I was trying to figure things out back then. But there was a lot of BAD information in circulation.
Over the years, new facts allowed me to separate the bad information from the good information.
So, now I have a better idea of what the facts were. That doesn't mean I'm "rationalizing." If I were rationalizing, I'd be twisting things to fit my original belief the way you do. When NEW FACTS alter your thinking about what happened, that isn't called "rationalizing," it's called LEARNING.
Ed
Richard Rowley wrote: "YOU YOURSELF, Mister Lake, summarized in your timeline those 'old news stories' when they weren't old, and they indicate that threatening letters to news media personnel were sent from Indy and Trenton BEFORE Amerithrax proper. Letters with printing 'identical' to that of the Amerithrax letters."
ReplyDeleteSo what? I was wrong. There weren't enough facts at the time to figure out for certain what what happening.
==========================================
No, you weren't wrong, you were merely repeating and summarizing what the recepients of the letters from Indianapolis and Trenton reported. You adduce no evidence that you were "wrong", you simply want to weasel out of it because it makes clear WITH YOUR OWN SOURCES that there was a group effort behind Amerithrax.
How long someone is a "person of interest" is totally meaningless.
ReplyDelete---------------------------------
Not if you're the 'someone'. It made Hatfill miserable (to say the least) and drove Ivins to suicide. It shows how difficult it is to redirect an investigation once it has taken a wrong turn.
Richard Rowley wrote: "It shows how difficult it is to redirect an investigation once it has taken a wrong turn."
DeleteOnly in your fantasies. I real life, investigations are an endless series of "wrong turns" where leads take investigators off in directions that just lead nowhere. But, hopefully, finally a lead pans out and leads somewhere.
The FBI investigators had THOUSANDS of tips and THOUSANDS of leads that turned out to be "wrong turns." But they all had to be checked out, since one could turn out to be the RIGHT TURN to solving the case.
Your beliefs have nothing to do with reality.
Ed
My point about "old news stories" is that digging them up and using them as PROOF of something is idiotic.
ReplyDelete---------------------------------------------------
It's NOT idiotic if:
1) the threatening letters were sent (that's a certainty)
2) they were from Indy and Trenton (that's a certainty)
3) they threatened media outlets/personalities just like the first wave of the Amerithrax letters (that's a certainty)
4) they resembled in printing style the LATER Amerithrax letters.
(Why would those who saw them report that, unless there was a clear resemblance?)
Richard Rowley wrote: "(Why would those who saw them report that, unless there was a clear resemblance?)"
ReplyDeleteFor the same reason you think all those hoax cases are connected to the anthrax letters: because it's what you want to believe. It has nothing to do with reality.
Haven't we already demonstrated that. I look at the Troxler letter and there is obviously NO SIMILARITY to the anthrax letters whatsoever.
But, you look at the TROXLER letter and you fantasize that your suspect deliberately made the letter seem to be a different handwriting in order to mislead the investigation. But you - AND ONLY YOU - can see that they are both written by the same person (or group).
I point out that the Reno letter wasn't a hoax letter, it was a returned check from an upset Microsoft customer, but you still continue to believe what you want to believe, that it was a hoax letter from that same person or group, even though the FACTS say your beliefs are beyond absurd.
I look at facts. You believe whatever you want to believe.
Your arguments are ridiculous. You're just wasting my time.
Ed
Richard Rowley wrote: "(Why would those who saw them report that, unless there was a clear resemblance?)"
ReplyDeleteFor the same reason you think all those hoax cases are connected to the anthrax letters: because it's what you want to believe.
============================================================
So, they WANT(ED) to believe that the printing on the threat letters of Aug-Sept of 2001 was similar to the Amerithrax printing???? Why would they want that? They had no common hypothesis in 2001 that they were trying to prove. They merely reported on the common appearance. And upwards of 15 letters is a lot of letters, meaning were aren't talking about 2 or 3 recipients but perhaps as many as 5 to 15, all (who reported on the printing) saying it resembled the Amerithrax printing.
Richard Rowley wrote: "So, they WANT(ED) to believe that the printing on the threat letters of Aug-Sept of 2001 was similar to the Amerithrax printing???? Why would they want that?"
DeleteBecause it made them PART of the biggest news story of the time. It makes them feel important. It feeds their ego.
Their "common hypothesis" is that each one of them believed they got letters from the same people who sent the anthrax letters.
Over the years, I probably had ten different people write me with samples of handwriting that they thought matched the handwriting on the anthrax letters, and thereby proved that someone they knew was the anthrax mailer. What did the all have in common? They all believed that they knew who the anthrax killer was and no one else did. That was their "common hypothesis."
Why do you believe you know who the anthrax killer is, even though it appears that no one in the world believes what you believe? It's obviously about ego. You evidently think you are better at figuring things out than anyone else in the world -- particularly the FBI.
Why does "Anonymous" think he's got the case figure out? Answer: For the same reason you do.
Pick a dozen Anthrax Truthers and they will all argue that their theory is best and that makes them smarter than all the others with theories.
Ed
Partial post by Mister Lake:
ReplyDeleteIf I were rationalizing, I'd be twisting things to fit my original belief the way you do.
--------------------------------------------
I've been over and over and over and over with you Mister Lake, the evolution of my thinking on who committed Amerithrax, but, you, apparently unable to absorb anything new, cannot understand that my ORIGINAL ideas:
1) did not involved pseudo-Hebrew printing.
2) did not involve a group (necessarily, I had no opinion on it, judging only from the canonical writings, as I was in 2005-early 2007)
3) claimed nothing about the Town of Quantico letter since its text wasn't made public until 2008.
4) claimed nothing about the St Pete hoax letters until I studied them in some detail, again years after my original ideas.
Etc.
So I am NOT 'twisting' anything to fit an original belief (see: items 1, 2, 3, 4 above), as my hypothesis about the totality of Amerithrax has been very much an evolving syncretion.
The accomplices only entered the picture (of my hypothesis) in 2007. Understanding the Town of Quantico letter in late 2008 or early 2009. Only this year did I figure out what installation the spores were stolen from. So how the HECK could I be said to ve 'twisting' anything to fit some (entirely imaginary, ie in Mister Lake's mind)'original "belief"' (Note that Mister Lake, once he gets in 'conflict mode' NEVER admits that any of his opponents has a 'hypothesis' or 'theory'; it's always, in his personal idiolect, "a belief").
Richard Rowley wrote: "So I am NOT 'twisting' anything to fit an original belief"
ReplyDeleteYou're arguing words. You are twisting everything to make them fit A belief. Whether it was your "original" belief or not is irrelevant.
You dreamed up some "pseudo-Hebrew printing" and decided it fit your belief.
You dreamed up a group of people because it was necessary to make the facts fit your belief.
You dreamed up reasons to make the St. Pete hoax letters fit your beliefs.
You have NO FACTS which say that there's "pseudo-Hebrew printing" in the letters.
You have NO FACTS which say there was a group of people behind the attacks.
You have NO FACTS which prove the St. Pete letter was written as part of the same plot as the anthrax letter OR by the same person. The FACTS say otherwise.
You are twisting everything to make things fit your beliefs.
Period. End of story.
An hypothesis is an explanation of the facts. Your beliefs do NOT explain the facts. The FACTS say your beliefs are total nonsense.
You ignore the facts which do not fit your beliefs.
You ignore all the facts which point to Ivins because you BELIEVE the FBI is wrong -- that they just needed a scapegoat or that they had some other reason for not doing what you BELIEVE should have been done.
Ed
Mister Lake (partial):
ReplyDelete-----------
Richard Rowley wrote: "So, they WANT(ED) to believe that the printing on the threat letters of Aug-Sept of 2001 was similar to the Amerithrax printing???? Why would they want that?"
Because it made them PART of the biggest news story of the time. It makes them feel important. It feeds their ego.
=========================================================
I think Sean Hannity et alia have big egos but it is their shows/wealth/fame that feeds them in that respect, NOT being the intended victim/addressee of one or more threatening hoax letters.
Richard Rowley wrote: "I think Sean Hannity et alia have big egos .."
DeleteThe bigger the ego the more nourishment it needs. The idea that they wouldn't see their hoax letters as an opportunity to MAKE NEWS and get themselves in the news on OTHER news organizations is simply not believable. They'd spin ANYTHING to create news about themselves.
But, this is getting into opinion versus opinion, which is a TOTAL waste of time.
You asked a question. I provided the obvious answer. If you choose to ignore the answer and just believe what you want to believe, that's up to you.
Ed
Richard,
ReplyDeleteFACT: The handwriting on the anthrax letters is VERY DIFFERENT from the handwriting on the St. Pete letter.
FACT: The text of the anthrax letters is very different from the text of the St. Pete letter.
FACT: The anthrax letters were mailed from Trenton.
FACT: The St. Pete letter was mailed from St. Pete.
FACT: The anthrax letters used pre-stamped envelopes.
FACT: The St. Pete letter used a glue-on stamp.
The above FACTS say that there is NO CONNECTION between the anthrax letters and the St. Pete letter. That is the logical conclusion.
There is only one FACT which connects the two mailings:
FACT: The SECOND anthrax letters and the St. Pete letters were mailed in the same general time period.
And that FACT is negated by another FACT:
FACT: There were a LOT of hoax letters being sent out prior to the anthrax letters.
The preponderance of FACTS say that the letters were NOT sent by the same person.
Is it possible that the same person sent both letters? Yes. Of course. But that doesn't mean it's likely or even remotely believable.
Ed
Why does "Anonymous" think he's got the case figure out? Answer: For the same reason you do.
ReplyDelete---------------------------------------------------
Absolutely incorrect.
My investigation has been roughly 80%* linguistics (which Anonymous, to my knowledge, has not shown a great deal of interest in); and
20%* psychology/'mindhunting' (which itself interfaces with the linguistics). Again, this hasn't been a major concern of Anonymous (assuming we are talking about the same Anonymous).
He can speak for himself in this venue, but his suspicions about al Qaeda center on their long-standing interest in WMDs in general, and anthrax in particular. I believe that that interest is long-documented. The Islamic phraseology of the texts also leads him in that direction (but it does not do that to me).
So, we (Anonymous and I) are both coming from different fields, but Mister Lake, blinded by his own system of categorization ("True Believers" etc.), cannot make out the obvious differences.
* Of course, I'm oversimplifying in these percentages but my study has been overwhelmingly about the linguistics/printing(esp. of the Brokaw text/psychology ;nevertheless, I studied some other things too.
Richard Rowley wrote: "So, we (Anonymous and I) are both coming from different fields, but Mister Lake, blinded by his own system of categorization ("True Believers" etc.), cannot make out the obvious differences."
DeleteDo you even THINK about what you write. MY POINT is that you all have different theories, but each believes that he is the only one who understands the true facts.
I've stated many many many times that the ONLY thing that joins you together is that you ALL believe the FBI is wrong, because, if the FBI is right, then you are ALL wrong. And you seem unable to think that's possible.
Your THEORIES are totally DIFFERENT, but your BELIEF that YOU are the only one who has figured things out is IDENTICAL to the BELIEFS of other Anthrax Truthers.
Ed
Pick a dozen Anthrax Truthers and they will all argue that their theory is best and that makes them smarter than all the others with theories.
ReplyDelete=======================================================
And you haven't done that right up to this day with your child-printed-it (sub-)hypothesis?!?!?!?!!?
(Of course you have!)
The FACTS say that a child wrote the letters. People who disagree refuse to discuss the FACTS. They just argue that they don't believe the FACTS because they BELIEVE the child would tell the world what he'd done, or they BELIEVE that no adult would risk doing such a thing.
DeleteOr to put it more simply, THEY BELIEVE THEIR OWN THEORY INSTEAD OF WHAT THE FACTS SAY.
Ed
That would include the entire Task Force, since they wouldn't leave out a detail like that in their documents.
ReplyDeleteSo, in this matter (Mister Lake's subhypothesis):
Task Force=True Believers.
The experts used by the "Task Force" couldn't agree on much about anything related to the handwriting. So, the handwriting evidence was "inconclusive."
DeleteYou're just playing word games again.
Ed
Do you even THINK about what you write. MY POINT is that you all have different theories, but each believes that he is the only one who understands the true facts.
ReplyDelete-------------------------------------------------------
"true facts" as opposed to "false facts"?!?!? And how does one make the distinction?
You're just creating arguments about words I use because you have no real arguments in support of your own theory.
DeleteEd
FACT: The handwriting on the anthrax letters is VERY DIFFERENT from the handwriting on the St. Pete letter.
ReplyDelete--------------------------------------------------------
Incorrect: the only "handwriting" we have from a St Pete letter is the address on one of the envelopes. I've not said anything about that because I have my doubts. In Florida (or nearby), the Anthrax Killer had an acoomplice, in NJ (or nearby)he had an accomplice. So the UNRUB-South could have done the printing of the envelope's address.
Richard Rowley wrote: "So the UNRUB-South could have done the printing of the envelope's address."
DeleteThat's called "rationalizing." You make up theories to explain things that clearly show that your main theory is nonsense.
Ed
FACT: There were a LOT of hoax letters being sent out prior to the anthrax letters.
ReplyDelete-------------------------------------------
But only a small percentage of them to media outlets/personalities
. And few, if any with a postmark, of Trenton New Jersey.
And NONE (that I've aware of) that prompted the recipients to later remark on the resemblance of the printing to the canonical Amerihtrax letters.
From Mister Lake's Timeline (earliest version of this website):
----------------
Everyone who has seen these letters says that the handwriting was identical to the anthrax letters.
http://www.anthraxinvestigation.com/index.html#Timeline
------------------------------------------------------------
You're arguing words. You are twisting everything to make them fit A belief. Whether it was your "original" belief or not is irrelevant.
ReplyDelete-------------------------------------------------------
Then why did you say it was my "original belief"?
You are twisting everything to make things fit your beliefs.
ReplyDeletePeriod. End of story.
====================================================
I think just the reverse: your underlying belief is: the FBI always gets their man, never blunders, etc.
And that's why you accept obvious PR pap as gospel truth(aka "FACTS")
You have NO FACTS which say there was a group of people behind the attacks.
ReplyDelete------------------------------------------------------
There are multiple multiple facts that indicate that. It's a pity you aren't able to make them out.
You have NO FACTS which say that there's "pseudo-Hebrew printing" in the letters.
ReplyDelete===============================
Since you still don't know the Hebrew aleph-beth, you are in no position to judge that. But I went over it right on this blog in excruciating detail, and you had nothing interesting to say on the matter; you only distorted things.
Richard Rowley,
ReplyDeleteYour arguments just get more and more meaningless and ridiculous.
You are just wasting my time.
Ed
Your arguments just get more and more meaningless and ridiculous.
ReplyDeleteYou are just wasting my time.
--------------------------------
Do you realize how often you repeat yourself? (That last sentence you've written multiple times)
If I'm wasting your time, it's because casting pearls before swine 'wastes the time' of the swine in question.
Richard Rowley wrote: "If I'm wasting your time, it's because casting pearls before swine 'wastes the time' of the swine in question."
ReplyDeleteThat comment is going to make it VERY difficult for you to post anything further to this forum. I'll just be deleting everything you post that I see is of no value to the discussion.
Ed
From an online source:
ReplyDelete------------------
Idiom Definitions for 'Cast pearls before swine'
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you cast pearls before swine, you offer something of value to someone who doesn't appreciate it- 'swine' are 'pigs'.
http://www.usingenglish.com/reference/idioms/cast+pearls+before+swine.html
==============================================================
If I had known a more genteel (and/or more Gentile) way of expressing that idea, I would have. I didn't and don't (the expression's a part of the lexicon of all educated persons in the English-speaking world); though I'm always eager to expand my vocabulary.
I apologize if I offended you.
Your apology is almost as bad as your insult. The fact that you don't know any better way to say things probably explains why you post nothing of value or interest.
ReplyDeleteEd
Okay, here's a challenge for you, Mister Lake, find an ALTERNATE idiom for 'casting pearls before swine'. And by 'alternative' I mean something whose METAPHORICAL meaning is the same. I'll bet it's very difficult.
ReplyDeleteAs to your response to my apology, I sense an eagerness to be offended. If you are so eager, you will always find a reason.
Richard Rowley wrote: "Okay, here's a challenge for you, Mister Lake, find an ALTERNATE idiom for 'casting pearls before swine'."
ReplyDeleteCan I find an alternate metaphor or an alternate simile or an alternate common expression where you do not call me a "swine" and then in your next message explain that a swine is a pig?
Yes, but there's no sense in using it, because, as the old adage says: You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make him drink.
So, I can explain things to you, but I cannot make you understand.
Of course, I could always quote the bible and say: "There are none so blind as those who will not see."
I can show you the facts, but I can't make you look at the facts.
There's obviously no point in arguing with you, since, as industrialist William G. McAdoo once said, "It is impossible to defeat an ignorant man in argument."
I'm trying to have a discussion. All you want to do is argue about words and beliefs.
I don't intend to spend this week arguing with you about how I don't want to spend this week arguing with you.
Discussion is an exchange of knowledge; argument is an exchange of ignorance.
I'm looking for a discussion of the facts of the Amerithrax case, not an argument about your beliefs where you demonstrate that people who know the very least seem to know it the loudest.
So, one last time: If you cannot discuss the facts of the Amerithrax case in an intelligent manner, I see no point in wasting my time arguing with you about your beliefs or about the meaning of words, or about the interpretation of common adages or about whether comparing someone to a swine is an insult or not.
Richard Rowley wrote: "As to your response to my apology, I sense an eagerness to be offended."
I consider the source. So, when Anthrax Truthers attack me personally - and some have gone far FAR beyond what you have said - I realize that they have to resort to personal insults, because they have no capability to discuss facts. They have no facts. They just have beliefs and opinions.
Ed
I just deleted three comments from Mr. Rowley. In the first, he argued that I was the "loudest person" he's encountered on the Internet because I use "all caps gratuitously and with great frequency." The second was an incoherent rant about "facts" and how I don't use them, either. The third cited Wikipedia on how writing in capital letters is equivalent to shouting.
ReplyDeleteStandard pointless, argumentative crap, so I deleted them.
BTW, the quote that started this argument is from Matthew 7:6 where in His Sermon on the Mount Jesus said, "Do not give what is holy to the dogs; nor cast your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you in pieces."
The quote implies that scriptural truth or knowledge (pearls) should not be put in front of people (or in this case, swine) who do not appreciate their value.
So, it would seem that Mr. Rowley thinks his BELIEFS are sacred and people who disagree just do not appreciate the value of his sacred truths.
Or, more likely, Mr. Rowley was trying to be clever and simply didn't understand what he was saying.
Ed
Ed, Mr. Rowley is correct you don't address facts. For example, in connection with Ken Dillon's point about Al-Timimi and access to Ames through the DARPA-funded research done by his suitemates at GMU, you apparently do not know that the Ames researchers did their work at Southern Research Institute in Frederick, Maryland. Bruce's chief accuser came to head the BL-3 there. She destroyed Ames before leaving Bruce suggests. A key point by the NAS committee is that samples necessarily involved self-reporting. Do you even know where the DARPA-funded researchers acquired their virulent Ames? No. Of course not. Because you don't even read entire books, articles and documents on such subjects. You are not qualified by training or aptitude to address these issues. Quality research requires a willingness to read the material.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous,
ReplyDeleteThere's nothing relevant in what you write. It's all innuendo and supposition.
Your argument is that I don't read irrelevant and meaningless material. Correct, I don't read irrelevant and meaningless material - if it's clear it's irrelevant and meaningless. I've got better things to do.
It's irrelevant who had the Ames strain. It was the mutations in flask RMR-1029 that pointed to Ivins as the killer, not the Ames strain itself.
You repeatedly and endlessly talk about people who had access to the Ames strain as if you know something that the FBI and I do not know. What we know is that you are talking about things that are irrelevant and meaningless to the case.
Your ignorance of the facts of the investigation shows you don't care about the facts. Instead of discussing the facts, you are trying to argue about something you BELIVE is imporant, but which is really just meaningless and irrelevant.
Ed
The Ames supplied to the DARPA researchers came from Flask 1029, Ed. By not having even read the article on the subject, you do not realize that. As Dr. Ivins explained, prior to 2002, transfers to researchers at RIID were not recorded. You say the records "add up" but because you have not read the only peer-reviewed article produced by the FBI, you do not even know the quantities involved of where it was grown and then put in a petri dish. When I sought to post links, you deleted them because they destroy your argument.
ReplyDeleteYou are the true believer, Ed.
If you had made any inquiry or mastered the documents, you would have known the source of the virulent Ames that Dr. Ivins provided DARPA researchers. Martin or Kimothy could explain the quantities involved in testing the nanomulsion given your lack of background in microbiology. The LSU lab provided four characterized (non-Ames) strains in connection with a separate visit to the B3 there. The same quantities were used -- and the same method was used -- as to those 4 non-Ames strains.
Anonymous wrote: "The Ames supplied to the DARPA researchers came from Flask 1029, Ed."
ReplyDeleteThen why don't you prove it? All you do is supply information that shows you are wrong and that you just make false assumptions and twist things to fit your beliefs.
Anonymous also wrote: "When I sought to post links, you deleted them because they destroy your argument."
I only deleted the copy that would go on this blog because you didn't use it to argue anything. It was just more or your endless, meaningless crap. I still have all your posts archived in my files.
You posted a link to Lew's site that contains an article that - once again - shows you are wrong. Click HERE to go to the link you provided.
A copy of the actual Hamouda et al article can be viewed by clicking HERE. The authors of the article thank Ivins, Fellows and Linscott "for their technical support and helpful suggestions," and the article says,
"B. anthracis spores, Ames and Vollum 1B strains, were supplied by Bruce Ivins (US Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases [USAMRIID], Fort Detrick, Frederick, MD) and were prepared as described elsewhere [5]."
There is NOTHING in the article that even remotely suggests that the Ames sample was supplied from flask RMR-1029. That wouldn't even make sense. It's just a fantasy you keep arguing without ever supplying any proof.
And, this article once again shows that your claims are bogus.
If you had any facts at all, you could simply post a link and quote the source. Instead, you just try to bury everyone in irrelevant crap. You clearly believe in the old lawyer adage: If you don't have the facts to argue your case to the jury, bury them in bullshit.
Ed
The DARPA researchers used virulent Ames from Flask 1029. At the time, Dr. Ivins did not know that they had made a dried powder out of it.
ReplyDeletehttp://caseclosedbylewweinstein.wordpress.com/2011/12/13/dr-ivins-reports-he-had-not-known-the-fbi-anthrax-expert-made-a-dried-powder-out-of-ames-from-rmr-1029-for-darpa-until-after-911-did-the-fbi-scientist-and-his-assistants-participate-in-the-dried/
The same DARPA researchers who made the dried powder out of Ames from Flask 1029 were the ones, you once said, who (in their capacity of anthrax experts assisting the FBI) threw out Dr. Ivins' initial sample in February 2002. (The record is still a bit unclear as to who threw it out).
ReplyDeleteAnonymous,
ReplyDeleteYou are just making FALSE claims without supplying proof. You supply a link, but the link doesn't say what you claim it says. It's just more of your irrelevant, meaningless nonsense.
I'm allowing the above 2 posts to go through to illustrate that you are posting nothing that confirms your ridiculous theory.
Ed
Here are some links.
ReplyDeleteDXer: John Ezzell forthrightly (to my way of thinking, heroically) answered all my questions relating to the DARPA research in which Flask 1029 (the “murder weapon” to borrow US Attorney Taylor’s term) was used to make a dried powder Ames aerosol.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MxaJwDGF-Ks
http://caseclosedbylewweinstein.wordpress.com/2010/12/07/fbi-anthrax-expert-answers-questions-at-washington-seminar/
The research involved testing the effect of a sonicator and corona plasma discharge on Ames spores.
http://caseclosedbylewweinstein.wordpress.com/2010/04/25/the-fbis-anthrax-expert-made-dried-powder-for-darpa-funded-researchers-who-were-examining-the-effect-of-corona-plasma-discharge-on-the-ames-spores/
The DARPA researchers thanked John Ezzell and Terry Abshire for their help and facilities.
It was Terry Abshire who selected the morphs later thought so important by the FBI science team.
Trail of Odd Anthrax Cells Led FBI to Army Scientist …
Oct 27, 2008 … In late October 2001, lab technician Terry Abshire placed a tray of … These were mutants, or “morphs,” genetic deviants scattered among …
http://www.washingtonpost.com
Despite the researcher’s good faith, didn’t they have a conflict of interest that hopelessly tainted the evidence?
When that lab then threw out Dr. Ivins first sample, the loss of that sample could not possibly fairly be construed as evidence of Dr. Ivins’ guilt. Yet that is what the Amerithrax scientists did even though the emails show the written protocols were not sent to Ivins’ lab until May 24, 2002 (contrary to the claims by the Amerithrax science officials at the press conference and contrary to the February 2010 Amerithrax Summary).
http://caseclosedbylewweinstein.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/aaa_slants.jpg
That’s just really messed up.
Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteWhy are you changing the subject?
Your new links do not say anything of value to the discussion. They do not say what you claim they say. You are injecting your fantasies into everything.
So, I'm going to delete all further posts like the one above. They are just a waste of time. I show you are wrong in your claims, and you change the subject and start arguing other lines of nonsense.
I'm tired of it.
If you want to discuss a TOPIC, state your claim, supply your evidence, and we'll discuss it. Try to pick one topic at a time. Posting an endless stream of nonsense just shows you aren't really interested in a discussion, you only want to STOP discussion by burying everyone in an endless stream of irrelevant, meaningless material which you imply supports your absurd beliefs.
Ed
Anonymous continues to attempt to post irrelevant, nonsensical material to this blog. I just deleted three of his posts.
ReplyDeleteIn the first he FALSELY claimed,
"The Ames used by the DARPA researchers making the dried powder was kept in an unlocked refrigerator of the FBI's lead anthrax scientist at USAMRIID -- the one collecting the samples. It was kept in 1412 -- despite the false claim by the United States Attorney that the genetically matching virulent Ames was only kept in Building 1425."
It's a FALSE claim because the FBI statement was about flask RMR-1029, which was kept in building 1425. There were hundreds of other samples of the Ames strain kept in both buildings. The FBIR found 606 samples of Ames at USAMRIID, only one of which was flask RMR-1029.
The second post I deleted was just standard irrelevant babble that began with,
"Convicted jihadist Ali Al-TImimi shared a suite with the leading DARPA-funded Ames researchers."
The third post was just more ridiculous nonsense. "Anonymous" wrote,
"Bruce Ivins could not have produced such a dry anthrax powder that was microencapsulated."
Anonymous cannot show that anyone on this planet has ever argued that Ivins COULD produce "such a dry anthrax powder that was microencapsulated. So, that is another silly, meaningless, irrelevant posting by "Anonymous."
I'll continue to delete his nonsense.
Ed
Henry Heine, for example, has explained, that he himself had the genetically matching Ames samples at Building 1412. So Ed is mistaken and the error is a very fundamental one.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous wrote: "Henry Heine, for example, has explained, that he himself had the genetically matching Ames samples at Building 1412."
ReplyDeleteHenry Heine made MANY nonsense statements. That is one of them. His beliefs aren't any more real than your beliefs.
If Heine had such samples, why didn't he turn them over the the FBIR. Was he violating the subpoena? Was he part of some vast criminal conspiracy? Or was he just talking nonsense?
Ed
I just deleted another post where "Anonymous" just repeats that Ivins couldn't have made dried "microencapsulated" spores.
ReplyDeleteHe seems to suggest that Martin Hugh-Jones had the nonsensical belief that the attack spores were microencapsulated. So, "Anonymous" is once again using ABSURD BELIEFS to argue some kind of absurd claim that he can't or won't define.
I also deleted a post where "Anonymous" argues that aliquots from flask RMR-1029 were frequently transported to building 1412. No one ever said otherwise, so it's just another meaningless, silly post.
Ed
I just deleted two more posts by "Anonymous" where he inexplicably discusses "microencapsulation" again, as if it had something to do with the Amerithrax case. It doesn't. But, he apparently fantasizes that it does.
ReplyDeleteOf all of the ridiculous beliefs "Anonymous" posts about, "microencapsulation" is probably the most ridiculous.
He must know it's ridiculous, since he doesn't really say anything. He just vaguely implies that microencapsulation has some meaning to the case. "Anonymous" cites people with opinions who seem to believe as he believes while ignoring all the experts who have actually seen and examined the attack anthrax and can state definitively that the attack spores were NOT weaponized," and any suggestion that microencapsulation was used in the preparation of the spores is just silly nonsense.
Ed