I made a bunch of minor changes and ordered 5 more "proof" copies. They're scheduled to arrive on Wednesday. I'm not sure who will get those copies, but it seemed wrong to not have any copies available to send out if I suddenly thought of someone who should have received a copy.
Now I'm waiting to see what the people who received earlier "proof" copies have to say about the book.
On an impulse, I had a poster of the front cover created. Here's what it looks like (before I framed it and hung it on the wall behind my desk):
I think my book reads like a "thriller." Will others agree?
I think my book is a pleasure to read. Will others agree?
I think my book is filled with fascinating NEW information. Will others agree?
I think my book provides new perspectives on the case. Will others agree?
Before very long, I'm going to be getting some answers to those questions.
I ended my Sunday comment with some relevant quotes:
"Good writers have two things in common: they prefer being understood to being admired, and they do not write for the overcritical and too shrewd reader."
- Friedrich W. Nietzsche
"No author is so poor that he cannot be of some service, if it is only as a witness of his time."
- Claude Fauchet
"The most original authors are not so because they advance what is new, but because they put what they have to say as if it had never been said before."
- Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
"There are three difficulties in authorship: to write anything worth publishing, to find honest men to publish it, and to get sensible men to read it."
- Caleb C. Colton
Ed
Ed,
ReplyDeleteThe former head of the FBI lab in the early years of Amerithrax has a new journal article discussing the importance of using objective scientific standards in assessing the evidence of Amerithrax. Your view that it is a FACT -- not merely your claim -- that a child wrote the anthrax letters does not rely on objective scientific evidence.
You seem not to understand the importance of validation of a method.
ReplyDelete"Anonymous" wrote: "Your view that it is a FACT -- not merely your claim -- that a child wrote the anthrax letters does not rely on objective scientific evidence."
ReplyDeleteThere's very little about handwriting that is "scientific evidence." It's nearly all about interpretation.
"Anonymous" also wrote: "You seem not to understand the importance of validation of a method."
That may be because you do not understand the importance of validation of a method. I have a web site where I present my evidence and ask people to point out any errors they can see. That means I am seeking validation of my methods. If anyone finds a true error, I correct the error. If they disagree with something and call it an error, I correct it only if it truly is an error. When people say they do not believe my findings because my findings conflict with their beliefs, they are demonstrating that they have no concern for the scientific method.
1. It is a FACT that the writer drew R's incorrectly in the Brokaw letter and correctly on the Brokaw envelope.
2. It is a FACT that children are taught in first grade the proper way to construct letters of the alphabet.
3. It is a FACT that the writer did not use punctuation in the media letter but used punctuation a month later in the Senate letter.
4. It is a FACT that children are taught about punctuation in first grade.
5. It is a FACT that the writer wrote twice as large when writing the media letter and envelopes than when writing the Senate letter and envelopes a month later.
6. It is a FACT that children use lined paper in first grade and are taught to write smaller.
7. It is a FACT that the school year in Frederick began on August 21.
8. It is a FACT that the changes in the handwriting reflect what a child learns in the first weeks of first grade.
The FACTS say that a child just starting first grade wrote the anthrax letters.
9. It is a FACT that adults do not generally change the size of their handwriting when addressing envelopes in September versus addressing envelopes in October.
10. It is a FACT that adults do not generally exhibit less confidence in their handwriting in September than they do in October.
The FACTS say that a child wrote the anthrax letters and addressed the envelopes.
Those facts were clear in 2002, six years before it was learned that the anthrax killer's wife ran a day care center in her home.
NO ONE HAS EVER PRESENTED ANY FACTS WHICH DISPROVE ANY OF THE ABOVE FACTS. All they do is say that they do not agree with my interpretation of the facts, because they have their own beliefs. The FACTS are never challenged by presenting BETTER facts. The facts are challenged by claiming that there could be other possible explanations for the facts. But, that's just an argument of opinion.
The FACTS say that a child just starting first grade wrote the anthrax letters and addressed the anthrax envelopes. Period.
Ed
"Anonymous" wrote another long post where he argued that my reasoning does not follow the "scientific method" -- according to his understanding of the scientific method.
ReplyDeleteHere is some of his reasoning:
"Only non-English-speaking adults who had just learned to speak English (taught by KSM over several weeks) in fact are shown by the documentary evidence to be planning to use anthrax against US targets. No First Graders have similarly been implicated.
And he resorts to personal attacks. Example:
"You need to read the things written about Amerithrax. You wildly mischaracterize books and articles you haven't even read -- for example, the hijacker's claim that he had got a gash from banging his leg with a suitcase was corroboratory of the existence of the lab in Kandahar given he had just come from Kandahar, where Sufaat's lab was located."
None of this directly addresses the handwriting issue. It all begins with a BELIEF that Muslim terrorists were behind the anthrax attacks. The facts say otherwise. So, his argument is really with the FBI and the evidence that they found.
As a result, I deleted the post. It's just another version of the same argument we've had for a decade. It's just opinion versus opinion, which is a waste of time. So, there's no reason to continue the argument.
Ed
I just deleted two more posts by "Anonymous" where he continues to bizarrely argue that the gash on the hijacker's leg somehow proves that al Qaeda was behind the anthrax attacks, and if I don't agree it's because I don't read the things that "Anonymous" reads.
ReplyDeleteIf "Anonymous" has such compelling evidence that he is right and the FBI is wrong, why doesn't he take it to the newspapers? The newspapers and the media would undoubtedly be thrilled to show the world that the FBI is wrong. They could certainly do a LOT more to promote "Anonymous's" cause than I could. Is it because the newspapers need evidence, and all "Anonymous" really has is an unshakable belief?
Ed
Yesterday, I deleted another post from "Anonymous" where he rambled on about how I don't correct "errors" I made on my web page titled "The Illogical al Qaeda Theory."
ReplyDeleteThe "errors" he pointed out aren't errors. They're just illustrations showing how illogical the claims by Anthrax Truthers are. For example, Anthrax Truthers believed that al Qaeda terrorists were planning to use a crop duster to spray anthrax all over some American city.
"Anonymous" argues that there was no claim that the terrorists made hundreds of pounds of anthrax. True, but if the terrorists planned to use the crop duster to spray anthrax, that would have required hundreds of pounds of anthrax to be effective. The amounts in all the letters combined wouldn't have been of any use for spraying from a crop duster.
And on that web page I ask: If they planned to use a crop duster to spray anthrax, what happened to all that anthrax?
My point is: It didn't exist. Therefore the Anthrax Truther theory that al Qaeda planned to use a crop duster to spray anthrax was just total nonsense.
Interestingly, "DXer" on Lew Weinstein's blog makes all sorts of errors that he probably won't correct. Yesterday, he wrote:
"The FBI scientist who made a dried powder from Flask 1029 whose lab threw out Dr. Ivins February 2002 sample was working with anthrax in soil (silica) testing decontamination agents in 2001. Did Dr. Adams consider whether the tupperware container in the lab of the FBI scientist — rather than Flask 1029 — was the original seed stock used in the anthrax mailings? The researcher then went to Johns Hopkins where the decontamination agent of the former Zawahiri associate was tested. Did she take some of the Ames with her? Certainly the FBI anthrax scientist who had made a dried powder out of the Ames from Flask 1029 should have submitted a sample himself. While at USAMRIID, JE’s assistant had special facilities built to do their research.
It would have been a genetic match and so what’s with all this nonsense of the anthrax being traced to the Flask? That is the type of overstated testimony that is at the heart of the controversy overtaking the field of forensics. Instead, the pertinent point is that the chemical analysis started in Fall 2006 shows that the anthrax did NOT come from the flask. The flask had the chemicals — the mailed anthrax did not. It merely had a common genetic origin."
"DXer" appears to have absolutely NO understanding of the evidence regarding flask RMR-1029.
1. The anti-fungal chemicals in the flask were in the flask. Therefore, when spores were removed from the flask to grow NEW SPORES the chemicals would NOT be in the NEW SPORES.
2. The evidence connecting the attack spores to flask RMR-1029 was not just a "common genetic origin," it was evidence related to MUTATIONS that were in the flask and in the attack powders. Those MUTATIONS wouldn't be in any sample that wasn't an aliquot from flask RMR-1029 or grown from an aliquot from flask RMR-1029. Over 1,020 samples were tested and only EIGHT had all the mutations that were in both the attack powders and flask RMR-1029. All eight of those samples originated with flask RMR-1029.
"DXer" plays the game of asking meaningless questions and then claiming that because the FBI doesn't answer those meaningless questions, they didn't perform a competent investigation.
The facts say that Bruce Ivins was the anthrax killer.
Meaningless questions and misunderstandings of the evidence do not change the facts.
Ed
"Therefore the Anthrax Truther theory that al Qaeda planned to use a crop duster to spray anthrax was just total nonsense."
ReplyDeleteIt was the CIA that found that al Qaeda planned to use a crop duster to spray anthrax in its formal and official report that is online on the subject. See also KSM's interrogation.
"Anonymous" wrote: "It was the CIA that found that al Qaeda planned to use a crop duster to spray anthrax in its formal and official report that is online on the subject."
ReplyDeleteSo, I evidently I should have written, "Therefore the Anthrax Truther theory that there was some connection between the anthrax attacks and reported al Qaeda plans to use a crop duster to spray anthrax was just total nonsense."
I stand corrected.
Thank you.
Ed
The peer reviewed literature by the scientists establishes that the spores did NOT come directly from flask RMR-1029. Patricia Fellows used Flask 1029 to make a large amount of Ames that is missing. See Amerithrax Investigative Summary.
ReplyDelete"Anonymous" wrote: "Patricia Fellows used Flask 1029 to make a large amount of Ames that is missing. See Amerithrax Investigative Summary."
ReplyDeleteTotally false, of course. You read, but you do not understand.
Looking at page 28 in the Amerithrax Investigative Summary, I see that it says in footnote 11:
"Investigators unsuccessfully attempted to determine what happened to these spores. However, there is no evidence that RMR-1029 was the parent material to these new spores, as the laboratory technicians were utilizing frozen stock of Bacillus anthracis – and not liquid suspension such as RMR-1029 – as the parent material for their new spore preparations. In addition, the technique they used to grow new spores, known as a “single-colony pick,” would not produce genetically identical material to the parent material, making it extremely unlikely that these missing spores were utilized in the anthrax attacks."
In other words, there is virtually NO CHANCE that the spores created by Patricia Fellows were used in the attacks. She did NOT use RMR-1029 as the seed material for those spores as you falsely claim, and even if she had, she would have used the single-colony-pick method of selecting seed material, which would have eliminated all the morphs.
But, it's not completely and scientifically impossible for the spores Fellows created to have had the same morphs as the attack powders, so you are free to believe whatever you want to believe, no matter how wildly preposterous it may be.
Ed