Monday, April 29, 2013

Subject: Rationalizing


The three images above are used by Professor James Tracy in his article "Witnessing Boston's Mass Casualty Event" to argue his conspiracy theory that the whole event was staged by "the government" and isn't what it appears to be.  Here's what Professor Tracy says about the whole event:
What exactly took place on April 15 at the Boston Marathon is unclear, yet what is now evident is a stark divergence between the narrative description of excessive carnage meted out as a result of the explosive devices and at least a portion of the video and photographic documentation of the bombing itself.

The corporate media proceeded in lockstep with dutifully propagating the authorized narrative of a combat-like environment at the marathon finish line.
Professor Tracy starts with a belief that the whole explosion event was faked and rationalizes that smoke going upward does not equal shrapnel moving parallel to the ground, therefore proving it's all faked:
Available video of the first bomb detonating at the Marathon finish line suggests a direct upward discharge rather than the horizontal dispersion that would have wreaked the havoc to lower limbs so widely reported in physicians’ statements.
He then rationalizes that the pieces of the pressure cooker the FBI found prove his theory of a conspiracy because the pieces prove what the police claim, not what Professor Tracy claims.  If something doesn't confirm his theory, Professor Tracy rationalizes that means it's faked, not that he's wrong. 
Moreover, the fact that whole pieces of the pressure cookers were produced by police further points to a more channeled dispersal of the bombs’ force–indeed, one that may not have involved a broad lateral distribution of shrapnel.
Professor Tracy claims it was all just a realistic drill, not a real event.
In short, the event closely resembles a mass-casualty drill, which for training purposes are designed to be as lifelike as possible. Since it is mediated, however, and primarily experienced from afar through the careful assemblage of words, images, and the official pronouncements and commentary of celebrity journalists, it has the semblance of being for all practical purposes “real.”
He also rationalizes that the absence of visible shrapnel is proof of his theory.  The shrapnel, of course, was tiny BBs and tiny half-inch brad-type nails, which wouldn't be visible as shrapnel even if the shrapnel wasn't moving too fast to be seen or was on the ground afterward.  And he even suggests that the video of the explosion may have been photoshopped:
Further, there is whispy smoke with no sign of any shrapnel piercing the smoke, the race sideline fabric, or anything outside of the sidewalk perimeter.

If this is the case the highly-circulated photo showing an orange-hued “fireball” explosion may have been embellished.
More of his rationalizing is about the pictures at the top of this thread, particularly the area enclosed in red boxes which show one man laying on his back with his head toward the camera, another man in a gray hat or "hoodie" sitting and bending over the first man, and a black woman sitting between them:
The photo[s at the top of this thread] shows what appears to be either a man with his legs blown off or an amputee with his stump curled around the head of a woman. A man in a “hoodie” jacket is also sitting upright behind the woman. The injured man or amputee, later identified in major media outlets as Jeff Bauman Jr. who also participated in helping the FBI identify the alleged bombers, appears preoccupied with something in his hands that are close to his face. This is unusual behavior for a man who has just sustained a severely traumatic and mortal injury.
The [first and second] photos show the man wearing the hoodie garment apparently helping the injured man/amputee with his right leg. Could he be removing this man’s prosthetic?
Note that Professor Tracy is asking a question.  If cornered, Professor Tracy will say he made no claim that the person in the photo was removing a prosthetic to feign a blown-off limb.  He was "just asking questions."  And he seems to believe he's an expert on what is "normal" in a chaotic situation.


Anthrax Truthers also constantly rationalize away facts which show they are wrong.

In a recent discussion, "Anonymous" rationalized that an adult will write in a way that will look just like a first grader's handwriting to me when learning to write in a new language. To him, that's why the writing on the anthrax letters and envelopes just looks like the writing of a first grader to me.

But, in reality, adults who already know how to write in one language, do not have to learn once again how to write small or when to use punctuation when learning a second language. I know that because I learned to write Japanese as an adult.  When an adult starts writing in a new language (even one as different as English is from Arabic or Japanese is from English) they already have the hand-eye coordination needed to write in the size of normal adult writing.  They already know about punctuation will incorporate it into the very first sentence they write.  And, they do not need to learn out to draw characters by first copying from a blackboard in kindergarten and then learning the correct way in first grade.  They start by learning the proper way to draw each character of the alphabet.

Likewise, R. Rowley rationalizes that the Assaad letter sent to authorities after 9/11, accusing Ayaad Assaad of being a "potential terrorist," is just another in a long list of letters sent by some mysterious criminal mastermind who Mr. Rowley believes was also behind the anthrax attacks.  If the letter bears absolutely NO resemblance to the anthrax letters, Mr. Rowley rationalizes that that could mean it was done by a henchman or that the mastermind deliberately made the writing look different.  He says the same thing about the St. Petersburg anthrax hoax letters, the Dallas anthrax hoax letters, the Goldman Sachs letters and anything else he wants to make fit his theory that the criminal mastermind was behind them all.

There's a BIG difference between looking at what the facts say and rationalizing things to make them fit a preconceived theory.

Ed

33 comments:

  1. Why do you always misrepresent what people write?

    Where did I say that the writing looked like it was written by a First Grader? I said it looked like the mailer, who would be an adult, used block printing. You are on the outer fringes of any discussion of the Fall 2001 anthrax mailings. No one -- not a single person -- agrees with you.

    You wrote:

    "In a recent discussion, "Anonymous" rationalized that an adult will write just like a first grader when learning to write in a new language. To him, that's why the writing on the anthrax letters and envelopes just looks like the writing of a first grader. "

    ReplyDelete
  2. Anonymous just sent me an email that said,

    "Ed, I've always said it looks like an adult's block handwriting.

    "You -- not me -- argue it looks like it was written by a First Grader.

    "That's really easy to remember.

    "Stop misrepresenting me. It's all part of your effort to rationalize your beliefs to make them seem reasonable.

    "But they are not. Never were. By not taking my advice and dropping the theory, you've destroyed your credibility."


    Apparently, he's upset because in this thread's main post I wrote this:

    In a recent discussion, "Anonymous" rationalized that an adult will write just like a first grader when learning to write in a new language. To him, that's why the writing on the anthrax letters and envelopes just looks like the writing of a first grader. "

    I agree that he did not say that the writing is like that of a first grader. I said that. He merely rationalized that someone just learning English would do the same things when writing in the new language - write big, then small; write characters incorrectly, then correctly; not use punctuation, then use punctuation.

    It's nonsense, of course. Adults do not write like children when writing in a new language, even when the new language involves a new alphabet.

    But, since I can change the main comment, I'll change it to this:

    In a recent discussion, "Anonymous" rationalized that an adult will write in a way that will look just like a first grader's handwriting to me when learning to write in a new language. To him, that's why the writing on the anthrax letters and envelopes just looks like the writing of a first grader to me."

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  3. Above from Mister Lake:
    --------------
    Likewise, R. Rowley rationalizes that the Assaad letter sent to authorities after 9/11, accusing Ayaad Assaad of being a "potential terrorist," is just another in a long list of letters sent by some mysterious criminal mastermind who Mr. Rowley believes was also behind the anthrax attacks. If the letter bears absolutely NO resemblance to the anthrax letters,[...]
    -------------------------------------------------
    But, of course, in the last thread, one of the three points I made was (point #3): OTHER PEOPLE (unknown to me at the time, ie in 2008)) on Sept 16th 2008 wrote this:
    ---------------
    The similarities between the typed Quantico letter and handwritten anthrax letters are also striking beyond the obvious connection to Ft. Detrick.

    Both warn of biological attacks in fall of 2001. Both express hatred for Israel. Both begin with the word “This,” which investigators say is a highly unusual stylistic quality.

    The letters also contain prominent spelling mistakes. In the Quantico letter, the spelling of the Jewish state is “Isreal.” In the anthrax letters, Penicillin is spelled “Penacilin.”
    --------------
    above posted by me at
    http://anthraxdebate.blogspot.com/2013/03/subject-double-standard-for-evidence.html#comment-form
    on April 26, 2013 at 8:36 PM

    Again, though it was my copy and paste, the words were written by journalists Catherine Herridge and Ian McCaleb. So how did my "rationalization" take a time travel trip back to 2008 to get those journalists to write that? It's arrant nonsense.
    http://oldatlanticlighthouse.wordpress.com/2008/09/17/fox-news-text-quantico-letter-2001-antrhax-attacks/

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,423081,00.html
    -----------------------------------------
    And on the exact same day as the Fox News story appeared, Sept 16th 2008, here's what one Steven Leary (blogger) wrote about that very subject: (partial)
    ------------------
    Fox News revealed the text of the "Quantico Letter" today, and its similarities to the texts of the anthrax letters is [sic] undeniable. It would be incredible if they were written by different people, although the FBI, somewhat absurdly, says the Quantico Letter has nothing to do with the case. It apparently was an attempt to frame Dr. Ayaad Assaad who worked alongside Ivins, and Assaad said they were friends. But a "friend" like Ivins is capable of anything.[...]
    --------------------------------------
    But if you read the whole entry (and other entries dealing with Amerithrax) Leary AGREES with Mister Lake
    and the investigators that Ivins did it, so what "rationalization" is forcing HIM to write about the Quantico letter that "its similarities to the texts of the anthrax letters is[sic] undeniable."??????

    Doesn't make a lick of sense.


    http://blog.stephenleary.com/2008/09/anthrax-probe-fbi-fingered-right-man.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. R. Rowley wrote: "Doesn't make a lick of sense."

      Agreed. And you seem to be using OPINIONS and BELIEFS to support OPINIONS and BELIEFS. (Opinions and beliefs from bloggers and newspaper reporters are STILL just opinions and beliefs.)

      I'm not interested in opinions and beliefs. Arguing opinions and beliefs is a waste of time.

      The only reason I'm interested in this subject at all is because it presents an opportunity to use FACTS to debunk OPINIONS and BELIEFS. I'm only interested in discussing facts and what the facts say.

      Yes, interpreting facts invariably gets into opinions, but discussions and opinions about the meaning of facts is infinitely more productive than discussions and opinions about personal beliefs.

      Ed

      Delete
    2. (Opinions and beliefs from bloggers and newspaper reporters are STILL just opinions and beliefs.)
      ------------------------------------------------
      Well, the blogger did not go into details as to why he found the gov't contention that the Quantico letter was unrelated "absurd" (his word), but the Fox reporters did: it had to do with the correspondences between the Amerithrax texts and the Quantico letter. Plus the timing.

      Delete
  4. But, in reality, adults who already know how to write in one language, do not have to learn once again how to write small or when to use punctuation when learning a second language.[...]
    ============================================
    That's sorta in between: neither 100% true, nor 100% false.
    Many are the high school and college students of Spanish who, for whatever reason, can't get used to the fact that questions in Spanish BOTH begin and end with a question mark, with the first one being an inverted question mark. And, naturally, Spanish is far from an exotic language.

    Among languages of Middle to Eastern Europe, open quotation marks are put at the bottom of the quotation. This too takes some getting used to.

    The question mark in (modern) Greek is: a semi-colon.

    These marks (<< >>) are used in place of our quotation marks ("")
    Etc.
    http://www.greece.org/gr-lessons/gr-english/punctuation.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. R. Rowley,

      It's still fairly easy to tell the difference between the writings of a first grader just learning to write properly and an adult who is just learning to write in a new language.

      The facts say the writings on the anthrax letters and envelopes are the writings of a first grader just learning to write properly.

      Ed

      Delete
  5. I said it looked like an adult's block handwriting. You are the one who interprets wisps of handwriting beyond that. You interpret wisps of handwriting like this "Professor James Tracy" you keep writing about interprets wisps of smoke. The fellow does not even address anthrax so far as I've seen. You had to go far to find someone with a theory nuttier than your First Grader Theory.

    If YOU want to argue that the writer just learned English, that's fine by me. I instead rely on handwriting experts who have the exemplars necessary to make handwriting comparisons. My argument is that the FBI should disclose the exemplars.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Anonymous wrote: "If YOU want to argue that the writer just learned English, that's fine by me."

    And he previously wrote: "Ed argues that the writer appears to have just recently learned to write English."

    Ah! Okay. I see your game now. I never said the writer just learned English. A first grader has typically been speaking English for years. What he's learning is to write. Yes, in this case he's writing in English, but the principles of learning to write are the same regardless of what language a child is using as he learns to write.

    You changed the argument to the writer learning to write English. I interpreted that (probably correctly) as a way of suggesting that it could have been a Muslim terrorist who is just learning to write in English - and that his writing would be like that of a child.

    You didn't say it. But, that appears to be what you imply. But, you'll argue that you implied no such thing, and we'll get into another time-wasting opinion versus opinion argument.

    I understand the game now.

    The FACTS say the writing on the anthrax letters and envelopes is that of a first grade child just learning to WRITE properly. He learned to copy writing from a blackboard in kindergarten and learned English from his parents years earlier. But, in first grade he was learning the write PROPERLY, and that shows up in the anthrax writing samples.

    If anyone disagrees, let them provide a better explanation for what the facts say. Which handwriting experts have specifically stated that it is NOT the writing of a child and what reasons did they give for saying so?

    Failure to mention that possibility likely just means they never considered that possibility.

    An analysis of the opinions of handwriting experts shows that they start with a belief and interpret the handwriting to fit that belief. That's probably why the FBI and DOJ didn't use any handwriting experts' opinions in their case against Bruce Ivins.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  7. Ed Lake writes:

    "The FACTS say the writing on the anthrax letters and envelopes is that of a first grade child just learning to WRITE properly."

    Bless you, Ed.

    ReplyDelete
  8. "Anonymous" keeps filling my email inbox with silly crap about his beliefs. He includes long lists of newspaper articles which question THE FBI's CASE against Bruce Ivins," (some of them very STUPID articles), and he implies that the whole case against Bruce Ivins is somehow my idea (or that I'm the only person who agrees with the FBI).

    One email in my inbox this morning begins with this:

    "Ed, no one agrees with you. YOU are the fringe of Amerithrax. You are its True Believer and Conspiracy Theorist. You are the investigation's "James Tracy" -- speciously interpreting wisps of handwriting rather than speciously interpreting wisps of smoke."

    A True Believer does not look for evidence to disprove an hypothesis, as I do. A True Believer uses the OPINIONS of others to support his own OPINIONS, as "Anonymous" does.

    A "conspiracy theorist" does not conclude that Ivins worked alone and that there was no conspiracy, as the FBI concluded (and to which I agree).

    There's no reason to believe that "no one agrees" with the FBI. "Anonymous" seems to believe that the Lunatic Fringe is the majority because he only looks at writings from people who disagree with the FBI.

    People who agree with the FBI do not go online and argue that they agree with the FBI. They have better things to do. I'm an exception because I find it interesting to explain how True Believers use only beliefs and ignore the facts. I find it fascinating to show how facts can disprove beliefs.

    Even though I almost NEVER answer his emails, "Anonymous" doesn't even seem to understand that I am not going to argue with him in private via emails. I want to argue in public on this forum where I can show the world that he refuses to discuss the facts (or even LOOK at the facts) and just mindlessly and ridiculously argues that because he can find people who believe some of what he believes, that means he's right.

    The cartoon I created showing how Anthrax Truthers all agree that Bruce Ivins didn't do it but do NOT agree on who actually did it makes no impression on "Anonymous." He still thinks that because some newspaper ridiculously reported that a mistake made by some DOJ lawyer in a court document in the Maureen Stevens lawsuit meant that the DOJ and FBI had changed their minds about Ivins' guilt - somehow means that "Anonymous" is correct in his BELIEF that an al Qaeda operative was responsible for the anthrax attacks.

    That kind of preposterous reasoning is typical of Anthrax Truthers, and it's also typical of "Truthers" in general.

    "Truther" Professor James Tracy starts with a BELIEF that the government and the media (and many others) are conspiring to mislead the people who aren't part of the conspiracy. He then "rationalizes" ways to twist news stories and even PHOTOGRAPHS to make them fit his beliefs. (That is EXACTLY what "Anonymous" does when he rationalizes that all the media reports that dispute the FBI's findings somehow support his own personal theory.)

    I argue with Truthers like "Anonymous" and "R. Rowley" because it's a good mental exercise. It helps me sort out the facts from beliefs. It helps me develop good arguments to combat the nonsense from the Truthers. It helps me find new evidence. It helps me understand the psychology of "Truthers." It's a very interesting hobby that has kept me amused for over 11 years.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  9. You write:

    "Even though I almost NEVER answer his emails, "Anonymous" doesn't even seem to understand that I am not going to argue with him in private via emails."

    Ed, your emails have been blocked for a half decade. I send you emails so you will post them. So if you have ever sent a reply, I didn't see it. My aim has been to keep you talking about First Graders. Have I succeeded?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anoymous wrote: "Ed, your emails have been blocked for a half decade. I send you emails so you will post them. So if you have ever sent a reply, I didn't see it. My aim has been to keep you talking about First Graders. Have I succeeded?"

      Until now. But now that you have admitted that you are just being malicious and have no interest in any discussion about the facts regarding the handwriting, I can just ignore (and delete) any further blog posts you make on that subject. Thank you.

      Ed

      Delete
  10. Anonymous wrote:
    ---------------------
    If YOU want to argue that the writer just learned English, that's fine by me. I instead rely on handwriting experts who have the exemplars necessary to make handwriting comparisons. My argument is that the FBI should disclose the exemplars.
    =============================================
    I couldn't agree more: when you realize how central the writing (both the printing and the prose content)is to the commission of the crimes, it's just startling how absent that information is from the FINAL REPORT. And the stuff that IS in the FINAL REPORT about the prose style:

    G. The Language of the Letters is Similar to the Writings of Dr. Ivins. (pages 56-64) is mostly about the putative code, but both the 'code' analysis and the characterizations of the 'similarities' between Ivins' prose and that of the Amerithrax text are of unknown origin: no linguistic is named, in the text, in footnotes etc. To this day the only linguist whose work we know about on Amerithrax is: Don Foster. And that primarily because of the article he wrote in VANITY FAIR about the work. The subsequent work remains of unknown origin.

    ReplyDelete
  11. R. Rowley,

    It's still fairly easy to tell the difference between the writings of a first grader just learning to write properly and an adult who is just learning to write in a new language.
    -------------------------------------------------
    And the experts on that subject are: first grade teachers, current and retired. If I were championing such a notion, I would try to get one or more of them to sign on to it.

    But I leave it to you and anonyous to futher 'duke it out' on this subject, it has minimal interest for me at this point.

    ReplyDelete
  12. R. Rowley wrote: "Doesn't make a lick of sense."

    Agreed. And you seem to be using OPINIONS and BELIEFS to support OPINIONS and BELIEFS.
    ==========================================
    No, once again you didn't understand me.

    YOU claim that seeing correspondences between the Amerithrax letters and the Quantico letter is just a matter of my "rationalizing", but Catherine Herridge and Ian McCaleb, and blogger Steven Leary didn't/don't have any theory to 'rationalize' about: they were merely observing (in 2008) the nature of the letters. So what explains their observations? THAT'S what doesn't make a lick of sense. Which you AGREED with (!!!), but of course without understanding. And while we're on about people who see more to the Quantico letter than you do, there's also: Don Foster (the only publicly-identified professional linguist who ever worked on Amerithrax), Barbara Hatch Rosenberg, Assaad Ayaad himself, and I don't know how many others. In my previous posts I skipped Foster and Rosenberg because I know from experience that mere mention of their names brings forth ad hominem attacks on them by Mister Lake. Attacks wholely unnecessary and having little to do with the matter at hand (the Quantico letter's connection to Amerithrax).

    And, just to finish off, that (the fact that so many persons, themselves not united in endorsing any counter-hypothesis/theory, agree that the Quantico letter was likely sent by one of the Amerithrax perps or at least someone who knew what was coming) isn't answered by saying that those are mere beliefs, as the idea that the Quantico letter and Amerithrax letters are unrelated is just as much a belief, in fact more of one since it isn't backed up by analysis.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. R. Rowley wrote: "the idea that the Quantico letter and Amerithrax letters are unrelated is just as much a belief, in fact more of one since it isn't backed up by analysis."

      On the contrary, it IS backed up by analysis. Furthermore, since the FACTS say that Ivins was the anthrax mailer, that analysis includes the fact that Ivins doesn't appear to have had any real contact with Assaad.

      This is an opinions versus opinion argument. Such arguments are a waste of time if you don't start talking about facts and compare the facts which say the Assaad letter was NOT from the anthrax mailer to the facts which say it WAS from the anthrax mailer.

      The problem with that, of course, is that you don't accept the FACTS that say Ivins was the anthrax mailer. So, you won't accept any facts which say he had no reason to write the letter and the writing doesn't seem to be his.

      So, it will just become another opinion versus opinion argument because in your opinion the facts are unrelated to who you believe actually sent the letters.

      Ed

      Delete
  13. People who agree with the FBI do not go online and argue that they agree with the FBI. They have better things to do.
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    It isn't just because "they have better things to do", it's because they take on faith whatever the DoJ tells them. That's partially a matter of practicality: how many even prominent criminal cases can John Q Public immerse himself in in order to make an informed PERSONAL judgement about? So it's a matter of deferring to 'experts' in law enforcement and criminal law.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. R. Rowley wrote: It isn't just because "they have better things to do", it's because they take on faith whatever the DoJ tells them."

      If they aren't even listening because they have other things to do, the FBI isn't telling them anything.

      Ed

      Delete
    2. R. Rowley wrote: It isn't just because "they have better things to do", it's because they take on faith whatever the DoJ tells them."

      If they aren't even listening because they have other things to do, the FBI isn't telling them anything.
      ==============================================
      Well, of course, I meant: through the media. I'm guessing
      at least 20 to 40% of the US population over the age of 40 knows that the case was closed and/or the mailings were blamed on a rogue scientist. Younger people: not so much. The degree to which those 'in the know' people then followed up on details is going to vary enormously from person to person according to taste, with those in the skeptical-to-paranoid range about law enforcement in general more likely to dig deeper.

      Delete
    3. R. Rowley wrote: "I'm guessing at least 20 to 40% of the US population over the age of 40 knows that the case was closed and/or the mailings were blamed on a rogue scientist."

      I'm guessing that it's more in the range of 5 to 10%.

      I know no one outside of the Internet who knows anything about the subject. When I (rarely) bring it up to people I meet (all above 40), they vaguely remember about the danger of anthrax in the mails, but they don't remember any details.

      I also can see in my web site logs that LOTS of people keep coming to my web site because they went to Google and did a search for "Who sent the anthrax letters?" or "Did they ever find out who sent the anthrax letters?"

      At WalMart I keep seeing DVDs for TV series I never heard of. And the Neilson ratings list 9 shows on TV that I never watch before they list "NCIS" as #10. So, there are LOTS AND LOTS of people with interests totally different than mine.

      Anyone who thinks that the majority of Americans thinks that Ivins was innocent is just plain ignorant of the facts. The majority of Americans more likely doesn't even remember the name "Bruce Ivins" or never even heard the name.

      IMHO

      Ed

      Delete
  14. While Ed has been focused on First Graders, journalists and experts focused on the weakness of the FBI's "Ivins Theory" (and Ed thinks insulting schtick coming from someone focused on First Graders is a substitute for addressing the merits.

    * Frontline, partnering with McClatchy and ProPublica, invested resources and manpower rarely seen in modern journalism. Frontline found that the FBI's conclusions in the Amerithrax investigation were seriously flawed. Even lawyers in the civil division of the Department of Justice contradicted the claims of the prosecutors about the availability of equipment that the DOJ speculated had been used.

    * The New York Times and Washington Post repeatedly editorialized that the case should be reopened. Former public relations officer Norman Covert of USAMRIID wrote eloquently in the defense of Ivins. Present and former USAMRIID scientists Jeffrey Adamovicz , Gerald Andrews, Patricia Worsham, Susan Welkos and Stephen Little addressed the factual and scientific issues under oath in civil depositions. I uploaded the deposition excerpts.

    * In Congress, Rep. Holt introduced legislation that would form a commission along the lines of the 911 Commission to review the matter. Take heed: Holt beat IBM's super computer at Jeopardy. Rep. Holt was joined by Congressman Nadler and Senator Grassley. Even Senator Leahy, one of the recipients of a letter containing anthrax, angrily told FBI Director Mueller that he wasn't buying what the FBI was selling.

    * Pulitzer Prize winner Laurie Garrett, who has deep experience covering health issues, wrote an e-book about the NAS findings and the 911 hijackers. True crime maven Edward Jay Epstein summarized the issues well in a book this year on unsolved crimes.

    * David Relman, the Vice-Chairman of the National Academies of Science panel that reviewed the science relied upon in Amerithrax, wrote an important article in SCIENCE, "Have We Met The Enemy?" He emphasized the findings in Afghanistan at the Al Qaeda anthrax labs.

    * Pro-Med co-founders Martin Hugh-Jones and Barbara Rosenberg joined Stuart Jacobsen in arguing the technical issues in oft-cited 2011 and 2012 journal articles. In the same journal, Yuril V. Ezepchuk, the Director of Biological Sciences, University of Colorado, named names.

    * Journalists like Stephanie Yamkovenko of Frederick Gorilla summarized elements of the FBI’s non-existent case against Dr. Ivins. Where does an 800-lb gorilla sit when it comes to historic truth? Wherever it wants.

    * FBI expert Claire Fraser-Liggett reasons that the science does not prove that Ivins was guilty. She observes that the FBI used the science in a misleading way. Indeed, FBI expert Patricia Worsham emphasized that it is because of scientific considerations that one knows Ivins was innocent.

    * Former USAMRIID scientist Henry Heine crunched the numbers. Former State Department counterintelligence bloodhound Ken Dillon picked up the scent of Al Qaeda operatives in the United States. UCLA's Michael Intrilligator helped organize a conference in Washington DC that probed the issues. Rutgers professor Leonard Cole was joined by co-author Nancy Connell in noting that Amerithrax may never be solved. Dr. Connell is an NAS panel member.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Anonymous wrote: "While Ed has been focused on First Graders, journalists and experts focused on the weakness of the FBI's "Ivins Theory"

    You were the one focused on "First Graders" by constantly bringing up the subject - as you just did once again.

    I've been focused on the nonsense printed by journalists and ignorant scientists who distort or ignore the facts. I've written long comments for my web site about the NONSENSE written by the people who you consider to be "experts." OTHERS have also written to dispute their nonsense beliefs and opinions.

    That is what my web site is all about: separating beliefs from facts and determining what the facts say actually happened.

    If a hundred journalists and scientist spout crap, it's still just crap.

    There's no point in repeating the debunking of all your "experts" here. Check my web site.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  16. Ed Lake thinks that David Relman's article in nonsense. Ed is not qualified to address the subject. Knowing the difference is part of media literacy taught students in middle school -- even as young as Fourth Grade. Ed says "others have also written to dispute their nonsense beliefs and opinions." Who disputes Dr. Relman's article in Science, Ed? Do you have a link to share?

    As another example, Patricia Worsham was both the FBI expert who led things off in the presentation before the NAS and the one with personal knowledge of the facts relating to the B3 issue. Who has written to dispute her conclusion and facts under oath? Who disputed Stephen Little's point? You are not qualified to address the subject Ed -- and you can point to no one with knowledge of the facts or qualified to address the facts who does.

    FBI expert Claire Fraser-Liggett has opined that she thinks the FBI's use of science was misleading. Who disputes that, Ed?

    Now it may frustrate you that they do not address your theory that a First Grader wrote the letters. But sensible people don't bother addressing that fellow's interpretation of wisps of smoke either. You represent the Amerithrax fringe and could have avoided that by recognizing that your First Grader Theory was a non-starter. You could have written the FBI's Ivins Theory into respectability. Instead, you have concocted a fringe theory and have contented yourself with arguing with Richard -- where the person he dislikes had no access to Ames whatsoever. You use insulting labels rather than addressing the merits. I'm glad you've found a nice hobby. And if that approach represents your values and abilities, well, so be it. But Amerithrax is being addressed by the experts above and the GAO. Professionals address merits -- and not insulting schtick.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous wrote: "Ed is not qualified to address the subject."

      In your opinion. In my opinion, any adult interested in determining the difference between beliefs and facts who has knowledge of research and science is qualified to address the subject and produce an evaluation. It's a free country.

      You are totally free to ignore my comments and go elsewhere.

      Anonymous also wrote: "Who disputes Dr. Relman's article in Science, Ed? Do you have a link to share?"

      Click HERE

      Anonymous wrote: "You are not qualified to address the subject Ed -- and you can point to no one with knowledge of the facts or qualified to address the facts who does."

      When I address the subject, I explain my reasoning and I present references. If you choose to believe something else which is not based on facts, that's up to you.

      "FBI expert Claire Fraser-Liggett has opined that she thinks the FBI's use of science was misleading. Who disputes that, Ed?"

      The FBI and the Department of Justice.

      Ed

      Delete
    2. "FBI expert Claire Fraser-Liggett has opined that she thinks the FBI's use of science was misleading. Who disputes that, Ed?"

      The FBI and the Department of Justice.
      =======================================
      That's why the term "outside reviewer" comes into play. The FBI is part of the DoJ so the agreement there is meaningless.

      Delete
    3. R. Rowley wrote: "The FBI is part of the DoJ so the agreement there is meaningless."

      No, it is NOT. To consider it "meaningless" is to consider one side of a debate to be "meaningless."

      The debate is between Claire Fraser-Liggett and the FBI.

      You seem to require that someone stand up for the FBI against Claire Fraser-Liggett. Why is that a requirement?

      I stand up for the FBI against Dr. Fraser-Liggett, but "Anonymous" just declares I'm not "qualified" to argue with Dr. Fraser-Liggett.

      If someone else with impressive credentials had some reason to stand up for the FBI, why would they do so? The FBI can speak for itself. And, most people know that standing up on the side of the government (or the FBI) against someone attacking the government (or the FBI) is just a waste of time - because it becomes an opinion versus opinion debate, which usually has no resolution unless the attacking side can be forced to examine FACTS.

      The fact that the FBI disagrees with Claire Fraser-Liggett is NOT meaningless. It means that Claire Fraser-Liggett needs to provide solid proof that she is right and the FBI is wrong. She can't do that, because she is arguing about scientific standards when the case is about evidence against Dr. Bruce Ivins. It's apples and oranges. They are not talking about the same thing.

      Ed

      Delete
    4. Posted by Mister Lake:
      ---------------
      R. Rowley wrote: "The FBI is part of the DoJ so the agreement there is meaningless."

      No, it is NOT. To consider it "meaningless" is to consider one side of a debate to be "meaningless."

      The debate is between Claire Fraser-Liggett and the FBI.
      ========================================
      Okay, but what is the substance of their 'debate'?
      Is it not whether the Task Force/DoJ oversold the science in their claims about Ivins?

      The FBI and the DoJ don't have separate, or even separable opinions on that subject. So citing them as two distinct entities in this context makes no sense at all, that I can see.

      Said another way, the lawyers at DoJ 'bought' what the Task Force claimed about the science and Ivins' likely guilt (indeed, lacking the scientific background(s) necessary to have an informed opinion on the subject, they, those lawyers, almost literally HAD to buy it, if only to 'sell' it better in the FINAL REPORT).

      This isn't a matter of only considering 'one side' of a debate, since Claire Fraser-Liggett is one side, the FBI the other side. That's the whole point: the Task Force and DoJ lawyers involved in Amerithrax were on the same side, and that long before Ivins died.

      Delete
    5. R. Rowley wrote: "Said another way, the lawyers at DoJ 'bought' what the Task Force claimed about the science and Ivins' likely guilt (indeed, lacking the scientific background(s) necessary to have an informed opinion on the subject, they, those lawyers, almost literally HAD to buy it, if only to 'sell' it better in the FINAL REPORT)."

      That is just your BELIEF, and it appears to have nothing to do with reality.

      The FBI is the investigative arm of the DOJ. That means that the FBI works for the DOJ, not the other way around, as you seem to believe. The DOJ doesn't have to buy ANYTHING the FBI says.

      The FBI investigates crimes, and when a lead investigator believes he has enough evidence to arrest someone, a prosecutor enters the picture as an EXPERT on whether the evidence is sufficient to convict or not. The prosecutor is the one who is going to have to present the evidence in court, so the prosecutor makes the decisions about whether the evidence is sufficient or if more evidence is needed. If the evidence they have isn't sufficient, they direct the FBI's investigation toward finding MORE evidence of the right kind.

      The lawyers at the DOJ were in the process of getting an indictment from a grand jury when Ivins committed suicide. That means they felt they had enough evidence to convict.

      The debate is between Claire Fraser-Liggett and the Department of Justice. The DOJ never said anything about science being the complete case against Ivins. They've stated all along that science was just PART of the investigation.

      The debate therefore, is between Claire Fraser-Liggett and the DOJ. The DOJ can argue for itself. They don't need some THIRD PARTY to side with the DOJ before there can be a discussion. Anyone can look at the arguments from both sides and make their own evaluation.

      Ed

      Delete
  17. Ed Lake thought Paul Curtis was likely the culprit even after the charges were dropped. He was wrong and there was no sound basis for his conclusion.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Anonymous wrote: "Ed Lake thought Paul Curtis was likely the culprit even after the charges were dropped. He was wrong and there was no sound basis for his conclusion."

    I didn't "think" he was the culprit. What I said was that the odds were that he was the culprit, because claims of being framed are rarely proved to be fact.

    I didn't have any opinion or beliefs one way or the other about Curtis's guilt. I was only talking about WHAT THE FACTS SAID. I didn't know all the facts then.

    And, it wasn't a "conclusion." I was assuming that new evidence would soon be found. I don't even have a "conclusion" at this point in time. I'm merely satisfied that Dutschke did it. It's not a "conclusion," it's an understanding of the facts.

    It made no difference to me that NEW FACTS showed that Curtis was innocent and the guy who tried to frame him was guilty. I immediately fully accepted what the new facts said, since they seemed to be fairly conclusive.

    You don't seem to understand anything about looking at facts. You seem to start with a belief and assume that anyone who does not agree with you is wrong. I look at the facts and put them together the best as I can - changing things from time to time as I learn new facts. There is no personal belief involved - other than a belief that facts are infinitely more important than beliefs and opinions.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  19. From the comment at the top:
    ----------------------------------------
    Examples of claims:

    From the Department of Justice: Dr. Ivins perpetrated the anthrax letter attack
    -----------------------------------------
    Alas, we see again Mister Lake give his own 'pop' version of a much more specific formulation.

    Let's go back to that news conference of August 6th 2008. The transcript is here:
    http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=93415845

    First up: Jeffrey Taylor, US attorney.

    The last sentence of the 5th paragraph of Jeff Taylor's opening statement:

    Based upon the totality of the evidence we had gathered against him, we are confident that Dr. Ivins was the only person responsible for these attacks.
    ----------------------------------------------
    That was followed by a second statement by FBI Assistant Director Joseph Persichini. His 7th paragraph in its entirety:

    We were then able to trace that to an individual lab, a single flask, and one individual who controlled it. Further, painstaking investigation lead[sic] us to the conclusion that Dr. Bruce E. Ivins was responsible for the death, sickness and fear brought to our country by the 2001 anthrax mailing, and that it appears, based on the evidence, that he was acting alone.
    ----------------------------------------------------
    Taylor: "we are confident that Dr. Ivins was the only person responsible for these attacks." Repeat: "only person".

    Persichini: "it appears, based on the evidence [Ivins] was acting alone". Repeat: "acting alone".

    And yet, way down the transcript of the press conference we have someone ask this:

    One, with the issue with us not knowing if that was his handwriting and also not knowing that he put these letters in the mailbox. How — how are you so sure that there wasn't another person involved?

    Taylor: The evidence I described in my statement and that I've described throughout this question-and-answer period, as I said, led us to conclude that Dr. Ivins is the person who committed this crime. We are confident based on the evidence we have that we could prove this case beyond a reasonable doubt.
    --------------------------------------------
    Notice he doesn't really answer the question, just like earlier in the press conference he doesn't really answer the question about Ivins' handwriting sample and whether it matched those of the Amerithrax mailings (see: very first post by me here:
    http://anthraxdebate.blogspot.com/2012/02/feb-5-feb-11-2012-discussions.html )

    Yet somehow, even the POSSIBILITY that there were multiple persons involved doesn't seem to have found its way to the AMERITHRAX INVESTIGATIVE SUMMARY: (page 25)
    -----------------------
    The evidence gathered in this seven-year investigation establishes that Dr. Bruce Ivins was the anthrax mailer – both direct evidence that anthrax spores under his sole and exclusive control were the parent material to the anthrax spores used in the attack and compelling circumstantial evidence set forth below.
    http://www.justice.gov/amerithrax/docs/amx-investigative-summary.pdf
    -----------------------
    As far as I can determine----based it's true on a fast and cursory
    run-through of the document---------this accomplice question isn't even broached in the 92 pages. But I'll keep looking.
    ================================================
    So, what is the difference between the true "claim" (if we must use that word) and Mister Lake's version? Mister Lake ignores the
    "acting alone" bit. But it is JUST that 'acting alone' bit that supplies reasonable doubt on a host of skeins of evidence: the two undocumented trips to Princeton; the undocumented late-night drying/purifying; the undocumented printing of the texts; the undocumented xeroxing of those texts. An accomplice would explain that and perhaps more, if Ivins were guilty......but if he were innocent, then all those lacunae would be what we would expect.

    ReplyDelete
  20. R. Rowley wrote: "Notice he doesn't really answer the question, just like earlier in the press conference he doesn't really answer the question about Ivins' handwriting sample and whether it matched those of the Amerithrax mailings".

    Yes, you've made it very clear that there's only one valid way for things to be done, and that's YOUR way.

    The "disguised" handwriting is not part of the government's case, so the speaker sidetracked the issue rather than go into a long explanation. That's what people giving press conferences do all the time - no matter who they are.

    The facts say Ivins operated alone. As I've explained to you REPEATEDLY, that doesn't mean that the post office personnel who took the letters from the mail box, sorted them, and delivered them to their destinations were his "accomplices." Ivins was the only person who knew that he was committing the crime he was committing. Others, like postal employees, may have "helped," but no one in their right mind would label them as "accomplices."

    Mr. Rowley writes: "Mister Lake ignores the "acting alone" bit."

    NONSENSE. You are just being argumentative in trying to suggest that some innocent person who UNWITTINGLY "helped" in the process was an "accomplice." That is a BOGUS argument.

    Ivins acted alone in committing the crime. No one else was aware of what he was doing. End of story.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete