One Anthrax Truther did actually argue that misspelling "PENACILIN" on the first anthrax letter and misspelling "Isreal" on the Assaad letter indicated that they were written by the same person. That Truther also argues that many hoax letters mailed during the past decade were also sent by the same person - because some similarities in syntax can be observed, even if there is no similarity in the handwriting.
Another Anthrax Truther argues that it is a fact that al Qaeda is known to be interested in weaponizing anthrax, therefore they must have been behind the anthrax attacks of 2001.
These Truthers are looking at facts, but they are interpreting (or rationalizing or twisting) those facts to fit their beliefs. If you ask why the culprit misspelled "Isreal" on the Assaad letter but spelled it correctly on the anthrax letters, he would probably rationalize that the culprit learned to spell the word correctly in the years between the two incidents. And, he'd defy you to prove otherwise.
Other Truthers point to the fact that there was a conspiracy involving the President of the United States to cover up the truth about the Watergate break-in during the Nixon administration. And the Truthers interpret that fact as evidence that there is currently a conspiracy involving the President to cover up whatever it is that the Truthers want to believe happened regarding 9/11, the anthrax attacks, the landings on the moon, the JFK assassination, etc., etc., etc.
Of course, the FBI and everyone else also interpret the facts. The difference is: Truthers only look at the facts they can interpret/twist/rationalize to fit their beliefs. When unbiased people discuss the facts to try to understand what really happened, they look at all the facts which support an argument and all the facts which dispute an argument, and the base their findings on what seems most logical.
It's not logical that only one person on earth can misspell "PENACILIN," "Isreal" and "anthracks" and therefore that person must have been behind all three crimes.
It's not logical that because al Qaeda had a motive that they must have sent the anthrax letters, even if a mountain of facts say otherwise.
Interpretations aren't the same as beliefs. People usually understand that their interpretations can be wrong, and they're usually open to hearing other interpretations. But, people who believe they are right are generally not open to other interpretations or beliefs. Too often, they aren't even open to viewing new facts.
Ed
Mister Lake wrote:
ReplyDelete----------------
One Anthrax Truther did actually argue that misspelling "PENACILIN" on the first anthrax letter and misspelling "Isreal" on the Assaad letter indicated that they were written by the same person. That Truther also argues that many hoax letters mailed during the past decade were also sent by the same person - because some similarities in syntax can be observed, even if there is no similarity in the handwriting.
======================================
This is a moment for congratulations: the above constitutes the least distorted version of my ideas ever recorded here by Mister Lake.
In the second sentence there's not even a thing to quibble about: I might well have written (in the first person) a sentence essentially the same.
But a tad of tweaking of that first sentence....
1) the misspellings "penacilin" and "Isreal"
are one element that, when combined with other elements, leads one to SUSPECT the letters were written by the same person. (I'll circle back to this later).
2) the last time I brought this up (here on April 30th 3:33 PM post), it was to note that the relationship between the Quantico letter ("Isreal") and the Amerithrax texts proper ("penacilin") wasn't merely the observation of one lone 'truther' but that of two journalists and one blogger, all three weighing in on the subject in 2008, ie before I had an opinion on the Quantico letter. It went like this (partial repost):
------------
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?
-----------------------------------
And in Part II I'll circle back on the misspellings.
Part II
ReplyDeleteBefore going to the heart of it, let me dispose of the strawman argument put forth by Mister Lake:
----------------
It's not logical that only one person on earth can misspell "PENACILIN," "Isreal" and "anthracks" and therefore that person must have been behind all three crimes.
=====================================
No one ever claimed that only one person on earth 'can misspell' thusly, but sensu strictu, we aren't really dealing with a misspelling, or at least not one of the usual sort (ie a mistake). HIS 'misspellings' are rarely accidental.
And as to that 'one person on earth' bit, I would have to say that the pool of suspects is FAR smaller than that, and it includes:
1)someone with access, however shortlived, to Ames strain anthrax between 1997 and 2001. A four-year window.
2)someone who knows enough of the Hebrew alphabet to incorporate elements of same into his printing of Amerithrax, enough of Cyrillic to incorporate elements of that into the St Pete hoax letters.
3)someone of a scientific bent.
1) 2) and 3) eliminate 99+% of the US population, including Bruce Ivins (who knew no Hebrew).
END OF PART II
R. Rowley wrote: "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?"
ReplyDeleteI dunno. They're reporters who needed something to write about?
The Fox New article at http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,423081,00.html says:
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."
One source says the spelling mistakes were an effort to obscure the writer's identity. But the addresses on the envelopes to both the Quantico letter as well as the anthrax letters do not have a comma between the city and state, another potential clue.
How do spelling mistakes "obscure the writer's identity"? Misspelling "Isreal" is a fairly common spelling error.
I don't see how a couple reporters' comments and an unnamed theorist's opinion can mean anything. You can probably dig up reporter's opinions and comments supporting all sorts of screwball theories.
Evidence is what THE FACTS say, not what some reporters say.
R. Rowley also says the "pool of suspects" includes (1) someone who had access to the Ames strain and someone (2) who had a "scientific bent" (which is a meaningless term). But, Mr. Rowley also indicates his suspect is:
"2)someone who knows enough of the Hebrew alphabet to incorporate elements of same into his printing of Amerithrax, enough of Cyrillic to incorporate elements of that into the St Pete hoax letters."
And that
"1) 2) and 3) eliminate 99+% of the US population, including Bruce Ivins (who knew no Hebrew).
But, before Mr. Rowley can eliminate Bruce Ivins because he "knew no Hebrew," Mr. Rowley needs to convincingly prove that the writer incorporated elements of Hebrew into his printing on the Amerithrax documents.
He may have supplied something he considers to be "proof" in the distant past, but I don't recall where it was. So, now's the time for Mr. Rowley to convince everyone that there is clear and undeniable evidence that the anthrax letters and envelopes (and the Troxler envelope?) conclusively show that the writer knew Hebrew.
Ed
"1) 2) and 3) eliminate 99+% of the US population, including Bruce Ivins (who knew no Hebrew).
DeleteBut, before Mr. Rowley can eliminate Bruce Ivins because he "knew no Hebrew," Mr. Rowley needs to convincingly prove that the writer incorporated elements of Hebrew into his printing on the Amerithrax documents.
===================================================
I think I already did that: the following thread of February of 2012 is 74 posts long and starts with that very topic (before veering off into 19th Century ancestors and mailbox selection(s)):
http://anthraxdebate.blogspot.com/2012/02/feb-12-feb-18-discussions.html
In it, I give in considerable detail the gist of that sub-hypothesis of mine (upon which neither the innocence of Bruce Ivins nor my own identification of the perps depends).
Mister Lake's response?
1)I don't know any Hebrew.*
2)I don't WANT to know any Hebrew.*
3)"There is nothing at all in the writing to suggest anything having to do with writing in Hebrew. That's a total fantasy. You're seeing what you want to see". A direct quotation from the thread given.
*Here I'm just referring to the Aleph-Beth, the Hebrew alphabet.
----------------------------------------------
It goes without saying that 3) is a direct result of 1) and 2).
(And I went into laborious detail on that point too: how, if some third party suggested that the Brokaw text contained
Devanagari or pseudo-Devanagari elements, the only way for me (or anyone) to evaluate it HONESTLY (ie with an open mind) would be to study Devanagari, but Mister Lake, as always, didn't get the hint: you can't evaluate someone that you don't have the background for.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devanagari )
Also worthwhile in this regard is: a thread from late Jan
2012: http://anthraxdebate.blogspot.com/2012/01/jan-22-jan-28-2012-discussions.html
Especially my post of January 26, 2012 at 7:55 AM
===============================================
For those readers with an open mind on the Hebrew elements I suggest looking at the Brokaw letter here:
http://www.justice.gov/amerithrax/docs/a-brokaw-letter.pdf
And comparing that to:
http://www.myfonts.com/fonts/deniart/hebrew-basic/
So, I repeat: "There is nothing at all in the writing to suggest anything having to do with writing in Hebrew. That's a total fantasy. You're seeing what you want to see".
DeleteYou expect others to see what you see.
If you believe what you claim to believe, then you need to explain it with SIDE BY SIDE ILLUSTRATIONS. You can't expect people to look at a page of Hebrew lettering and see the similarities you see just because you say they exist. And that kind of comparison is about HANDWRITING, not about linguistics.
You seem to switch arguments willy nilly without reason.
This is beginning to sound more and more like an anti-Semitic argument. You seem to be saying that the anthrax mailer was a Jew, and all sorts of other crimes were also committed by Jews because you see a Hebrew connection in the linguistics and/or the lettering.
Ed
Up the thread:
Delete----------------------
How do spelling mistakes "obscure the writer's identity"? Misspelling "Isreal" is a fairly common spelling error.
----------------------------------------------
I don't think that that's true.
The commonest mistakes are: true mistakes (misremembered
spellings that the writer doesn't catch as looking odd);
typos (when a typewriter or other keyboard is used); phonologically-based mistakes.
So, a perusal:
1)"Israel" is a fairly common country name for the English-speaking world, at least for adults. It's in the news a lot, especially for a small country, there are all sorts of campaigns for Israel, and, mostly on the left side of the political spectrum in recent years, condemnations of Israeli policies. So, "Israel" presents no obvious problems of low-frequency usage, strange use of letter/sound combinations, a low graphic profile etc. For this subset of errors an unlikely candidate.
2)"Isreal" for "Israel", if an error of the typo sort, belongs to a subset of same: transposition of letters. But true transpositions, as opposed to chronic conditions like dyslexia, depend on keyboards to occur. So far, so good:
the Quantico letter was typed. Only problem is: these usually occur because the person is typing fairly rapidly (for him!) and one hand gets out in front of another. But
both "e" and "a" are, in the QWERTY keyboard, typed with the left hand, and thus are extremely unlikely to occur via any normal transposition event.
3)Phonologically-based mistakes. Again, this is usually when the typist goes to automatic pilot and relies unduly on the sound of the word(s). But "real" is a homophone with "reel", or, if it exists, "riel", but not for "rael".
In fact the 'error' would turn a three-syllable word ("Israel" is three syllables in both English and Hebrew) into a 2 syllable word (Isreal), and thus would stand out like a sore thumb, phonologically speaking.
That doesn't exhaust the total pool of drivers of spelling errors-----there is the aforementioned dyslexia among other things------but it makes "Isreal" stand out as an unlikely INNOCENT error.
I did a Google search for "Hebrew," "anthrax" and "Troxler" and found a posting to this blog dated February 20, 2012 by Mr. Rowley (LINK) were he explains:
ReplyDelete------------
My interest OUTSIDE OF AMERITHRAX is very casual: mostly it has been an amusement: since I gave up TV about 3 1/2 years ago, I partially compensate by watching a lot of youtube. ESPECIALLY episodes (partial) of WHAT'S MY LINE? (the original show from 1950-1967). The celebrity guest enters after the panelists are blindfolded and writes his/her name on a blackboard. Though some of the signatures are HIGHLY stylized (Liberace and Alfred Hitchcock, for example)there's a LOT of stuff claimed in the graphology books that shows through( psychologically matches biographical material I've read about a number of these celebrities, including Hitchcock).
....
It took me the LONGEST time to realize that the PRIMARY method of deception was: interpolating strokes and other Hebrew alphabet elements into the Brokaw/Post text. (This seemed to have trailed off in printing the envelopes and the Leahy/Daschle letter).
Two questions: could I present this in a court of law? Could a bona fide expert of long experience present this in a court of law via testimony?
1)Hell no, I'm a circus clown! No qualifications of any sort in this area.
2) Don't know. Would be good to know the case law on that stuff.
I SUSPECT that nothing EXACTLY like this has happened before (the interpolation thing, I mean), so it might be a bad match for the case law that exists. But it would have to be a bi-lingual (meaning bi-alphabetical) expert presenting it. And there would be a rebutting defense expert witness too!
As I indicated before, I'm a puzzle-solver, not a lawyer or law enforcement type.
---------
So, even Mr. Rowley can see that his evidence isn't evidence. He just feels that he's solve a "puzzle," and he evidently wants others to prove his solution is as bogus as he thinks it is.
So, Mr. Rowley starts from a position of knowing he has no evidence, and he apparently hasn't provided any examples, only comments about what he believes.
How can anyone consider this to be a serious argument that Ivins was not the anthrax killer?
Ed
So, even Mr. Rowley can see that his evidence isn't evidence. He just feels that he's solve a "puzzle," and he evidently wants others to prove his solution is as bogus as he thinks it is.
Delete==============================================
I already responded to this in one way. ANOTHER way to respond is to point to other cases with some similarities. How were the UNABOMB crimes solved as a puzzle? By Ted Kacynski's sister-in-law and brother recognizing his writing style and thematic tropes in that manifesto. Said another way, by non-linguists making accurate observations in forensic linguistics. According to Mister Lake this is "bogus" or 'evidence that isn't evidence'!
But it solved the case and made possible the raid on the Montana cabin that provided copies of Kacynski's manifesto,
bomb-making paraphenalia, notebooks and other things pointing to Kacynski's guilt. Some non-evidence!
(I no longer remember, if I ever knew, the degree to which Kacynski's brother and/or sister-in-law testified at the trial, but that's a minor point: the determination of who-done-it led to the accumulation of vast amounts of physical evidence, the very type of physical evidence totally lacking in the case against Ivins in Amerithrax).
R. Rowley wrote: "How were the UNABOMB crimes solved as a puzzle? By Ted Kacynski's sister-in-law and brother recognizing his writing style and thematic tropes in that manifesto. Said another way, by non-linguists making accurate observations in forensic linguistics. According to Mister Lake this is "bogus" or 'evidence that isn't evidence'!"
DeleteYou are obviously totally confused. I said Ivins co-worker could make observations about the handwriting on notes she received. I said it WAS evidence.
YOU said she could NOT make such observations because she's not a certified handwriting expert.
You have proved my point. Ted Kaczynski's sister-in-law and brother recognized the writing style and testified about it in court -- even though they were NOT linguistic experts.
YOU have been claiming they could NOT do this because they are not certified "experts."
Your arguments are against your own arguments.
Ed
R. Rowley wrote: "How were the UNABOMB crimes solved as a puzzle? By Ted Kacynski's sister-in-law and brother recognizing his writing style and thematic tropes in that manifesto. Said another way, by non-linguists making accurate observations in forensic linguistics. According to Mister Lake this is "bogus" or 'evidence that isn't evidence'!"
DeleteYou are obviously totally confused. I said Ivins co-worker could make observations about the handwriting on notes she received. I said it WAS evidence.
===========================================
Not "observations", a COMPARISON between printings of YEARS EARLIER, presumably from Ivins, with Amerithrax printings. Two sets of printings separated by YEARS.
(Therefore, even the expert question aside, inadmissible)
Or are you NOW claiming 'observation'='(graphological)comparison'??????
If so, then they must speak an entirely different form of English than in the lower Midwest, the Northeast, the Far West, and Texas (the parts of the country I have lived in)!
=============================================
Ted Kaczynski's sister-in-law and brother recognized the writing style and testified about it in court -- even though they were NOT linguistic experts.
YOU have been claiming they could NOT do this because they are not certified "experts."
Your arguments are against your own arguments.
==============================================
Now you are confusing forensic linguistics (which David Kacynski arguably did vis-a-vis the UNABOMB Case) with graphology.
They are two separate fields. They have different rules for admissibility etc.
(and by the way, Mister Lake, your old bete noire, Don Foster, participated in some way in UNABOM: (Wiki partial)
-------------------------------------------
On several occasions, Foster has participated in criminal cases that required literary analysis. He was brought into the case of Theodore Kaczynski to compare the "Unabomber manifesto" with other examples of Kaczynski's writing. Originally approached by defense attorneys, hoping that he might rebut an FBI analysis and the identification of the writing by Kaczynski's brother, Foster ultimately concluded that the evidence of authorship was even stronger than the FBI was claiming.
--------------------------------------------
Though whether Foster testified or not is not explicitly stated in the entry. So if David Kacynski testified regarding thematic recognition it was likely to explain the basis for FBI's request for search warrant/arrest warrant, rather than as a free-standing skein of evidence: if you have a professional forensic linguist like Foster available, it makes little sense to have a layman testify to the same effect.
R. Rowley wrote: "Or are you NOW claiming 'observation '=' (graphological)comparison'??????"
DeleteNo, YOU are making that ridiculous claim.
Ivins' co-worker (and EYEWITNESS) would tell the court what she observed. She would NOT be making a "graphological comparison."
As an EYEWITNESS, she can only testify to what she OBSERVED (i.e., witnessed with her own eyes) or heard. She cannot make comparisons for the court.
Why do you make me explain this over and over and over and over and over to you?
R. Rowley also wrote: "Now you are confusing forensic linguistics (which David Kacynski arguably did vis-a-vis the UNABOMB Case) with graphology.
They are two separate fields. They have different rules for admissibility etc."
They may have "different rules for admissibility" for EXPERT witnesses, but there are no such "different rules for admissibility" for LAY or EYE witnesses. Eye witnesses testify to what they saw. PERIOD. The only rule is that they cannot testify to what they heard SOMEONE ELSE saw. (Hearsay.)
R. Rowley also wrote: "if you have a professional forensic linguist like Foster available, it makes little sense to have a layman testify to the same effect."
Expert witnesses do NOT testify to the same thing as eyewitnesses. There would be no "expert witness" testimony about the notes Ivins' co-worker received, because those notes no longer exist. There WOULD have been eyewitness testimony because the witness's memory of the notes DOES still exist. Why do I have to keep explaining this to you?
Ed
Once again:
Delete1) I was cautious since I didn't much follow the Ted Kacynski trial, so I wrote "I no longer remember, if I ever knew, the degree to which Kacynski's brother and/or sister-in-law testified at the trial,..."
and
2)Mister Lake was incautious: he claimed that BOTH Kacynski's brother and sister-in-law testified and testified about forensic linguistic matters at the trial.
It's better to be cautious: officially the trial began November 12th 1997 with jury selection, but by early January it was bogged down in requests by Kacynski that he defend himself. The judge required that, for that purpose, he undergo a psychiatric evaluation, which he did. The psychiatrist found him to be a paranoid schizophrenic but one competent: this was determined on January 17th 2008.
On the morning of January 22nd, 2008 Kacynski pled guilty, short-circuiting just about the entire presentation of the case for and against. If Kacynski's brother or sister testified at all, it was at a pre-sentencing hearing, NOT THE PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE regarding his writings. Same with Don Foster: no chance to testify at the trial because of the guilty plea.
http://www.undueinfluence.com/unabomber-guilty-plea.htm
http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/terrorists_spies/terrorists/kaczynski/13.html
R. Rowley wrote: "Mister Lake was incautious: he claimed that BOTH Kacynski's brother and sister-in-law testified and testified""
DeleteI was just using what YOU wrote.
You're changing the subject again and wasting time by writing about things which no one cares about.
It's really getting annoying. I almost deleted your comment rather than waste time responding.
Ed
I was just using what YOU wrote.
Delete----------------------------------------
I wrote: "I no longer remember, if I ever knew, the degree to which Kacynski's brother and/or sister-in-law testified at the trial,..."
==============================================
But the guilty plea ended the trial shortly after jury selection. No testimony from either party.
In rereading the thread I realize I goofed: (above partial
Deleteby me)
-----------------------------
"....his was determined on January 17th 2008.
On the morning of January 22nd, 2008 Kacynski pled guilty.."
===========================================
That should be 1998, and in each sentence/instance.
It took me the LONGEST time to realize that the PRIMARY method of deception was: interpolating strokes and other Hebrew alphabet elements into the Brokaw/Post text. (This seemed to have trailed off in printing the envelopes and the Leahy/Daschle letter).
ReplyDeleteTwo questions: could I present this in a court of law? Could a bona fide expert of long experience present this in a court of law via testimony?
1)Hell no, I'm a circus clown! No qualifications of any sort in this area.
2) Don't know. Would be good to know the case law on that stuff.
I SUSPECT that nothing EXACTLY like this has happened before (the interpolation thing, I mean), so it might be a bad match for the case law that exists. But it would have to be a bi-lingual (meaning bi-alphabetical) expert presenting it. And there would be a rebutting defense expert witness too!
As I indicated before, I'm a puzzle-solver, not a lawyer or law enforcement type.
---------
So, even Mr. Rowley can see that his evidence isn't evidence[...]
=======================================
Once again, we see Mister Lake flit back and forth between (at least!) two definitions/sorts of "evidence": the generic sort, and the it-can-easily-be-presented-in-court sort. They are NOT THE SAME.
And, as I pointed out to you a 'whopping' two weeks ago, the "opinion(s)" (Mister Lake's word) of two laymen on the ALLEGED similarities between Ivins' printing, based NOT on side-by-side comparisons but on their memories of mailings of years prior, face the same difficulties as my linguistic evidence:
the need to professionalize them via credentialed experts. But we know (or at least think we know!) already that Questioned Document Examiners and/or other handwriting experts LIKELY consulted by the Task Force didn't see such similarities. Which is why there's not a word about them in the end-of-investigation document.
Nevertheless, Mister Lake believes the laymen would be free to testify on this point. LOGICALLY, then,a according to him I would be free to testify as a layman on Amerithrax. But I think neither is true: the admissibility standard is higher.
R. Rowley wrote: "It took me the LONGEST time to realize that the PRIMARY method of deception was:"
ReplyDeleteSo what? Evidence is evidence, whether took a second or ten years to figure out.
R. Rowley also wrote: "And, as I pointed out to you a 'whopping' two weeks ago, the "opinion(s)" (Mister Lake's word) of two laymen on the ALLEGED similarities between Ivins' printing, based NOT on side-by-side comparisons but on their memories of mailings of years prior, face the same difficulties as my linguistic evidence"
And, it's been pointed out to you that the testimony would have been that of a LAY WITNESS testifying to what she saw, NOT what her observations mean in a court of law.
"Lay witnesses" (a.k.a. "EYE WITNESSES) testify to what they saw and thought. "Expert witnesses" testify to what something means as evidence in a court of law. There's a BIG difference.
Mr. Rowley also wrote: "LOGICALLY, then,a according to him I would be free to testify as a layman on Amerithrax."
TOTAL NONSENSE. You are NOT a witness to anything about the crime and you are NOT an expert on anything about the crime.
This isn't really that hard to understand.
Ivins co-worker would be a witness to what she saw.
You would not be a witness because no one cares what you think about the case. The same with the reporters you mentioned. And you certainly wouldn't be an "expert witness."
Ed
R. Rowley wrote: "It took me the LONGEST time to realize that the PRIMARY method of deception was:"
DeleteSo what? Evidence is evidence, whether took a second or ten years to figure out.
=================================================
Oh, so NOW you're calling my interpretation "evidence"? Or was that just a slip-up?
Anyway, the point is: an Ed Lake perpetual is:
1)he accuses me (and other opponents) of developing a theory/hypothesis
2)THEN (ie subsequently)making observations/interpretations to justify that theory/hypothesis.
But for this to be even POTENTIALLY true, 1) must precede 2). It seldom is (in my case). But Mister Lake remains perpetually in the dark about the chronology.
I would hardly have noticed Hebrew printing in the Brokaw
text in, say, 2007 or the first half of 2008, to vindicate Ivins, when I didn't know who Ivins was until late July/early Aug 2008. I couldn't have known he would need vindicating. I would hardly have noticed Hebrew printing elements in the Brokaw text to justify a theory about the perp being a Hebrew speaker, if I had no such theory up to that point.
R. Rowley wrote: "Oh, so NOW you're calling my interpretation "evidence"?
DeleteNo, I'm saying it's NONSENSE.
Whether it takes ten seconds or ten years to figure out, if the result is NONSENSE, it's still NONSENSE.
I suppose it can be argued that the longer it takes someone to figure out a theory that is total nonsense, the more ridiculous the theory is. Anyone can come up with an absurd theory in a couple seconds. But it takes dedication to spend a long time on developing an absurd theory.
Ed
R. Rowley wrote: "Oh, so NOW you're calling my interpretation "evidence"?
DeleteNo, I'm saying it's NONSENSE.
Whether it takes ten seconds or ten years to figure out, if the result is NONSENSE, it's still NONSENSE.
=============================================
And you still haven't studied the Hebrew alphabet for, oh, 10 minutes in the past year and a half. So, you are in no position to judge.
But surprise me, and tell me I'm wrong. Tell me you really have studied it and your rejection of that (sub)hypothesis is based on knowledge, not prejudice.
R. Rowley wrote: "Tell me you really have studied it and your rejection of that (sub)hypothesis is based on knowledge, not prejudice."
DeleteMy rejection of your hypothesis is based upon the fact THAT YOU HAVE NOT EXPLAINED YOUR HYPOTHESIS OTHER THAN TO CLAIM THERE ARE WRITING SIMILARITIES TO HEBREW.
You are trying to transfer the responsibility for proving YOUR case to ME. You are attempting to put the "burden of proof" on ME.
You have not PROVED anything about the handwriting. You have just made CLAIMS, expecting others to argue against your claims.
Your CLAIMS are meaningless. They are claims of things you see, but you cannot SHOW what you mean and you have not PROVED that your CLAIMS are valid by presenting PROOF.
I'm not "prejudiced" against your CLAIMS. They are just CLAIMS, and like all unverified CLAIMS, they are not worthy of debate.
Present EVIDENCE and EXPLAIN YOUR INTERPRETATION OF THE EVIDENCE. That is how an intelligent discussion works. Presenting beliefs, claims and opinions without evidence is a waste of everyone's time. It's the EVIDENCE that is worthy of discussion, not claims.
Ed
R. Rowley wrote: "Tell me you really have studied it and your rejection of that (sub)hypothesis is based on knowledge, not prejudice."
DeleteMy rejection of your hypothesis is based upon the fact THAT YOU HAVE NOT EXPLAINED YOUR HYPOTHESIS OTHER THAN TO CLAIM THERE ARE WRITING SIMILARITIES TO HEBREW.
===================================================
Then you haven't reread the links I provided. Whose fault is that, yours or mine?
R. Rowley wrote: "Then you haven't reread the links I provided. Whose fault is that, yours or mine?"
DeleteYou still want me to take on the "burden of proof."
You're just wasting my time.
Ed
R. Rowley wrote: "Then you haven't reread the links I provided. Whose fault is that, yours or mine?"
DeleteYou still want me to take on the "burden of proof."
==================================================
What 'burden of proof'? I want you to "prove" that there are no Hebrew elements in the Brokaw text?!?!? But to do that you would have to study the Hebrew alphabet. And I have seen nothing you have written on this subject to indicate you could even attempt to do that. Your whole line of argumentation in this is to write in capital letters: NONSENSE, TOTAL NONSENSE etc. Attitudizing pure and simple.
You still want me to take on the "burden of proof."
Delete--------------------------------------------
I don't follow you AT ALL.
TOTAL NONSENSE. You are NOT a witness to anything about the crime and you are NOT an expert on anything about the crime.
ReplyDelete---------------------------------------
The same is true for the "witnesses" referenced: they did not witness Ivins address packages or letters, which they are comparing (mentally, with no side-by-side comparison) to Amerithrax printings. That makes them non-eyewitnesses.
------------------------------------------
Ivins co-worker would be a witness to what she saw.
-----------------------------------------
That is NOT what is meant by an "eyewitess" and we went over this two weeks ago. An eyewitness is someone who saw an 'occurrence' (I would repost the definition(s) of that thread but my experience then was: when I cite a definition, Mister Lake claims I'm "playing word game" or engaged in "semantics". But only if the definition oppposes his notions.
OTHERWISE (ie if we go by Mister Lake's seat-of-his-pants 'definition') every single sighted human being is a perpetual "eyewitness" to anything and everything that person sees for the duration of his/her life. That's absurd.
==================================================
You would not be a witness because no one cares what you think about the case. The same with the reporters you mentioned. And you certainly wouldn't be an "expert witness."
====================================================
What "no one cares"? You obviously haven't thought through what Kemp and other Ivins attorneys would have tried to achieve, and HOW they would have tried to achieve it. Particularly bewildering since YOU YOURSELF have stated on numerous occasions that YOU YOURSELF think Ivins' printing looks nothing like that of the Amerithrax perp. Yet somehow you think NON-EXPERT testimony on that point would be admissible. Just not the NON-EXPERT opinions that coincide with your own! And that supply reasonable doubt for Ivins.
R. Rowley wrote: 'Ivins co-worker would be a witness to what she saw.
ReplyDelete-----------------------------------------
That is NOT what is meant by an "eyewitess" and we went over this two weeks ago. An eyewitness is someone who saw an 'occurrence'"
Yes, we went over it, and you still do not understand. That seems to be the heart of our disagreement. You have a screwball view of the law, and you interpret things to fit your beliefs.
An eyewitness does NOT - REPEAT NOT - have to be a witness to the actual crime.
By your definition, the only possible witness in hypothetical Ivins trial would have to be someone who watched Ivins drop the letters into the mailbox.
In reality, Ivins' co-worker would have testified to many things that shed light on the crime. I went through a list of some of them for you. Remember? Here are a few:
She would have testified about the trips Ivins made to deliver gifts to where she was living.
She would have testified to how long a drive it must have been for Ivins to deliver those gifts at night.
She would have testified if Ivins wife ever mentioned to her those long drives by her husband.
She would have testified to what kind of gifts she got from Ivins.
She would have testified to the clues Ivins provided to make her guess who sent the gifts.
She would have testified to what was written on the cards that came with the gifts.
I found the transcript of a witness in the Timothy McVeigh trial who testified about all sorts of things you claim can only be done by an "expert witness."
Your beliefs about what a lay witness (a.k.a. eyewitness) can testify to are NONSENSE. You're spinning a very brief definition of "eyewitness" to make it fit your beliefs.
R. Rowley also wrote:
"YOU YOURSELF have stated on numerous occasions that YOU YOURSELF think Ivins' printing looks nothing like that of the Amerithrax perp. Yet somehow you think NON-EXPERT testimony on that point would be admissible. Just not the NON-EXPERT opinions that coincide with your own!"
My evaluation of the handwriting is my evaluation. It has nothing to do with the DOJ's evidence against Ivins.
The co-worker's testimony is that of a WITNESS and would be admissible as evidence.
Can't you understand the difference?
Ed
Your beliefs about what a lay witness (a.k.a. eyewitness) can testify to are NONSENSE
ReplyDelete--------------------------------------------
No, once again you have botched it: a "lay witness" does not (necessarily) equate to an "eyewitness". They are two different concepts.
You are claiming that the problem is with definitions. It isn't. It is that you INVENT your own personal definitions and then go with them when it suits you.
--------------------------------------------------
My evaluation of the handwriting is my evaluation. It has nothing to do with the DOJ's evidence against Ivins.
----------------------------------------------------------
It has nothing to do with the case because 1)the prosecution* would be unlikely to call you, and the 2) defense* would be unlikely to call you. But anyone with Internet access and knowledge of where to find Ivins' printing AND the Amerithrax texts in photographic form can do, if interested, side-by-side comparisons of the writing samples. Therefore they are in a FAR better position (intellectually) to compare Ivins' printing to that of the Amerithrax perp's than someone NOT doing side-by-side comparisons and operating from memories of letters and packages received years prior, among hundreds and perhaps thousands of other pieces of mail in various OTHER persons' handwriting. Which is exactly why NON-side-by-side comparisons are inadmissible, even when done by experts.
*The prosecution wouldn't call you because you have claimed for years that a child printed the texts and this, for the government's case, is, at best, a wild-card, if not completely
incompatible with the prosecutor's case (Bruce Ivins, acting alone, yadda yadda yadda). Out and out poison for the prosecution.
*The defense wouldn't call you because you aren't a professional in questioned documents or graphology and they would rather have a witness with those credentials in order to impress the jury.
And you, or anyone with your background, would be objected to by the other side for reasons of non-expertise. And POSSIBLY non-side-by-side comparison, since the Internet and the access it provides to exemplars probably isn't recognized by courts as "side-by-side". Yet.
(And of course the judge wouldn't admit you as a witness due to the non-expertise, among other reasons)
R. Rowley wrote: "a "lay witness" does not (necessarily) equate to an "eyewitness". They are two different concepts."
ReplyDeleteNot necessarily. I've explained this to you. In court, there are three kinds of witnesses: (1) EYEWITNESSES who testify to what they saw and/or heard related to the case, (2) EXPERT witnesses who testify about the meaning of evidence, and (3) CHARACTER witnesses who testify about a convicted defendant's character after the trial and before sentencing.
I suppose it can be argued that a character witness is also a "lay witness," but during the trial the ONLY "lay witnesses" are the "EYEWITNESSES."
R. Rowley also wrote: "NON-side-by-side comparisons are inadmissible, even when done by experts."
You are distorting the argument to make an invalid point.
No one said that Ivins' co-worker would be making a "side-by-side comparison." She would just be testifying to something she saw.
If you keep claiming that testifying to what someone saw is a "side-by-side comparison," you'll never understand to what a lay witness (or eyewitness) can testify in court.
THERE WOULD BE NO SIDE BY SIDE COMPARISON, because the notes Ivins sent to his co-worker no longer exist.
Why can't you understand that?
And why do you waste time changing the subject to argue non-issues like my hypothesis, when the discussion is supposed to be about what Ivins' co-worker can and cannot testify about?
STICK TO THE SUBJECT.
Ed
And why do you waste time changing the subject to argue non-issues like my hypothesis, when the discussion is supposed to be about what Ivins' co-worker can and cannot testify about?
DeleteSTICK TO THE SUBJECT.
=====================================================
Because you are a layman just like the "informants" (who are mislabelled "witnesses" in the FINAL REPORT and are NOT called "coworkers" there either: see pages 89-90), because you have argued vehemently and for years that someone other than Ivins (a child as it happens) printed those texts, and, whatever else one thinks of your hypothesis, you certainly put VASTLY more time into examining the Amerithrax texts than any informant the FBI may have called in and cajoled into telling them something they wanted to hear.
Because of that (the above) I don't see it is irrelevant, but as supremely relevant: the informants are in direct opposition to what you hold, and are in a poor place to hold their opinion, what with human memory being so fallible.
The legal question you could resolve by talking to any attorney not participating here or at Lew Weinstein's. It's a fairly simple legal issue, as legal issues go.
THERE WOULD BE NO SIDE BY SIDE COMPARISON, because the notes Ivins sent to his co-worker no longer exist.
ReplyDelete==============================================
And that's the (underlying) reason for exclusion of said testimony.
You seem to think that the Rules of Evidence are not rules at all but merely suggestions to be tossed aside if they interfere with the (notional) prosecution of Bruce Ivins. They aren't.
R. Rowley wrote: "And that's the (underlying) reason for exclusion of said testimony."
ReplyDeleteOnly in your fantasies.
Eyewitnesses can talk about things they SAW which no longer exist. That's why they're called "eye witnesses." If the things existed, then they could be brought into court for experts to discuss, and there wouldn't be any need for eyewitnesses.
Your understanding of the Rules of Evidence is absurd.
I've already shown you testimony from the McVeigh case where an eyewitness testified about a fake driver's license which no longer existed. That PROVES you are mistaken.
Ed
Eyewitnesses can talk about things they SAW which no longer exist. That's why they're called "eye witnesses."
Delete===============================================
Another Mister Lake ad hoc effort at 'defining'. Alas, not in accord with the definitions I found two weeks ago.
I've already shown you testimony from the McVeigh case where an eyewitness testified about a fake driver's license which no longer existed. That PROVES you are mistaken.
Delete=================================================
Oh, I never learned in school that there was a distinct and specialized field called "driver's license reader", so that probably explains the discrepancy!
(Less sarcastically: that's no expert testimony, as I noted 2 weeks ago. The courts determine what fields require expertise, not me, not you)
I just deleted 2 messages from Mr. Rowley which were just examples of him being argumentative. A waste of my time.
ReplyDeleteI probably should just have let them go through to serve as examples, and then just didn't reply.
Too late now.
Ed
So to circle back: when I introduced David Kaczynski (and his wife) to the thread, it was with an eye to citing another case where determining likely authorship broke open a long-unsolved case (16 years, give or take). It was NOT with an eye toward determining D. Kaczynski's status as a witness or what he testified to at trial, since I did not follow the trial.
ReplyDeleteMister Lake, by contrast, immediately seized upon D Kaczynski (and wife) as a REFUTATION of my notions about who may testify in a trial about areas of expertise.
But since neither D. Kaczynski, nor his wife testified at the trial, due to its truncation, but MAY have testified at the pre-sentencing hearing (but not about evidence of guilt), it is not an example of laymen testifying about forensic linguistics.
So, from January of 2012:
ReplyDeletePost of January 24, 2012 at 6:53 PM
The major conceit, as I see it, is to appear to be someone whose native writing system is the Hebrew alphabet. So, starting back in 2006, I developed documents analyzing the constituent elements of that. Somewhere along the line I noticed something VERY peculiar about the letter 'S' in the Amerithrax texts (letters AND on the envelopes): it appeared very foreign but not Hebrew in any way that I could see (no Hebrew letter looks anything like an ordinary block-printed 'S' OR like the stilted-looking version of same that appears in those letters/on those envelopes).
What I posited eventually was: this(the one letter alone) was meant to suggest an Arabic-language speaker (an Arabic alphabet user) whose Latin letter 'S' was influenced and slightly deformed by a certain Arabic letter. That letter is the very last letter of the Arabic alphabet: ya.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabic_alphabet#Table_of_basic_letters
The last letter in its "isolated" form (far right) is what is being more or less interpolated into the Amerithrax texts as an 'S'. I say "more or less" because the printer doesn't copy the 'ya' 100% (the tail is, well, curtailed). It is a second red herring in the effort to confuse would-be analysts of the printing style. [end part I] r. rowley
From the same thread my next post:
ReplyDeletePost of January 24, 2012 at 7:13 PM
Anyway, I THINK I wrote up that interpretation (that the 'S' in just about every instance in the Amerithrax letters is carefully constructed hybrid whose purpose was to resemble a 'ya') but I had NO instances of native Arabie speakers/writers printing in Latin letters to ascertain how realistic this was.
Until now. And thanks to DXer. Atta's block letter 'S' (three instances on the Huffman Aviation form) does indeed greatly resemble the letter 'ya' in his own native writing system. Only the tail is shortened, and the two dots under the letter 'ya' omitted.
The pseudo-Arabic influence of the Amerithrax does those very things too: shortens the tail, leaves out the two dots. In addition, the Amerithrax version of the letter achieves a greater balance of the upper and lower portions of the letter, in keeping with the usual form of the letter 'S'. But it is far more sinuous in shape than a typical Latin letter 'S'.
[Perhaps more later]
Same thread: Post of January 24, 2012 at 7:37 PM
ReplyDeleteSignificance: though this is a mere skein or element in my overall analysis it has number of ramifications:
1)the multiple Hebrew elements all but preclude someone who ISN'T thoroughly familiar with the Hebrew alphabet as being the printer.
2)since only about 2.1% of the US population is Jewish, and many of these totally secular Jews who have had no reason/opportunity to use the Hebrew alphabet in any way, EVEN if we throw in Near East scholars, journalists who have learned Hebrew as part of their work, seminary students/ministers who learned Hebrew as part of their education, and other Gentiles who have learned Hebrew to one degree or another, we are still looking at a US population of which no more than 3% can be said to know the Hebrew alphabet to any degree.*
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_population#Populations_as_a_percentage
3) The value of this is eliminative: anyone who DOESN'T know the Hebrew alphabet to a considerable degree, can be eliminated as a PRINTING suspect.
(Since the Arabic element is limited to one letter ('S'/'ya') its presence in the text wouldn't necessarily indicate a thoroughgoing knowledge of the Arabic alphabet/language)
*In my opinion the depth of familiarity with Hebrew letter forms indicates someone with thorough knowledge of the writing system and likely the language. r. rowley
Followed quite a bit down that thread by post January 26, 2012 at 3:52 PM
ReplyDeleteYes. And I should have mentioned that somewhere along the line (and repeatedly) I applied my Hebrew-element hypothesis to the known facts of Ivins/his life:
1)last name not obviousl Jewish(neither Ashkenazic, nor Sephardic)
2) religious background: Protestant in childhood, conversion to Catholicism in adulthood.
3)nothing in academic background to indicate interest in Near Eastern languages.
4)if he had picked a language to study for scientific studies the leading candidates would be: Latin, Greek, perhaps German.
So if Ivins was responsible for the TEXTS he got someone else to do the printing. A child? Why not?
http://anthraxdebate.blogspot.com/2012/01/jan-22-jan-28-2012-discussions.html
On Sunday February 12th of 2012, Mister Lake wrote this:
ReplyDelete----------------------------------
Lastly, I mentioned the discussions from last week which indicate that I'm arguing with one person (Richard Rowley) who truly believes that the person who sent the anthrax letters had Hebrew as his first language.
==============================================================
Since that was an unbelievable distortion of what I had written about my Hebrew subhypothesis, I responded at length: (very first post of that thread): (partial)
---------------------
My hypothesis is:
1)the writer (printer)(but not necessarily the mailer) is a native English speaker. Given the location(s) involved, most likely an American (born or naturalized) or a long-time resident.
2)he employs at least two red herrings in the writings: a)Islamist slogans ('Death to [yadda yadda yadda]' and 'Allah is great') b)the incorporation of Hebrew writing features into the forms of many letters, this IN ORDER TO FALSELY SUGGEST that the printer is Israeli.
3) No true Israeli would likely make such a full range of interpolations accidently.
So I do NOT believe "that the person who sent the anthrax letters had Hebrew as his first language."
But to do what he(the printer) did, would require good-to-excellent knowledge of Hebrew as a SECOND language.
As I noted, this is (potentially) a great discriminator as only 1 to 3% of AMERICANS likely would know Hebrew/its alphabet well enough to even attempt such a thing.
Bruce Ivins left no indication that he knew Hebrew in the slightest.
------------------------------------------------
Yet despite the above, Mister Lake, now about 1 1/2 year later wrote (way up this thread): (May 31, 2013 at 7:59 AM) (partial)
--------------------------------
This is beginning to sound more and more like an anti-Semitic argument. You seem to be saying that the anthrax mailer was a Jew, and all sorts of other crimes were also committed by Jews because you see a Hebrew connection in the linguistics and/or the lettering.
===================================================
I see no hope of setting Mister Lake straight on that score.
Since this thread deals, among other things, with misspellings, I should note here that down through the years I've encountered as many as three (3) misnomers/misspellings for the April 1997 package containing a petri dish discovered at B'nai Brith in Washington DC:
ReplyDelete1)anthracks
2)anthrachs
3)anthrax yersinia (this last combines the scientific name for the plague, yersinia, with 'anthrax').
I've never been able to QUITE reconcile the accounts.
But: evidently the OUTSIDE OF THE ENVELOPE had anthrachs written on it, at least according to the NY TIMES story:
http://www.nytimes.com/1997/04/25/us/suspicious-package-prompts-8-hour-vigil-at-b-nai-b-rith.html
But the petri dish itself was labelled "Anthrax yersinia", according to this article:
http://reason.com/archives/2001/10/10/anthrax-attack
Other stories have the petri dish bearing the word "anthrachs".
The only way I can reconcile this last one is if "Anthrax yersinia" was actually written "Anthrachs yersinia" with the
spelling 'cleaned up' either unintentionally (ie via a verbal transmission of the labelling to a reporter) or intentionally (on the hunch that the misspelling was confusing for the reader and meant nothing in particular anyway.
This seems to be the best place to make this particular point:
Deleteone of the things you do in forensic linguistics is: to look for a pattern. So, we have in the Amerithrax Brokaw text a (likely purposeful) misspelling:
penacilin for penicillin
----------------------------------
In April 1997 in the anthrax hoax mailing to B'nai Brith in Washington DC you have at least two misnomer/misspellings of the same term/word:
"anthrachs"* on the outside of the package envelope
and either "anthrax yersinia" (simple misnomer)
or "anthrachs* yersinia" (likely purposeful misspelling + misnomer)on the label of the petri dish, a petri dish that was found to have Bacillus cereus (a harmless anthrax simulant) in it.
*A wildcard: some reports have the misspelling as "anthracks" (possibly for either and/or both the petri dish label and the outside of the envelope) and I have been unable to determine the exact misspellings to my 100% satisfaction
------------------------------------------------
As already noted in the thread, the Quantico letter denouncing Ayaad Assaad contained the misspelling "Isreal" for "Israel". Arguably the inclusion of two spellings of the same word in the Quantico letter, toxilogical/toxicological,
might count as a second misspelling (since not one standard is being used but, apparently, two).
--------------------------------------------------
More of the pattern in next part. End of Part I
Part II
DeleteIn continuing to search for patterns in misspellings we turn to a source for the forms of a St Petersburg hoax letter:
----------------------------------------
The letter, postmarked on September 20 in St. Petersburg, Florida, began:
"THE UNTHINKABEL" (the Ns are reversed as Cyrillic characters in the published Vanity Fair article)
SAMPLE OF HOW IT WILL LOOK
Brief but ominous, the handwritten note threatened bioterror attacks on New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, and Washington, D.C.
I found the text curious for a number of reasons. First, the quotation marks were done Russian-style, with the opening quotes below the line, and the document's backward N's resembled the letter I in Russia's Cyrillic alphabet. But a bilingual Russian would be unlikely to confuse English and Cyrillic characters. This appeared to be someone's attempt to make his writing look Russian, or at least foreign. The same went for the block letters, which Russian adults don't use.
----------------------------------------------------
So the author, Don Foster, notes:
1) one misspelling: "unthinkabel" for "unthinkable", once again an apparent transposition 'error'.
2) the interpolations of Cyrillic ("Russian") forms into an English text: "This appeared to be someone's attempt to make his writing look Russian, or at least foreign."
================================================
So,
a)1997 hoax has implausible misspellings of the very term for the substance being hoaxed: anthrax.
b)Sept 20th St Pete letter has pseudo-Cyrillic interpolations plus the misspelling "unthinkabel".
c)the Quantico letter has misspelling(s): "Isreal" and (arguably) "Toxilogical".
d)the Brokaw text has misspelling "penacilin".
Mr. Rowley,
DeleteI think almost anyone else on this planet will tell you that the presence of DIFFERENT misspelled words in VERY DIFFERENT letters with DIFFERENT writing mailed in DIFFERENT YEARS is NOT a "pattern."
As for the reversed N's, the handwriting on the envelope is clearly disguised, most likely by writing with the "wrong hand," but perhaps by writing UPSIDE DOWN (which "experts" will tell you is a VERY common method of disguising one's handwriting. If you are writing upside down (or even with the wrong hand), writing an N backward could be easy to do.
I think "Isreal" is a very common misspelling, probably because I do it all the time but immediately see it's wrong and correct it.
Here's a web page that exists only to tell people how to remember to spell it correctly: http://public.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/Isreal.html
I just did a Google search for "Isreal" and got millions of results. Notice the spelling at these links:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2013/may/06/isreal-google-palestine-palestinian-territories
http://www.newsday.com/news/nation/syria-vs-isreal-hud-legislation-internet-tax-collection-top-stories-for-may-6-2013-1.5204360
http://www.frontiersman.com/opinions/cartoons/isreal-attacks-syria/image_17f68cea-b6df-11e2-8e23-001a4bcf887a.html
http://www.khaama.com/iran-hangs-two-men-over-espionage-charges-to-isreal-and-us-1465
http://www.albawaba.com/news/jerusalem-mufti-arrested-scuffles-al-aqsa-490290
Your argument is not persuasive in the slightest. It appears to be totally based upon YOUR view of the world, not upon any objective view of misspellings and erroneously written characters.
It's difficult to decipher your wording, but you seem to indicate that you've seen a copy of a St. Petersburg letter. I don't recall ever seeing any letter, only the Troxler envelope. If you know where to find a picture of one of the letters, please provide the link.
Ed
Your argument is not persuasive in the slightest. It appears to be totally based upon YOUR view of the world,
Delete===================================================
Once again, all I can say is: Huh? What "view of the world" are you talking about? The 'view' that someone sending Bacillus cereus through the mail in a petri dish as an anthrax hoax almost certainly knows how to spell the word "anthrax"?!? And certainly knows that "anthrax yersinia" is a complete misnomer? The "view" that the Amerithrax author (who had purified the Leahy/Daschle batch to a trillion spores per whatchamacallit) knew that the "penacilin" spelling had 2 (count em! 2!) misspellings in the same word?!?
LOGICALLY------------and logic seesm to play no role in Mister Lake's thinking----------the MORE certain you are that Ivins was the author, the more convinced you should be that "penacilin" was a purposeful misspelling, since Ivins had been working with that toxic agent for MOST of his career at USAMRIID.
Mister Lake wants to have it both ways: dispute me at every turn, even when his disputations cut against the GOVERNMENT'S case against Ivins!
Okay, have it your way: "penacilin" was a legit misspelling. Which indicates that the author was NOT Bruce Ivins!
R. Rowley wrote: "Okay, have it your way: "penacilin" was a legit misspelling. Which indicates that the author was NOT Bruce Ivins!"
DeleteAs I said, you only see YOUR view of the world. You totally ignore the facts as presented by the FBI (and everyone else's view of the world).
If you would look at the evidence against Bruce Ivins, maybe you wouldn't continue making such CRAZY and LUDICROUS comments.
According to the evidence which says that Bruce Ivins was the anthrax mailer, PENACILIN was a DELIBERATE misspelling to conform to the coding method described in the code book that Ivins was observed throwing away: Godel, Escher, Bach (GEB).
The word was deliberately misspelled because the coded message needed an "A" in that spot.
Yes, Ivins could have highlighted both the T and the A in "TAKE" to make the code work, but putting an "A" in the word PENACILIN and highlighting the error serves a SECOND purpose for the GEB code: It tells the decoder that the character "A" has special meaning to the decoding process. The code is explained in GEB.
The deliberate misspelling of PENACILIN is a key part of the code. The details of the decoding process may not be spelled out in detail in the Amerithax Summary Report, but if you take the time to try to understand the code, you will find that GEB explains it all in detail. It's a technique based upon a proposed method for deciphering potential messages from alien civilizations. It's really AMAZINGLY scientific and well thought out, and it's easy to see why GEB was one of Bruce Ivins' favorite books.
You live in your own little world and only see things from your limited perspective. If you'd try to see things from a SCIENTIST'S or CRYPTOGRAPHER'S point of view, you'd find that there's a vast new world that you know nothing about.
Ed
Mr. Rowley,
DeleteI neglect to mention that I have a web page here which explains the code used in the first anthrax letters: http://www.anthraxinvestigation.com/Coded-Message.html
I created the page on February 28, 2010, and it contains this information:
For me, the first "attention drawing" item in the letter is the misspelling of "penicillin," which is spelled "PENACILIN."
A second "attention drawing" item is that not all A's and T's are highlighted. In fact, the A which does not belong in "PENACILIN" is highlighted, but the A in TAKE on the same line is not. Another indicator of a code.
The "frame" or third "attention drawing" item is the one the FBI sees as most important. The letters in the four corners of the message are all highlighted, i.e., the first and last letters of the first and last sentences are highlighted. That's another message notifier.
The FBI suggests that the fact the first T in the letter is highlighted is another attention drawer.
It is clear that the highlighted letters are intended to draw the attention of the reader. Anyone looking for codes would know that they are a signal that there is a code here. And, as in the GEB code, the highlighted letters contain the coded message.
Another "attention drawing" element in the letters is the fact that all the sentences are three words long. It might be just a coincidence, or it might be an indicator that three is a number that has some significance in the decoding process. It could be telling the reader: Look for three of something.
You need to study other people's explanations of things, Mr. Rowley, before you make a fool of yourself by arguing that an important part of the code is something that you believe is a clue to your theory and that no one else has noticed it. EVERYONE has noticed it. They just do not see the evidence as you see it.
Ed
A bit up the thread:
Delete-------------------
As for the reversed N's, the handwriting on the envelope is clearly disguised, most likely by writing with the "wrong hand," but perhaps by writing UPSIDE DOWN (which "experts" will tell you is a VERY common method of disguising one's handwriting. If you are writing upside down (or even with the wrong hand), writing an N backward could be easy to do.
=========================================
No, you misunderstood: Don Foster ISN'T talking about the outside of the envelope, he's talking about the printing of the letter inside.
(Foster doesn't comment on it but I think the printer of the inside is the mastermind, the printer of the outside, more likely the SE accomplice).
R. Rowley wrote: "Don Foster ISN'T talking about the outside of the envelope, he's talking about the printing of the letter inside."
DeleteOkay. I've never seen the actual writing on the letter inside any of the St. Petersburg envelopes, and I've only seen a picture of one of the actual envelopes.
Looking at the nonsensical Don Foster article HERE, I see a lot of description, but no picture of the letter. (Judy Miller once asked ME if I'd seen a copy of her letter anywhere, since she failed to make a copy of it before turning it over to the authorities.)
In his Vanity Fair article, Foster wrote:
"First, the quotation marks were done Russian-style, with the opening quotes below the line, and the document's backward N's resembled the letter I in Russia's Cyrillic alphabet. But a bilingual Russian would be unlikely to confuse English and Cyrillic characters. This appeared to be someone's attempt to make his writing look Russian, or at least foreign. The same went for the block letters, which Russian adults don't use. "
I'd have to see the letters to make any judgements as to whether Foster knows what he's talking about or whether he is full of crap - as seems to be the case in what he's trying to prove in his article. He's been shown to be a FOOL in his interpretations. His article probably cost Vanity Fair MILLIONS when they settled out of court with Steven Hatfill.
Foster also wrote:
"The St. Petersburg letters, with their arrows and lists and dashes, vaguely resembled a slide from a Power-Point presentation, a common feature at scientific conferences. Then, too, Howard Troxler's surname -- in the letter proper, though not on the envelope -- was spelled "TOXLER." Could the error have been in-advertent, I wondered, a reflexive misspelling by someone used to writing such words as "toxic," "toxicity," "toxins," "toxicology," "toxoid?"
I can't decipher what Foster is talking about from his descriptions. I need to see photos of the actual letters. "Arrows, lists and dashes"?
It appears that Foster was trying to find things to use to point at Steven Hatfill as being the anthrax mailer. So, its a prejudiced analysis.
He has a belief and then distorts the facts to fit that belief. That is a STUPID way of doing an analysis.
Ed
When I returned from my regular workout at the health club, I found 14 messages from R. Rowley waiting to be posted.
ReplyDeleteNone seem worthy of a detailed response. They seem to be just petty arguments to get away from discussing any meaningful issues. Here's a brief summary of the 14 messages, as I view them:
1. Another argument over the definition of "eyewitness."
2. An argument that I should read what Mr. Rowley reads to understand the "truth." (That is also "Anonymous's most common argument.)
3. An argument whether handwriting analysis and document analysis are both "specialized fields."
4. An argument over what happened in the Kaczynski case.
5. Another argument over what happened in the Kaczynski case.
6. A comment about seeing Hebrew indicators in the anthrax letters.
7. A comment about the letter "S" resembling a Hebrew letter.
8. A preposterous claim that "the multiple Hebrew elements all but preclude someone who ISN'T thoroughly familiar with the Hebrew alphabet as being the printer."
9. A comment about Ivins not being Jewish, therefore not the writer.
10. A comment that Mr. Rowley doesn't understand how wanting me to do a lot of reading of irrelevant documents transfers the "burden of proof" to me.
11. An argument over whether or not "Isreal" is a common spelling error.
12. Another argument about Ivins not being Jewish.
13. A comment about misspellings on the B'nai B'rith package.
14. A comment about how my argument that a child wrote the letters is somehow meaningful to someone else's argument - or something. Who knows? Who cares?
I let the messages go through so others can see for themselves that there's nothing in them that is worthy of a detailed response - mostly because the issues have been previously argued to death as opinion against opinion.
I see no point in opinion versus opinion arguments. The facts say that Bruce Ivins was the anthrax mailer. An argument that Ivins must be innocent because someone sees some Hebrew writing characteristics in the writing on the letters is beyond preposterous.
I'm only interested in arguing facts and evidence. Arguing opinion versus opinion is a TOTAL waste of time. Nothing beneficial can come from it - in my opinion.
Ed
1. Another argument over the definition of "eyewitness."
Delete2. An argument that I should read what Mr. Rowley reads to understand the "truth." (That is also "Anonymous's most common argument.)
[Naturally I did not use the word "truth" in this thread as any reader can discern. Mister Lake is so caught up in stereotyping his opponents that it makes him lazy to actually ascertain their true "arguments" which in logic and law is not a negative word]
3. An argument whether handwriting analysis and document analysis are both "specialized fields."
4. An argument over what happened in the Kaczynski case.
5. Another argument over what happened in the Kaczynski case.
6. A comment about seeing Hebrew indicators in the anthrax letters.
7. A comment about the letter "S" resembling a Hebrew letter.
8. A preposterous claim that "the multiple Hebrew elements all but preclude someone who ISN'T thoroughly familiar with the Hebrew alphabet as being the printer."
9. A comment about Ivins not being Jewish, therefore not the writer.
10. A comment that Mr. Rowley doesn't understand how wanting me to do a lot of reading of irrelevant documents transfers the "burden of proof" to me.
11. An argument over whether or not "Isreal" is a common spelling error.
12. Another argument about Ivins not being Jewish.
=================================================
I'll accept your above characterizations(at least of 1,2,3, 4, 5, 11, and 12) if we stipulate that the word "argument" is being used in a polemical/legal sense:
What is ARGUMENT?
In rhetoric and logic, an inference drawn from premises, the truth of which is Indisputable, or at least highly probable. The argument of a demurrer, special case, appeal, or other...."
Law Dictionary: What is ARGUMENT? definition of ARGUMENT (Black's Law Dictionary) http://thelawdictionary.org/argument/#ixzz2UuteLnIm
-------------------------------------------------
Or, another source:
argument legal definition
Listen See in Thesaurus See in a sentence
noun
1.The reason or reasons offered for or against something.
2.The formal oral or written presentation of such reasons intended to convince or persuade.
3.The section of an appellate or trial brief in which a party pre-sents its interpretation of the law.
http://law.yourdictionary.com/argument
======================================================
Mister Lake, by contrast, isn't arguing AT ALL, he's name-calling/arbitrarily labelling.
Other words, besides "truth" which I did not use this thread (except to note Mister Lake's use of them): "preposterous", "ridiculous" "nonsense" (multiple multiple uses this thread), "total nonsense" etc. Nice "argumentation style"!
====================================================
Criminal trials are about arguments: both the overarching one--------did the defendant do it?------------and the subarguments: did he write the text? Go to Princeton? Dry anthrax surreptitiously? Xerox the letters? And we know how those subarguments have proceded.
R. Rowley wrote: "Criminal trials are about arguments: both the overarching one--------did the defendant do it?"
DeleteCriminal trials are NOT "about" arguments.
Criminal trials are about EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF A CLAIM.
The prosecution makes a CLAIM that the defendant is guilty, and then they produce EVIDENCE to support that claim. When the prosecution is done, the defense produces EVIDENCE arguing that the prosecution's CLAIM is unproved.
The jury weighs the evidence and decides which CLAIM is proved by the evidence.
What you are doing is ARGUING WITHOUT EVIDENCE. You make claims and state your beliefs, but you do not provide evidence. And you CERTAINLY do not provide evidence that is better than the evidence that Bruce Ivins was the anthrax mailer.
This is just another idiotic argument over definitions of words, instead of sticking to the subject: The FACTS say Ivins was the anthrax mailer, and there are no convincing FACTS which say otherwise.
Ed
When I returned from my regular workout at the health club, I found 14 messages from R. Rowley waiting to be posted.
ReplyDeleteNone seem worthy of a detailed response. They seem to be just petty arguments to get away from discussing any meaningful issues[...]
=============================================
You asked way up the thread for a (re-)capitulation of my Hebrew subhypothesis. After giving you the links to our prior discussions on that subject, since repetition is only of marginal benefit to ME, I realized that Mister Lake had no intention of reading/rereading the old threads and would CONTINUE to plead (genuine) ignorance to their contents.
That's why there are so many new posts by me: you asked for them (without knowing what you were asking for, natch!).
In particular that bit about "anti-Semitic" really takes the cake!
What's Anti-Semitic about it? (none of my Anthrax Gang is Jewish, as if that matters!).
You want to talk about highly interpretive subject matter, yet, when someone talks with you about that, you claim that the other person is only giving opinion! Well, Duh! Opinions are interpretations. And interpretations are opinions.
-------------------------------------------------
8. A preposterous claim that "the multiple Hebrew elements all but preclude someone who ISN'T thoroughly familiar with the Hebrew alphabet as being the printer."
-------------------------------------------------
Why is it "preposterous"? Putting "Preposterous" or "Nonsense" or "total nonsense" in capital letters and/or bold face type doesn't constitute a refutation, it constitutes attitudinizing. When you've learned the basics of the Hebrew alphabet, you MAY be able to discuss that subject coherently. But I sense your mind is closed.
R. Rowley wrote: "That's why there are so many new posts by me: you asked for them (without knowing what you were asking for, natch!)."
ReplyDeleteYour posts explain nothing. They are just baseless claims and ramblings.
R. Rowley also wrote: "What's Anti-Semitic about it? (none of my Anthrax Gang is Jewish, as if that matters!)."
It smells anti-Semitic: (1) You say (without proof) that the writing has a Hebrew element to it. (2) You demonstrate that you know a hell of a lot about Jews. (3) You argue that anyone who isn't Jewish (or doesn't know Hebrew) MUST be innocent.
R. Rowley also wrote: "You want to talk about highly interpretive subject matter, yet, when someone talks with you about that, you claim that the other person is only giving opinion! Well, Duh! Opinions are interpretations. And interpretations are opinions."
Yes, interpretations ARE opinions. But where are the FACTS?
Interpretations (a.k.a. "opinions") are SUPPOSED to be interpretations of the FACTS. You present no facts, just opinions which you call interpretations. When no facts are presented, interpretations and opinions become merely BELIEFS.
An intelligent discussion is your interpretation of the facts versus my interpretation of the facts, and then a review of the facts to see which interpretation is better. All the facts say Ivins was the anthrax mailer. You have presented NO facts which show otherwise.
For example, R. Rowley wrote: "Why is it "preposterous"? Putting "Preposterous" or "Nonsense" or "total nonsense" in capital letters and/or bold face type doesn't constitute a refutation, it constitutes attitudinizing."
It's preposterous because it argues that there is some evidence or facts which indicate that the writer MUST know Hebrew. You've presented NO SUCH EVIDENCE. All you've done is make CLAIMS based upon your beliefs.
R. Rowley also wrote: "When you've learned the basics of the Hebrew alphabet, you MAY be able to discuss that subject coherently. But I sense your mind is closed."
It's up to you to explain your theory. If you cannot explain your theory, then you have no argument.
Think of me as the jury you are trying to convince. Do prosecutors or defense lawyers ask the jury to read up on the Hebrew alphabet to come to come opinion? No. It's just some kind of screwball idea that you know "the truth," and if I study the Hebrew alphabet I'll somehow also see "the truth."
To me, studying the Hebrew alphabet cannot be worthwhile because you have given me no valid reason to study the Hebrew alphabet.
The debate is not about the Hebrew alphabet, it's about who sent the anthrax letters.
Ed
To me, studying the Hebrew alphabet cannot be worthwhile because you have given me no valid reason to study the Hebrew alphabet.
ReplyDelete-----------------------------------------------------------
Oh, so now it's MY FAULT that you don't want to bother? Since you didn't want to bother rereading the prior threads dealing with the Hebrew elements, even though I posted the (non-hyper) links, I see a pattern here: Mister Lake is content with his own misunderstandings.
-----------------------------------------------
The debate is not about the Hebrew alphabet, it's about who sent the anthrax letters.
====================================================
The former will lead you away from "false positives": Hatfill and Ivins were false positives. The Hebrew elements can't tell you who DID write the Amerithrax texts, merely who almost certainly did not.
R. Rowley also wrote: "When you've learned the basics of the Hebrew alphabet, you MAY be able to discuss that subject coherently. But I sense your mind is closed."
ReplyDeleteIt's up to you to explain your theory. If you cannot explain your theory, then you have no argument.
====================================================
What do you think I just did by reposting all that material from threads of January to February of 2012?!?!?!?
(You know, the posts I gave the links to at the top of this thread, you refused to read, and that I then copy and pasted this PM!)
What is it you don't understand about the hypothesis/theory?
If you don't ask, I can't tell you.
R. Rowley wrote: "Oh, so now it's MY FAULT that you don't want to bother?"
ReplyDeleteIt's your "fault" that you have NO EVIDENCE. Instead, want me to read a lot of material and figure out why you believe what you believe.
"Anonymous" uses the same tactic. He wants me to read a lot of irrelevant material about Islamist militants with the idea that if I read what he reads, I'll come to the same conclusions that he came to --- regardless of what the facts say. That's what you are saying, too.
It's just a True Believer's GAME. If I read the material and don't come to the same conclusion, you'll just say I'm closed minded. Meanwhile, I'll have wasted a lot of time by playing your ridiculous GAME.
Why don't you try persuading "Anonymous" to read all your material and he can try to persuade you to read all of his material. Then you can call each other "closed minded" when you find no minds have been changed.
People occasionally leave literature under my door for me to read with the hope that I'll convert to their religion. I don't read that literature, either. I've got better things to do.
It was FACTS which convinced me that Bruce Ivins was the anthrax mailer. The FBI presented us with BETTER FACTS than I had before when I thought someone in New Jersey was the anthrax mailer. BETTER FACTS CAUSED ME TO CHANGE MY MIND.
The only thing that is going to cause me to change my mind that Ivins was the anthrax mailer is BETTER FACTS than the FBI provided.
You do NOT HAVE BETTER FACTS. You do not seem to have any meaningful facts at all. You just have a belief that you are right and "the government" is wrong.
R. Rowley also wrote: "The Hebrew elements can't tell you who DID write the Amerithrax texts, merely who almost certainly did not."
PROVE IT WITH EVIDENCE! Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. On it's face, your CLAIM is asinine, preposterous, absurd and ridiculous.
Present your evidence to the jury (me and the readers of this blog) to evaluate.
R. Rowley also wrote: "What is it you don't understand about the hypothesis/theory?"
I don't understand how you can believe such obvious nonsense while ignoring solid evidence that Ivins was the anthrax mailer.
How does your belief that there's a Hebrew aspect to the writing totally disprove the mountain of EVIDENCE that Bruce Ivins was the anthrax mailer?
FACT: Ivins had the means to make the powders.
FACT: Ivins had the motive to send the letters.
FACT: Ivins had the opportunity to send the letters.
BELIEF: "anyone who DOESN'T know the Hebrew alphabet to a considerable degree, can be eliminated as a PRINTING suspect"
Ed
Just so we don't get into another idiotic argument over the meaning of words:
DeleteYes, I know that "fact" is not the same as "evidence."
Here's a quote from the comment I'm writing for my web site for tomorrow:
"A fact is verifiable. We can determine whether it is true by researching the evidence. This may involve numbers, dates, testimony, etc. ... The truth of the fact is beyond argument if one can assume that measuring devices or records or memories are correct. Facts provide crucial support for the assertion of an argument. However, facts by themselves are worthless unless we put them in context, draw conclusions, and, thus, give them meaning."
Here's a definition of evidence:
evidence [ˈɛvɪdəns] n
1. ground for belief or disbelief; data on which to base proof or to establish truth or falsehood
2. a mark or sign that makes evident; indication his pallor was evidence of ill health
3. (Law) Law matter produced before a court of law in an attempt to prove or disprove a point in issue, such as the statements of witnesses, documents, material objects, etc.
What I'm looking for is EVIDENCE to prove a claim. The evidence may be in the form of FACTS or images or testimony from experts and/or eyewitnesses.
The FBI and DOJ provided a mountain of evidence proving that Bruce Ivins was the anthrax mailer. Attempts to discredit that evidence doesn't create a better case for someone else. The only thing that will create a better case for someone else is BETTER EVIDENCE.
Ed
NUTS! I can see that I gave Mr. Rowley a way to create another idiotic argument over words and terms. I wrote: "What I'm looking for is EVIDENCE to prove a claim. The evidence may be in the form of FACTS or images or testimony from experts and/or eyewitnesses."
DeleteMr. Rowley would probably reply that the "evidence" is in the materials he wants me to read. All I have to do is FIND IT.
So, I probably should have said:
What I'm looking for is a PRESENTATION of evidence in support of Mr. Rowley's belief that there's a Hebrew aspect to the writing on the anthrax letters (maybe something like my presentation HERE that the evidence says that Mohamed Atta did NOT write the anthrax letters).
I'm also looking for some EXPLANATION of how such evidence could possibly be BETTER EVIDENCE than the all evidence against Bruce Ivins combined.
There's probably words in those comments that Mr. Rowley can argue about, too. But, to hell with it.
Ed
Up the thread:
Delete----------------
It's just a True Believer's GAME. If I read the material and don't come to the same conclusion, you'll just say I'm closed minded. Meanwhile, I'll have wasted a lot of time by playing your ridiculous GAME.
===============================================
The one playing a "game" here is you:
1)You claim early in the thread to be curious about my Hebrew sub-hypothesis.
2)Since this was covered extensively in January-February of last year at this very venue, I did searches, found (some of) the threads, and left (non-hyper) links.
3)Over the course of a few hours yesterday, it was clear that you had no intention of re-reading those threads,
so I copy-and-pasted AT LEAST 4-6 posts from those threads to give an overall picture of the sub-hypothesis.
4)Gratitude on the part of Mister Lake? Au contraire! He was sore that I had left so many posts when he returned from his health club!
5)But he still claimed (repeatedly!) that there was something he didn't understand about the sub-hypothesis.
6)But when asked WHAT he didn't understand about the sub-hypothesis, he was unable to articulate anything, and started going on about Bruce Ivins (who was not the subject of the thread), and accused ME of going "off topic".
The only thing that Mister Lake seems to have 'learned' from this thread is that the Hebrew sub-hypothesis "smells" anti-Semitic, a conclusion he seems to have manufactured out of thin air.
R. Rowley wrote: "But when asked WHAT he didn't understand about the sub-hypothesis, he was unable to articulate anything"
DeleteOkay, let me articulate: YOUR SUB-HYPOTHESIS APPEARS RIDICULOUS.
What I'm looking for is a PRESENTATION of evidence in support of Mr. Rowley's belief that there's a Hebrew aspect to the writing on the anthrax letters (maybe something like my presentation HERE that the evidence says that Mohamed Atta did NOT write the anthrax letters).
I'm also looking for some EXPLANATION of how such evidence could possibly be BETTER EVIDENCE than the all evidence against Bruce Ivins combined.
To be clear: I have NO INTEREST WHATSOEVER in your theory - other than as a challenge to the mountain of evidence against Bruce Ivins.
Ed
R. Rowley wrote: "But when asked WHAT he didn't understand about the sub-hypothesis, he was unable to articulate anything"
DeleteOkay, let me articulate: YOUR SUB-HYPOTHESIS APPEARS RIDICULOUS.
=====================================================
Let's see: a hypothesis about Hebrew elements interpolated into an English language text "appears ridiculous" to someone who 1) has no Hebrew and 2) is defiantly proud of knowing no Hebrew.
Do you know what that sounds like?
'I don't know nothin' about no quantum physics, but quantum physics appears ridiculous'.
'I don't know nothin' about no chaos theory, but chaos theory appears ridiculous'.
'I don't know nothin' about no "red shift" and the age/size of the universe but the "red shift" appears ridiculous.'
-----------------------------------------------
Forensic linguistics is quite a bit easier than quantum mechanics, chaos theory, and even the 'red shift' but those who are openly dismissive of it are unlikely to learn even the ABCs of it.
(And by the way, your anti-intellectual attitude exhibited here is going to drive off at least some potential blog participants, as will your new and quite arbitrary 'rules', especially if they become known)
R. Rowley wrote: "And by the way, your anti-intellectual attitude exhibited here is going to drive off at least some potential blog participants"
DeleteVery funny. I'm talking logic and the scientific method, and you just talk beliefs. And I'M the one who is "anti-intellectual"? Hilarious.
One blogger (a former SCIENCE TEACHER) argued with me on a forum (also HERE) that van der Waals forces bind spores together and only tiny particles of silicon could allow them to aerosolize. I did my research and wrote a web page HERE explaining the effects of "Van Der Waals Forces & Static Electricity: How They Affect Bacillus Spores." The blogger had no counter argument. He just refused to believe it. Science teachers use my explanation in classes.
Some of Bruce Ivins' co-workers argued that Ivins could not have made the anthrax powders. I did my research and created a web page HERE that showed that Ivins not only COULD have made the powders, but I also explained exactly how Ivins most likely did it.
Of course, "Anonymous" was arguing that Mohamed Atta's handwriting matched the handwriting on the anthrax documents. So, I did my research and produced a web page HERE that clearly shows that Mohamed Atta's handwriting does NOT match the handwriting on the anthrax documents.
I also have web pages that explain (1) when and where Ivins made the powders, (2) the details of the coded message Ivins put into the media letters, (3) the evidence that it was the MEDIA - not the FBI - who made Steven Hatfill a "person of interest, and others.
I'm totally willing to show you where you are mistaken in believing that there is a Hebrew aspect to the handwriting, but before I can do that I need to see YOUR EVIDENCE. You have provided NO EVIDENCE. You just provide CLAIMS WITHOUT EVIDENCE.
A claim without evidence is NOT the "intellectual" way of doing things. It's not the "anti-intellectual" way, either. It's just jabber-jabber, i.e., stating an opinion without explaining the basis for that opinion.
Ed
R. Rowley wrote: "And by the way, your anti-intellectual attitude exhibited here is going to drive off at least some potential blog participants"
DeleteVery funny. I'm talking logic and the scientific method, and you just talk beliefs. And I'M the one who is "anti-intellectual"? Hilarious.
================================================
Oh, yeah, saying a hypothesis that a Gentile used Hebrew features to falsely incriminate Israelis in Amerithrax "smells" anti-Semitic is SO 'logical' and so follows the 'scientific method' (the scientific method is all about "smelling" things). Saying you don't know any Hebrew, don't want to know any Hebrew, but know that there are no Hebrew interpolations in the Brokaw text is also 'following the scientific method'. Do you think any 3rd party reading this thread is going to agree with that?
(Hint: if so, you need to reread the thread from top to bottom. Slowly.).
R. Rowley wrote: "Oh, so now it's MY FAULT that you don't want to bother?"
ReplyDeleteIt's your "fault" that you have NO EVIDENCE. Instead, want me to read a lot of material and figure out why you believe what you believe
=========================================================
If you don't want to "read a lot of material" (!!!!) (At least half the posts here are yours!) then what the heck are you doing on an Internet blog, asking me what my Hebrew subhypothesis is? What did you expect, that I was going to send you info via mental telepathy!??!? Makes no sense whatsoever!
And notice this bit from Mister Lake:
------------
This is just another idiotic argument over definitions of words, instead of sticking to the subject: The FACTS say Ivins was the anthrax mailer, and there are no convincing FACTS which say otherwise.
========================================================
That's interesting, as the "subject" on blogs and message boards is generally what the person who writes the O.P. (original post) of the thread has selected, and I selected a two-sentence paragraph from your 'Comment' ("Facts vs Interpretations")and that paragraph (those two sentences) had nothing whatsoever to do with Bruce Ivins. I mentioned Ivins in passing at the very bottom of my second post, but merely to note that he was one of the 99+% of the US population that didn't qualify across the (3-pointed) range requirements to have done Amerithrax, since he had no Hebrew.
It is you who insists on dragging Ivins' name through this thread, though it is as off-topic as off-topic can be: the subject of the thread again is: spelling errors (and related minutiae) and what they can tell us about the author of a text, specifically Amerithrax proper texts and those arguably related (Quantico letter et alia). Said another way, the subject of this thread is forensic linguistics: that's why I brought in David Kaczynski and his wife: another example of solving the puzzle aspect of a crime through linguistic analysis.
---------------------------------------
Back to Mister Lake:
--------------
What you are doing is ARGUING WITHOUT EVIDENCE.
--------------------------------
In forensic linguistics (and handwriting analysis, for that matter) the text (and its analysis) is the evidence. In both talking about spelling errors (forensic linguistics) and the Hebrew elements (and one Arabic element) I have done nothing BUT talk about the evidence.
----------------------------------------
Another gem by Mister Lake:
-------------
(3) You argue that anyone who isn't Jewish (or doesn't know Hebrew) MUST be innocent.
===================================
Then just quote me to that effect. But you can't because I NEVER wrote anything remotely like that: not here, and not at any other venue. Because I have no such belief/attitude. That's you jumping to (unwarranted) conclusions and then blaming me.
R. Rowley wrote: "If you don't want to "read a lot of material" (!!!!) (At least half the posts here are yours!) then what the heck are you doing on an Internet blog, asking me what my Hebrew subhypothesis is?"
ReplyDeleteThe answer is in the question. I'm asking you to explain your "Hebrew subhypothesis." But, you won't EXPLAIN it. You just ask me to read OUTSIDE material which doesn't appear to EXPLAIN anything.
Mr. Rowley also wrote: "It is you who insists on dragging Ivins' name through this thread, though it is as off-topic as off-topic can be: the subject of the thread again is: spelling errors (and related minutiae)"
So, now we're going to argue over the subject of this thread?
The subject is: "FACTS vs INTERPRETATIONS." But the purpose of this BLOG is to debate the anthrax attacks of 2001 and the comments I make on my web site. And, the reason I created this blog is to debate EVIDENCE against Bruce Ivins versus EVIDENCE against other possible suspects. I wanted to separate FACTS from OPINIONS AND BELIEFS.
I have no interest in discussing handwriting if it does not either support or refute the DOJ's case against Bruce Ivins.
You argue that your handwriting evidence disputes the case against Bruce Ivins: "anyone who DOESN'T know the Hebrew alphabet to a considerable degree, can be eliminated as a PRINTING suspect"
Yes, I know there's a difference between a "printing suspect" and a "murder suspect," but if Ivins were a "printing suspect" he would also be a "murder suspect." And, if Ivins used a child, you are saying the child MUST know Hebrew.
I'm interested in knowing HOW the fact that Ivins (presumably) didn't know Hebrew can eliminate him as a suspect.
R. Rowley also wrote in response to this comment from me:
You argue that anyone who isn't Jewish (or doesn't know Hebrew) MUST be innocent.
===================================
Then just quote me to that effect.
Here is a quote to that effect: "anyone who DOESN'T know the Hebrew alphabet to a considerable degree, can be eliminated as a PRINTING suspect"
And:
"I would have to say that the pool of suspects ... includes:
...
2)someone who knows enough of the Hebrew alphabet to incorporate elements of same into his printing of Amerithrax, enough of Cyrillic to incorporate elements of that into the St Pete hoax letters."
and
"But to do what he(the printer) did, would require good-to-excellent knowledge of Hebrew as a SECOND language.
As I noted, this is (potentially) a great discriminator as only 1 to 3% of AMERICANS likely would know Hebrew/its alphabet well enough to even attempt such a thing.
Bruce Ivins left no indication that he knew Hebrew in the slightest."
Ergo, because Ivins didn't know Hebrew, he must be innocent.
Ed
R. Rowley wrote: "If you don't want to "read a lot of material" (!!!!) (At least half the posts here are yours!) then what the heck are you doing on an Internet blog, asking me what my Hebrew subhypothesis is?"
DeleteThe answer is in the question. I'm asking you to explain your "Hebrew subhypothesis." But, you won't EXPLAIN it. You just ask me to read OUTSIDE material which doesn't appear to EXPLAIN anything.
===============================================
What "outside material"?!?!?!?
It's what I wrote AT THIS VERY VENUE 1 1/2 years ago, in conversation with you. If you had a question about it, you should have:
1)asked then.
(and/or)
2)reread the posts when I linked them upthread.
(and/or)
3)reread the posts when I copy and pasted them upthread without grousing about being forced to read. Reading comes with blog or message board participation whether the material was written 20 seconds ago or 20 months ago. Is this news to you?!?
R. Rowley wrote: "What "outside material"?!?!?!?
DeleteIt's what I wrote AT THIS VERY VENUE 1 1/2 years ago"
Outside material is material outside of this thread and material at the links you provided.
Looking back at the pages you cited I found I said the same things back then. You were NOT providing evidence, only claims.
I'm not "grousing about being forced to read." I'm grousing about being forced to figure out what your talking about and where to find it. Providing the year you wrote something isn't sufficient to find something, and even providing a link and saying it's somewhere in the 140 message thread is a pain in the ass.
Links to a specific comment are under the time stamp on a message. Here's the link to your message (to which I am now responding): http://anthraxdebate.blogspot.com/2013/05/subject-facts-vs-interpretations.html?showComment=1370284614635#c3120623045102683891
If you want to have an intelligent conversation, you should make things as easy as possible for the other person instead of making them hunt for things. You're not that good a debater to make me want to search threads to figure out what the hell you're referring to.
Ed
P.S. It's my blog, so I'll grouse about whatever I want to grouse about.
R. Rowley wrote: "What "outside material"?!?!?!?
DeleteIt's what I wrote AT THIS VERY VENUE 1 1/2 years ago"
Outside material is material outside of this thread and material at the links you provided.
-----------------------------------------------
1)I provided links early in the thread. But mere users can't hypertext those links.
2)I then REPOSTED them in this thread, with notification where they came from.
R. Rowley wrote: "I provided links early in the thread. But mere users can't hypertext those links."
DeleteI don't think that's true, but maybe I don't understand what you are saying. "Mere users can't hypertext those links?" I provided hypertext links on Dr. Meryl Nass's blog, and she uses the same software I use here.
But, I think this argument has gone too far off track. It's difficult to figure out what the argument is about. We really need to find some way to argue one subject in one place.
Ed
Here's a link to where you can learn how to "hypertext" links and also how to write in BOLD and italics:
Deletehttp://www.web-source.net/html_codes_chart.htm#.UbIKmNgQNkA
Google doesn't allow all the different codes. The only ones I use are bold, italics and hotlinks.
If you want to test it, copy the sentence below to a new post and then remove the five spaces between the < and > symbols.
The word bold should show in < b >BOLD< / b > letters.
Ed
Bruce Ivins left no indication that he knew Hebrew in the slightest."
ReplyDeleteErgo, because Ivins didn't know Hebrew, he must be innocent.
===================================
Only if you take the government's case against him AS IS.* And what is that case? "Bruce Ivins, acting alone, [committed all the crimes of Amerithrax]".
But if he had an accomplice write the texts and the accomplice knew Hebrew, then Ivins could STILL be guilty (if we just narrowly focus on the Hebrew elements).
*I take the government's case against Ivins AS IS, for a number of reasons, too numerous to mention here. But some persons, including I think Senator Leahy, have expressed the idea that while Ivins may have been INVOLVED, he wasn't the sole perpetrator. So for a person in Senator Leahy's frame of mind, if he were to accept the Hebrew sub-hypothesis, this would not rule out a Hebrew-knowledgeable accomplice doing the printing PLUS Ivins' guilt for other aspects of the venture (the powder-drying, purifying etc.)
You're playing idiotic word games again.
DeleteIf you think Ivins had an accomplice - PROVE IT by showing us your evidence and explaining the evidence.
Senator Leahy's OPINIONS are irrelevant. Theories based solely upon his opinions being valid are worthless in any debate on this blog.
The FBI's facts say Ivins acted alone. He may have "used" unwitting postal employees to transport his letters to their destinations, but that doesn't mean he didn't act alone. Neither does my hypothesis that he tricked an unwitting child into doing the actual writing.
Ed
You're playing idiotic word games again.
DeleteIf you think Ivins had an accomplice - PROVE IT by showing us your evidence and explaining the evidence.
====================================
Your reading comprehension has failed you, and not for the first time here. In my prior post I was just talking about the LOGIC of saying:
Ivins without Hebrew=an innocent Ivins.
The equation only holds if the ASSUMPTION is that Ivins acted alone. That is the government's assumption, not mine.
It makes no sense whatsoever for you to tax me with "proving" a matter of elementary logic, especially since I have been talking on the Internet about Amerithrax since late 2008, and in all that time I have consistently held that Ivis had no part whatsoever in Amerithax, with or without accomplices.
But just because I hold Ivins 100% innocent doesn't mean that I can't understand, and faithfully report what other persons, like Senator Leahy, think. They are not mutually exclusive.
R. Rowley wrote: "I have been talking on the Internet about Amerithrax since late 2008, and in all that time I have consistently held that Ivis had no part whatsoever in Amerithax, with or without accomplices."
DeleteI fully understand that. But who cares about your baseless beliefs? The only reason I would care is if you claimed to have BETTER EVIDENCE that someone else did it. Then, I'd want to see the evidence.
Otherwise, what is your purpose here - other than to be argumentative and waste time?
Ed
R. Rowley wrote: "I have been talking on the Internet about Amerithrax since late 2008, and in all that time I have consistently held that Ivis had no part whatsoever in Amerithax, with or without accomplices."
DeleteI fully understand that. But who cares about your baseless beliefs
=====================================================
Well, if you fully understood that, then why did you write this sentence:
"If you think Ivins had an accomplice - PROVE IT by showing us your evidence and explaining the evidence."
---------------------------------
The sentence makes no sense if you FULLY understand that I hold Ivins 100% innocent.
To be clear:
ReplyDeleteThe purpose of this blog is to debate the anthrax attacks of 2001.
The FBI and DOJ concluded that Dr. Bruce Ivins was the anthrax killer.
The only true basis for discussion on this blog is, therefore, to dispute or confirm that Bruce Ivins was the anthrax mailer.
Theories that there's a Hebrew element in the anthrax handwriting have no place here unless it is being used as EVIDENCE that Ivins was either guilty or innocent.
If someone want to start a discussion about some other subject, they need to ask permission first.
My blog, my rules.
Ed
From the Feb 12- 18, 2012 discussions HERE:
ReplyDeleteR. Rowley wrote:
the writer (printer)(but not necessarily the mailer) is a native English speaker.
A CLAIM, not evidence.
he employs at least two red herrings in the writings: a)Islamist slogans ('Death to [yadda yadda yadda]' and 'Allah is great') b)the incorporation of Hebrew writing features into the forms of many letters, this IN ORDER TO FALSELY SUGGEST that the printer is Israeli.
A CLAIM, not evidence.
No true Israeli would likely make such a full range of interpolations accidently.
A CLAIM, not evidence.
to even POSSIBLY see elements from another alphabet (Cyrillic, Arabic, Hebrew, whatever)in such a text one needs to have some MINIMUM knowledge of that alphabet. This eliminates at the get-go, in the case of Hebrew, 97% of the US population
A CLAIM, not evidence.
1)the Greendale School is a deception.
A CLAIM, not evidence.
2) Franklin Park is a deception.
A CLAIM, not evidence.
3) the return zip code is a deception. (The zip code exists but it has nothing to do with the invented school or the invented Franklin Park or the perp himself)
A CLAIM, not evidence.
That's the general pattern. Just CLAIMS, no evidence. Plus, you CLAIM that you explained things to me via emails in 2006-2007. That's just another CLAIM if I cannot find the emails.
Ed
From the Feb 12- 18, 2012 discussions HERE:
DeleteR. Rowley wrote:
the writer (printer)(but not necessarily the mailer) is a native English speaker.
A CLAIM, not evidence.
===============================================
It's a conclusion I reached in late 2005.
And it's a conclusion Mister Lake agrees 100% with:
Bruce Ivins was a native English speaker. And all the major suspects of the Task Force were native English speakers:
Hatfill, Ivins (and that poor guy in between whose name I can never remember).
Mister Lake is only quibbling with my methodology, which we established last week he doesn't understand, doesn't WANT (!!) to understand.
-----------------------------------------
he employs at least two red herrings in the writings: a)Islamist slogans ('Death to [yadda yadda yadda]' and 'Allah is great') b)the incorporation of Hebrew writing features into the forms of many letters, this IN ORDER TO FALSELY SUGGEST that the printer is Israeli.
A CLAIM, not evidence.
----------------------------------------------
IF you don't think that DEATH TO ISRAEL and DEATH TO AMERICA, and ALLAH IS GREAT is a red herring, then you are saying MUSLIMS committed Amerithax.
That means: Bruce Ivins was innocent, and Anonymous is correct. (This is Mister Lake: rushing in, without realizing the logical consequences)
In addition on this point:
See this document by Richard Smith:
How a Zip code was designed to misdirect investigators
(Misdirection=red herring)
http://www.computerbytesman.com/anthrax/retaddr2.htm
Mister Smith reached the same conclusion as I did on the slogans and did it 4 or 5 years earlier.
As to the printing as red herring, we established last week that Hebrew isn't Mister Lake's.....forte.
----------------------------------------------
===============================================
to even POSSIBLY see elements from another alphabet (Cyrillic, Arabic, Hebrew, whatever)in such a text one needs to have some MINIMUM knowledge of that alphabet. This eliminates at the get-go, in the case of Hebrew, 97% of the US population
A CLAIM, not evidence.
===============================================
I did the math. If I'm mistaken, it's likely in the reverse direction: instead of 3% of the US population knowing Hebrew, it might be as low as 2% or even lower. I was being conservative in evaluating how rare knowledge of that alphabet is in the US. In big cities with large Jewish populations it will be higher, but that is offset by non-Jewish areas.
===============================================
1)the Greendale School is a deception.
A CLAIM, not evidence.
================================================
Giving a false name is a deception. The Task Force thinks it's a false name. Have you developed some new Lakeian
Greendale School hypothesis (was it where Ivins' grandpa went to school in the 19th Century? Do tell! (but even THAT would still be a "deception" as the school no longer exists at the location given))
------------------------------------------------
1)the Greendale School is a deception.
DeleteA CLAIM, not evidence.
-----------------------------------------------
Was/were the letter(s)from a real school named Greendale School in Franklin Park with that zip code?
No, therefore all that was misinformation, a way (perhaps) to get someone to open it quickly, less cautiously than it there were no return address.
From Richard Smith:
"Presumably the sender put the return address of an elementary school on the letters to make it more likely that the letters would be opened."
http://www.computerbytesman.com/anthrax/retaddr.htm
-----
The sender was trying to get the recipient to open it under false pretenses. Ergo it's a deception.
-------------------------------------------
That's the general pattern
----------------------------------------
Yes, that's the general pattern: Mister Lake: totally oblivious to where my interpretations and the government's coincide. Also oblivious to those coinciding with what he
HIMSELF truly believes: that the printer was an English speaker, that the Greendale School of Franklin Park 08852
of the return address does not exist at that address.
to even POSSIBLY see elements from another alphabet (Cyrillic, Arabic, Hebrew, whatever)in such a text one needs to have some MINIMUM knowledge of that alphabet. This eliminates at the get-go, in the case of Hebrew, 97% of the US population
DeleteA CLAIM, not evidence.
======================================
No, it's a tautology. But prove me wrong: show me via your own "analysis" interpolations into English words/letters from some writing system that you DON'T know. You'd have better luck flying under your own power.
R. Rowley wrote: "No, it's a tautology. But prove me wrong: show me via your own "analysis" interpolations into English words/letters from some writing system that you DON'T know."
DeleteSorry, but you are just talking gibberish.
tau·tol·o·gy /tôˈtäləjē/ Noun
The saying of the same thing twice in different words, generally considered to be a fault of style (e.g., they arrived one after the...
A phrase or expression in which the same thing is said twice in different words.
You've never explained the Hebrew elements in anthrax letters. You just say the same things over and over as if it were an explanation. Tautology is "a fault in style," not a scientific technique.
In order to make your point, you're going to have to stop saying the same thing over and over and start USING ILLUSTRATIONS. Just saying there's a Hebrew element in the writing has NO MEANING. You need to show - character by character - how the Hebrew element appears.
I see no "Hebrew elements" in the anthrax letters, and, as far as I know, neither does anyone else. It looks like normal American block letter writing to me. As far as I'm concerned, any claim that there is a "Hebrew element" in the writing is just an unproven claim with no basis in reality - UNTIL PROVED OTHERWISE.
I can't show you via my own analysis something if I don't even know what you are talking about.
I once knew how to write Japanese (which uses 3 alphabets - 2 Japanese alphabets plus Chinese characters). But there was no detectible English in the Japanese characters I drew when writing of Japanese, as far as I know. And, I saw no detectible Japanese characters in the letters in English I received from people in Japan. That doesn't even make sense.
I can see Japanese phrasing when a Japanese person writes in English, but I don't see anything Japanese in their actual style of drawing English letters of the alphabet.
Your claim simply makes no sense.
Ed
R. Rowley wrote: "Mister Lake is only quibbling with my methodology, which we established last week he doesn't understand, doesn't WANT (!!) to understand."
ReplyDeleteNo, I'm saying your "methodology" is nonsense. It's not a "methodology," it's grabbing at straws to satisfy your beliefs.
R. Rowley wrote: "the incorporation of Hebrew writing features into the forms of many letters, this IN ORDER TO FALSELY SUGGEST that the printer is Israeli."
To which I responded: "A CLAIM, not evidence."
To which R. Rowley inexplicably argues: IF you don't think that DEATH TO ISRAEL and DEATH TO AMERICA, and ALLAH IS GREAT is a red herring, then you are saying MUSLIMS committed Amerithax.
That means: Bruce Ivins was innocent, and Anonymous is correct."
I comment on your CLAIM that the imagined "Hebrew writing" in the letters was done "IN ORDER TO FALSELY SUGGEST that the printer is Israeli." And you inexplicably twist this to mean something else about something else: that I'm saying the Islamic phrases are are NOT a red herring to suggest the letters were sent by Islamic militants. If you don't know what you are talking about, how do you expect anyone else to figure it out?
R. Rowley wrote: "1)the Greendale School is a deception."
And I responded: "A CLAIM, not evidence."
Then Mr. Rowley goes off into left field again about whether there is a Greendale school at that ZIP.
The issue is that "the Greendale school is a deception" is a CLAIM NOT EVIDENCE. The point is: It's not EVIDENCE of anything just because you CLAIM it's a deception."
I agree it's a "deception," since there is no Greendale School in Franklin Park. But that is NOT EVIDENCE OF ANYTHING. It's just a MEANINGLESS FACT. In the FBI's case against Bruce Ivins, it IS evidence because a connection can be made between Ivins and a Greendale School in Wisconsin.
If you're arguing that there's a pattern of deceptions, that is absurd. We're talking about real and hoax letters that are ALL DECEPTIONS in one form or another. But that doesn't mean that every hoax letter that was ever mailed all came from the same people.
I'm not oblivious of your interpretations. I'm rolling on the floor laughing about their absurdities. They have nothing to do with evidence that can be used to convict someone in court or even convince the average person.
Ed
R. Rowley wrote: "the incorporation of Hebrew writing features into the forms of many letters, this IN ORDER TO FALSELY SUGGEST that the printer is Israeli."
ReplyDeleteTo which I responded: "A CLAIM, not evidence."
To which R. Rowley inexplicably argues: IF you don't think that DEATH TO ISRAEL and DEATH TO AMERICA, and ALLAH IS GREAT is a red herring, then you are saying MUSLIMS committed Amerithax.
That means: Bruce Ivins was innocent, and Anonymous is correct."
I comment on your CLAIM that the imagined "Hebrew writing" in the letters was done "IN ORDER TO FALSELY SUGGEST that the printer is Israeli." And you inexplicably twist this to mean[...]
==================================================
Once again, you misreport what transpired upthread (why? Do you think I 'forgot'? Do you think that third parties can't check what I wrote?!?!?)
=====================================================
The whole bit (this is copy and paste from MISTER LAKE'S post of
June 1, 2013 at 12:58 PM): (but just 1 sentence by me, the 1st one)(partial of entire post):
-----------------------
he employs at least two red herrings in the writings: a)Islamist slogans ('Death to [yadda yadda yadda]' and 'Allah is great') b)the incorporation of Hebrew writing features into the forms of many letters, this IN ORDER TO FALSELY SUGGEST that the printer is Israeli.
A CLAIM, not evidence.
-------------------------------------------------
So,
1) I write a sentence that says there are (at least) two red herrings
2) Mister Lake says "prove it"
3) but we already established that Mister Lake has no Hebrew, cares not to learn the alphabet, has contempt for forensic linguistics (see his comments over the years about Don Foster), doesn't understand the Hebrew hypothesis etc.
4)so I take the easy route and just focus on the FIRST of those two red herrings: the Muslim slogans.
In the post above, Mister Lake truncates my sentence, so that the
reader, if he has not read upthread, thinks the quoted part:
--------------
"the incorporation of Hebrew writing features into the forms of many letters, this IN ORDER TO FALSELY SUGGEST that the printer is Israeli."
--------------------
represents the gist of the sentence. That is simply not true and is a misrepresentation of our exchange upthread. THAT (the sentence truncation and the confusion it gives the reader) is the only reason my response is "inexplicable". It's called (among other things)"taking things out of context". Apparently Mister Lake has some experience in it.
===========================================================
Mister Lake:
I'm not oblivious of your interpretations. I'm rolling on the floor laughing about their absurdities[...]
=============================================
Perhaps you could get off the floor long enough to answer my previous question: (from my previous post)
-----------------------
Well, if you fully understood that, then why did you write this sentence:
"If you think Ivins had an accomplice - PROVE IT by showing us your evidence and explaining the evidence."
=====================================
LOGICALLY that sentence especially the relative clause it starts off with---- "If you think Ivins had an accomplice..."--- is 100% incompatible with you knowing that I think Ivins is entirely innocent.
No, better yet: stay on the floor.
Mr. Rowley, you're just being argumentative. You're wasting your time and mine.
DeleteIf you have evidence that there's a Hebrew element in the writing on the anthrax letters, POST IT. Don't waste time arguing that I don't do things they way you do things.
So far, you've made a total fool of yourself.
You argue that because there are spelling errors in various letters, they must be from the same person or group. That is a ridiculous claim. I showed you SOLID EVIDENCE that the spelling of "PENACILIN" by Dr. Ivins was deliberate and part of a code. And I showed you PROOF that spelling "Isreal" is a VERY common mistake. Furthermore, the various hoax letters were sent in different years from different places and the writing was different, so the very idea that they were from the same people seems preposterous.
You also argued that because hoax letters are deliberate deceptions (and because the anthrax letters are a "deception" that they were sent by al Qaeda) they must all come from the same person (or group) - unless proved otherwise. That is a totally ridiculous claim. Your attempts at proof are even more ridiculous, since they are nothing but more ridiculous claims.
Yes, I know I'm not quoting your exactly. But, you just run on and on and on. So, I summarize your claims.
I asked for evidence to support your CLAIM that there's a Hebrew element in the anthrax letters, and all you do is change the subject to argue about spelling errors and deceptions.
Please explain your evidence which proves that someone other than Bruce Ivins sent the anthrax letters, and stop wasting everyone's time with side-issues and arguments over wording and phrasing.
Ed
Yes, I know I'm not quoting your exactly. But, you just run on and on and on. So, I summarize your claims.
Delete=============================================
No, you butcher them. And repeatedly so.
Mr. Rowley,
DeleteThe proper thing for you to do would be to be more concise and precise. We could probably come to an understanding if you weren't arguing fifteen different things at once, repeating old arguments, and going off into tedious arguments about the meanings of words at every opportunity.
Ed
Mr. Rowley,
ReplyDeleteThe proper thing for you to do would be to be more concise and precise. We could probably come to an understanding if you weren't arguing fifteen different things at once, repeating old arguments, and going off into tedious arguments about the meanings of words at every opportunity.
============================================================
I'm pretty darned concise. What HAPPENS is:
1)I write a sentence that's compound and/or complex, in order to avoid writing 2 to 5 sentences of the simple-but-repetitive sort.
Said another way, to AVOID being wordy.
2)you, instead of recognizing the obvious fact that the constituent elements of such sentences are interrelational, try to score cheap 'debating points' by taking phrases or clauses out of context, since it is the context IN THE SENTENCE that gives them so much of their meaning.
3)I'm left with a dilemma: either let it slide (which will produce more of same 'sense-ectomies' done on my sentences by Mister Lake)
OR note how you have distorted the meaning of the sentence as a whole.
4)If I do the latter, I'm accused of 'semantics' or 'playing word games'.
R. Rowley wrote: "I'm pretty darned concise."
ReplyDeleteAnd you really believe that? To me, you don't seem to be able to say anything without using 50 words where just 4 or 5 would do.
And, even worse, here we are in another MORONIC OFF-TOPIC debate about words and phrasing.
Ed
And an exemplar of how it would go, if Mister Lake were "debating"
ReplyDeleteAbraham Lincoln......
-------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Lincoln posted
---
Four score and seven years ago
----------------------------
A claim, not evidence. Prove it!
--------------------------------
our fathers brought forth on this continent,
------------------------------------
A claim, not evidence. Prove it!
-----------------------------------
a new nation, conceived in Liberty,
----------------------------------
A claim, not evidence. Prove it!
----------------------------------
and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.
----------------------------------
A claim, not evidence. Prove it!
----------------------------------
Now we are engaged in a great civil war,
----------------------------------
A claim, not evidence. Prove it!
---------------------------------
testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and dedicated, can long endure.
--------------------------------
A claim, not evidence. Prove it!
=================================================
Etc. Then Mister Lake would claim the problem wasn't with taking phrases out of context but that Mister Lincoln's sentences were too long.
R. Rowley wrote: "And an exemplar of how it would go, if Mister Lake were "debating" Abraham Lincoln"
ReplyDeleteAbraham Lincoln was giving a SPEECH. So, what are you saying, that you are just giving speeches and not really discussing anything?
Is that why you make claims and cannot provide evidence to support your claims? It explains a lot. You aren't interested in discussions, you're only interested in giving speeches about what you believe.
So, you are here to give speeches, and you just view me as an annoying heckler interrupting your speeches. No wonder we do not seem to be able to have any kind of intelligent conversation.
Thanks for clearing that up.
Ed
R. Rowley wrote: "And an exemplar of how it would go, if Mister Lake were "debating" Abraham Lincoln"
ReplyDeleteAbraham Lincoln was giving a SPEECH. So, what are you saying, that you are just giving speeches and not really discussing anything?
=======================================
No, the subject was: writing. The speech was written before it was delivered. It has, by Lakeian standards, long sentences.
But it is probably the shortest major speech ever delivered by a US president. The two are not unrelated: the ability to write complex and compound sentences, full of nuance, makes possible brevity.
http://www.d.umn.edu/~rmaclin/gettysburg-address.html
R. Rowley wrote: "No, the subject was: writing."
ReplyDeleteNo, the subject was CLAIMS. And you wrote about a "DEBATE" where I'm DEBATING President Lincoln by interrupting his SPEECH after every phrase.
This is just another MORONIC argument over words.
Ed