"Truthers" are people who believe that the government is wrong or lying about something, and the "Truther" believes he or she knows what the "truth" really is.
After studying and arguing with "Truthers" for over 11 years, it seems to me that "Truthers" can be divided into two sub-classifications: Conspiracy Theorists and True Believers.
Conspiracy Theorists generally believe that the government is deliberately covering up "the truth" about some event for evil, manipulative purposes as part of some massive conspiracy. The Conspiracy Theorists generally believe they have seen through the plot by spotting similarities to past known "conspiracies."
True Believers generally do not believe that the government is covering up the truth. Instead, they generally believe that the government and everyone in it is just incompetent and cannot figure out the truth. The True Believers believe that they (and everyone who agrees the government is wrong) have figured out "the truth."
Professor James Tracy, for example, is generally considered to be a Conspiracy Theorist. He sees the government as having concocted various complex plots with the cooperation of the media (and everyone else required to make the theory work) to mislead the American public in order to manipulate them into accepting some new program or law -- gun control being a prime example. He fantasizes such government conspiracies as being behind the Newtown massacre and the Boston Marathon bombings. His argument is that those events were just staged "enactments" made to frighten and manipulate people. And, he seems to believe that anyone who disagrees must be part of the conspiracy. If proof is found to debunk his conspiracy theory, he sees the proof as proof of his theory, since it means the government has planted false evidence in an attempt to debunk his theory.
Other individuals believed or considered to be Conspiracy Theorists are Professor Lance deHaven Smith (whose theories are very similar to those of Professor Tracy), Professor Francis Boyle, Dr. Barbara Hatch Rosenberg, author Edward Jay Epstein and numerous others.
One unusual but telling fact about most Conspiracy Theorists and True Believers is that they very often think that all other conspiracy or similar theories are ridiculous and totally unlike their own. 9/11 Truthers often think Anthrax Truthers are stupid, and vice versa. Sometimes, to avoid using the word "conspiracy," the "Truthers" will argue that the manipulations could be the work of just one key criminal who does all the thinking, and countless government underlings simply go along and do as they are told.
On this forum, "Anonymous" is clearly a True Believer, since he never talks about any "conspiracy," only about how the FBI is wrong in pointing at Dr. Bruce Ivins as the anthrax mailer. His mantra is "Amerithrax represents the greatest intelligence analysis failure in the history of the United States." "Anonymous" clearly feels that he knows the "truth," even if he cannot provide any solid facts and doesn't seem to be able to fully explain his reasoning.
R. Rowley appears to be another True Believer - but at times he also seems to be a conspiracy theorist. He also never talks about any government conspiracy, but he has a theory that the anthrax letters were sent by some mastermind, and many other hoax letters and other types of mysterious letters were sent by the same person or by fellow conspirators. And, of course, only Mr. Rowley has been able to figure out the "truth" about how all those happenings are connected.
One attribute that seems to apply to all Conspiracy Theorists and True Believers is that they have a double standard for evidence. If the "evidence" supports their theory, anything goes. If the evidence disproves their theory (or helps prove a different theory), they set very strict and often unrealistic standards for what they will accept as evidence.
Another attribute that applies to nearly all Conspiracy Theorists and True Believers is that they do not like being labeled as "Conspiracy Theorists" or "True Believers," since that puts them into a category with many others with whom they do not agree. Generally speaking, each individual Conspiracy Theorist and True Believer has independently developed his own theory. Therefore, since they have a "unique" theory of their own, they feel they are unlike all other Conspiracy Theorists and True Believers. In reality, that makes them just like all other Conspiracy Theorists and True Believers.
Yes, we all know there have been people who had facts about some event that might happen, and in hindsight, more attention should have been paid to what facts they had. But they had FACTS not beliefs. So, they weren't Truthers. And, too, real conspiracies have been uncovered by reporters and others digging for facts - the Watergate Scandal being the prime example. Those people produced FACTS to dispute beliefs. "Truthers" argue beliefs to counter solid facts. Or they present their beliefs about facts. And, they usually want the FBI to do the investigating for them to prove that they are right.
For every person who truly knows facts that no one else knows, there seem to be thousands of "Truthers" who only believe they know "the truth" but have no solid facts to support their beliefs.
Ed
Ed,
ReplyDeleteI agree with the NAS Vice Chair, David Relman. You don't.
I agree with FBI expert genetics Claire Fraser-Ligett. You don't. You didn't post the comment that contained the listing of their June 2012 talk before the NAS.
I agree with FBI expert Patricia Worsham who led off the presentation before the NAS. You don't.
I agree with the 10 USAMRIID scientists who know the facts. You don't.
I agree with the couple dozen other commentators whose commentary I've posted, to include the NYT, Wash Po, Frontline, ProPublica, McClatchy. You don't.
You think a First Grader wrote the letters.
No one agrees with you, Ed. There is NO ONE at the DOJ or FBI who agrees with you. There is no consultant who agrees with you. There is not a Fourth Grader in the country who agrees with you.
You can't anyone to agree with you because your argument lacks merit.
I agree with you Richard's theory is a non-starter. But you are the one who spends his days debating him. The difference between you and Richard is that he is a pleasant person who would be a welcome to hang out with.
Partial by Mister Lake:
ReplyDelete-----------------------
On this forum, "Anonymous" is clearly a True Believer, since he never talks about any "conspiracy," only about how the FBI is wrong in pointing at Dr. Bruce Ivins as the anthrax mailer. His mantra is "Amerithrax represents the greatest intelligence analysis failure in the history of the United States."
=======================================
Okay, I think there's quite a bit of hyperbole there (Anonymous' hyperbole), as I can think, right off the top of my head of far greater intelligence failures, mediated by poor analysis, by the US:
1) Pearl Harbor attack.
2) Sept 11th 2001 plane hijackings.
3) 1990 Iraqi invasion of Kuwait.
4) various losses of secrets related to the Manhattan Project in the 1940s which made the Soviet development of nuclear weapons go much faster.
----------------------------
However, if we morph the expression used by Anonymous from "intelligence failure" to "investigative failure via poor analysis" (ie a failure to correctly identify both the perps and their overall scheme in a crime ALREADY committed), I would think that Amerithrax comes close to beating all comers.
So, let me reverse things: Mister Lake, if, a decade from now, Anonymous turns out to be right about Amerithrax and that is publicly acknowledged by DoJ, would you then (ie in that situation) say that the 2001-2010 investigation was a 'failure', even a 'great failure'?
(I know you think there's zero per cent chance of that, so for you this is merely a theoretical question).
"Truthers" are people who believe that the government is wrong or lying about something, and the "Truther" believes he or she knows what the "truth" really is.
ReplyDelete=======================================
What this leaves out is: the government is ALWAYS wrong about something. It's a human institution, and the IMPLICIT notion that the government knows all, tells all, is itself a self-deception. So, prior to the Sept 11th airplane hijackings, there were indeed people, SOME OF WHOM were FBI agents, whistle-blowers etc. who realized the enormity of the threat that Al Qaeda posed and the lackadaisical attitudes of the leadership of the FBI, as well as high government officials in both the Clinton and Bush Administrations. They tried, mostly unsuccessfully, to alert and change (sometimes internally) the national-security and intelligence communities so as to realistically deal with the newish threat.
By Mister Lake's typology these people were: True Believers. But they were right. And they were, tragically, vindicated by events. The trick is to distinguish between these true-life Cassandras and faux-Cassandras. Mister Lake's typology doesn't help us to do that.
------------------------------------------
Back to Mister Lake:
--------------
Another attribute that applies to nearly all Conspiracy Theorists and True Believers is that they do not like being labeled as "Conspiracy Theorists" or "True Believers," since that puts them into a category with many others with whom they do not agree.
------------------------------------
Not in my case if you are talking about Amerithrax. I have a great deal of respect for, in no particular order: Lew Weinstein, Henry Heine, Don Foster (assuming he still thinks the St Pete and Quantico letters related to Amerithrax), Anonymous, Barbara Hatch Rosenberg etc.
My primary objection to Mister Lake's typology is: it assumes the very thing that needs to be 'adjudicated': does the government really know what it's doing? We had, very recently, an example of blundering: a man, Kevin Curtis, arrested for sending ricin through the mails.
He shouldn't have been arrested, as he evidently had nothing to do with it.
As things unfolded, it was HE (or perhaps his attorney) who had to tell the investigators who
(allegedly)'really' sent the ricin. That's NOT the way it's supposed to work: arrest guy X, and hope he can tell you about guy Y. What if the perp hated Curtis but was better at concealing his hatred? Would Curtis still be in jail?
Anonymous wrote: "I agree with the NAS Vice Chair, David Relman. You don't."
ReplyDeleteNot true. I agree with Dr. Relman on many things. But, is that really the issue? Isn't the issue whether or not David Relman agrees with your theory of who sent the anthrax letters? Do you fantasize that he does?
"I agree with FBI expert genetics Claire Fraser-Ligett. You don't."
Not true. I agree with Dr. Fraser-Ligett on many things. But, does Claire Fraser-Ligett agree with your theory of who did it? Do you fantasize that she does?
"I agree with FBI expert Patricia Worsham who led off the presentation before the NAS. You don't."
Not true. There are probably many things on which we agree. But, does Patrica Worsham agree with your theory of who did it? Do you fantasize that she does?
"I agree with the 10 USAMRIID scientists who know the facts. You don't."
What makes you think they "know the facts"? Because they don't believe Ivins did it? Do they agree with your theory of who did it - or do they have other theories?
According to Dr. Relman,
"The National Research Council (NRC) committee found that it is impossible to arrive at a definitive conclusion about the origin of the letter spores based on the available scientific evidence alone. The scientific data generated by and on behalf of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) provided leads as to a possible source (flask RMR-1029) but did not rule out other sources."
That's the same basic complaint from Drs. Fraser-Ligget and Worsham.
I do NOT disagree with them on that.
But the science in the case primarily just provided LEADS. It was the mountain of OTHER evidence that proves Dr. Ivins was the anthrax mailer.
In an Oct. 28, 2011 discussion on National Public Radio, Dr. Relman made the point that science is much better at eliminating suspects than identifying suspects.
The science in the case did NOT eliminate Dr. Ivins as a suspect. The science just didn't BY ITSELF prove Ivins was the culprit. And, to scientists, that means the science is incomplete.
But, their wishes have NOTHING to do with the legal case against Dr. Ivins. They have NOTHING that says Dr. Ivins was innocent. All they have are unanswered scientific questions that no one has the time or money to bother to answer.
As for the "10 USAMRIID scientists who know the facts," the evidence says THEY DO NOT KNOW THE FACTS. They just MAKE ASSUMPTIONS and base their BELIEFS on those assumptions.
Mainly, they ASSUME that Dr. Ivins couldn't have made the powders without them knowing. But the FACTS say it was very easy for Ivins to do so. The "experts" just assume that Ivins would have done things according to standard procedures, but the facts say Ivins did NOT do things that way.
I'll challenge my knowledge of the facts any day against anyone at USAMRIID who still believes Ivins couldn't have done it. My knowledge of the facts comes from reading the FBI reports. The USAMRIID "experts" appear to just make assumptions to justify their beliefs about their own observational abilities.
Ed
R. Rowley wrote: "Mister Lake, if, a decade from now, Anonymous turns out to be right about Amerithrax and that is publicly acknowledged by DoJ, would you then (ie in that situation) say that the 2001-2010 investigation was a 'failure', even a 'great failure'?"
ReplyDeleteIf enough NEW evidence showed up to convince the DOJ that "Anonymous" was right, I'd probably have no choice but to agree. But, would I call the investigation a "failure"? I think that would depend upon how the "new evidence" was found and what it was.
If there was evidence in plain sight that the FBI didn't find, I would have to use the word "failure" or even "great failure." But, if the NEW evidence turned out to be (as an example) solid facts about some kind a diabolical plan by Osama bin Laden to mislead the investigators about who did the attacks, then I'd tend to call the FBI's investigation an "incorrect finding resulting from planted evidence, a.k.a., a frame up."
But, the NEW evidence would have to explain why Osama bin Laden wanted to frame Dr. Ivins, and why that was preferable to taking the credit for the attacks the way they took the credit for 9/11.
R. Rowley also wrote: "By Mister Lake's typology these people were: True Believers. But they were right. And they were, tragically, vindicated by events."
Not true. They were people with INFORMATION. True Believers work mostly with BELIEFS. They were people with evidence that was not adequately evaluated. That doesn't make them "True Believers," it makes them people who - IN HINDSIGHT - should have been listened to. Sometimes it seems there are ALWAYS such people around - like the Russians pointing to Tamerlan Tsarnaev before the Boston Marathon bombings.
R. Rowley also wrote: "That's NOT the way it's supposed to work: arrest guy X, and hope he can tell you about guy Y. What if the perp hated Curtis but was better at concealing his hatred? Would Curtis still be in jail?"
People who say "That's NOT the way it's supposed to work" seem to live in a fantasy world where humans are programmed like robots to do things perfectly all the time.
In the REAL world, people make mistakes - including the police. In the REAL world, evidence doesn't come in neat packages that anyone can easily understand.
The initial evidence said that Curtis was most likely the ricin mailer. The police had no choice but to act on that evidence. The "system" provides for locking a "suspect" up for "suspicion" to avoid him fleeing while further evidence is collected.
The "system" accounts for human error and allows for appeals if someone is found to be wrongly convicted.
The "system" accounts for the possibility that the evidence can point to a wrong person, and merely asks 12 jurors if the evidence is conclusive "beyond a reasonable doubt." NOT beyond ANY doubt.
Criminal investigations can be a messy business. Generally speaking, investigators do the best they can. Jurors do the best they can. Judges do the best they can. And criminals do the best they can to get away with their crimes.
But, people make mistakes.
I'll go back to the topic description at the start of this thread and add something about people who are RIGHT about a conspiracy - and maybe about people who have evidence that was ignored.
Ed
Mister Lake:
Delete------------
R. Rowley also wrote: "By Mister Lake's typology these people were: True Believers. But they were right. And they were, tragically, vindicated by events."
Not true. They were people with INFORMATION.
==========================================
No. They were simply people with a better 'feel' for what Al Qaeda was and/or they weren't so entrenched in their respective bureacracies. Examples: FBI agent Colleen Rowley (no relation),
[from Wiki:
After the September 11, 2001, attacks, Rowley wrote a paper for FBI Director Robert Mueller documenting how FBI HQ personnel in Washington, D.C., had mishandled and failed to take action on information provided by the Minneapolis, Minnesota Field Office regarding its investigation of suspected terrorist Zacarias Moussaoui. Moussaoui had been suspected of being involved in preparations for a suicide-hijacking similar to the December 1994 "Eiffel Tower" hijacking of Air France 8969. Failures identified by Rowley may have left the U.S. vulnerable to the September 11, 2001, attacks. Rowley was one of many agents frustrated by the events that led up to the attacks, writing:
During the early aftermath of September 11th, when I happened to be recounting the pre–September 11th events concerning the Moussaoui investigation to other FBI personnel in other divisions or in FBIHQ, almost everyone's first question was "Why?--Why would an FBI agent(s) deliberately sabotage a case? (I know I shouldn't be flippant about this, but jokes were actually made that the key FBI HQ personnel had to be spies or moles, like (Robert Hanssen), who were actually working for Osama Bin Laden to have so undercut Minneapolis's effort.) [2][3]
Rowley testified in front of the Senate and for the 9/11 Commission about the FBI's internal organization and mishandling of information related to the September 11, 2001, attacks. Mueller and Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA) pushed for and got a major reorganization, focused on creation of the new Office of Intelligence at the FBI. This reorganization was supported with a significant expansion of FBI personnel with counterterrorism and language skills.[citation needed]
-----------------------------------------------------
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coleen_Rowley
It wasn't that Rowley had 'information', it was that she wanted to GET INFORMATION (ie conduct/continue investigations so as to get a better feel for radical Islamist networks/personnel/plans etc).
=================================================
To my knowledge no one at the FBI was fired or even demoted for the negligence involved and Rowley retired.
Then there's the case of:
(former) FBI agent John O'Neil (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_P._O%27Neill
Etc.
R. Rowley wrote: "They were simply people with a better 'feel' for what Al Qaeda was and/or they weren't so entrenched in their respective bureacracies.
DeleteNo. They had INFORMATION which gave them a better "feel" for what al Qaeda might be up to than bureaucrats had. They weren't super humans born with a better 'feel' for things.
They weren't "True Believers." They had facts which they argued against beliefs. "True Believers" do the opposite, they argue beliefs against facts.
They weren't "conspiracy theorists," either. They had INFORMATION about a possible plot by criminals (a.k.a. a criminal conspiracy) not a government plot.
Investigators who uncover criminal conspiracies are not "conspiracy theorists." They are "conspiracy provers" or or "conspiracy discoverers" or "conspiracy uncoverers." Or just "investigators who found a true conspiracy."
Ed
"Anonymous" just attempted to post another lengthy rant that includes comments like "Yazid is a very nice person -- much nicer and more likable than you" and more rantings and attacks on me about my handwriting hypothesis.
ReplyDeleteI deleted it, of course.
All "Anonymous" has to do to prove that Dr. Relman and "Anonymous" are in agreement about who sent the anthrax letters is to produce quotes and sources showing that they are in agreement about who sent the anthrax letters.
All the deleted rant from "Anonymous" did was to argue that writings by Dr. Relman that evidence from an al Qaeda lab was not adequately examined means they agree on who did it. It doesn't.
As I illustrated in my cartoon about "Anthrax Truthers," they all agree that the government is wrong, but they disagree on what is "right." An agreement that an al Qaeda lab was not totally eliminated as a possible source for the attack anthrax is NOT an agreement that Mr. XYZ was the anthrax mailer.
Only a True Believer would think that it is.
Ed
I just deleted a second rant from "Anonymous" which was entirely personal attacks and attacks upon my handwriting hypothesis.
DeleteEd
Ed writes:
ReplyDelete"All "Anonymous" has to do to prove that Dr. Relman and "Anonymous" are in agreement about who sent the anthrax letters is to produce quotes and sources showing that they are in agreement about who sent the anthrax letters. "
Ed, where did I say I know who mailed the anthrax letters? That's why they call it a true crime MYSTERY. Now bearing down on this MYSTERY, in connection with Ken Dillon's suit in federal district court against the FBI, do you think the FBI should disclose where and when Jdey was detained and released? By way of background, it was revealed a decade after the fact that he was detained at the same time as Yazid's friend Moussaoui. Moussaoui had crop-dusting manuals and Jdey had biology textbooks. As far as I can tell from interrogation reports, Jdey and Yazid were staying with KSM the same time. I didn't think to ask Yazid about Jdey.
"Anonymous" wrote: "Ed, where did I say I know who mailed the anthrax letters?"
DeleteSo, you do NOT have a theory about who sent the anthrax letters? Or are you saying you do not KNOW that it was some al Qaeda operative, it's just something you BELIEVE? It can't be an "hypothesis" since hypotheses are based upon facts, which you do not have or cannot show people and explain. Why couldn't the FBI be correct then? Do you just assume that they are wrong? Why is it an "intelligence failure" if you only have assumptions and beliefs to argue against the FBI findings?
Who suggested putting the thread "FOIA Suit Relating To Theory That Aberaouf Jdey Is The Anthrax Mailer" on Lew Weinstein's blog? It certainly IMPLIES that someone has a theory.
It seems that you claim you do not "know" anything. You do not know where the anthrax powders were made. You do not know who mailed the letters. You do not have any solid facts and cannot explain your reasoning, so you must just BELIEVE it was all done by al Qaeda operatives, or maybe you don't "know" if that's true, either.
You should try looking at the facts. The facts very clearly say that Bruce Edwards Ivins was the anthrax mailer. Why waste everyone's time by arguing things you do not know or understand? Why call the FBI's case an "intelligence failure" just because you think there MIGHT be some other explanation?
It makes no difference to me when Jdey was detained and released. You've presented no facts or reason to believe he had anything to do with the anthrax mailings. You may assume it does, or you may WANT it to be true, and you may want to see documents to see if your assumption is correct, but that's just your obsession and has nothing to do with me or the anthrax case.
Ed
My analysis of the Fall 2001 anthrax mailings is contained on this blog here. Do me a favor and make them hyperlinks to put people on the same page.
Deletehttp://www.amerithrax.wordpress.com
4-page summary of analysis is contained here:
Ayman Zawahiri, Anwar Awlaki, Anthrax, and Amerithrax: The Infiltration Of US Biodefense
http://caseclosedbylewweinstein.wordpress.com/2011/04/12/ayman-zawahiri-anwar-awlaki-anthrax-and-amerithrax-the-infiltration-of-us-biodefense/
Jdey was detained at the same time as Moussaoui -- and released. He was part of the 911 planes operation. His martyrdom video was found in the home of top anthrax planner Atef. He was working with anthrax planners Hambali and KSM. There is a $5 million dollar BOLO out for him.
As for Yazid's personality and good manners in discourse, it is widely recognized (see headlines) that
ReplyDelete"Man on terror charge a ‘smart and witty’ father"
He is gracious and civil even to someone who thinks he should be extradited to the United States and put in prison for life -- for his participation as an accessory before the fact in the 911 planes operation and conspiracy to use anthrax against US targets.
And why should anyone care about any of this? Just because you have some kind of obsession about this person?
DeleteEd
Ed assumes that the strain that Yazid Sufaat was using was not virulent Ames.
DeleteHe just mistakenly assumed it.
Ed doesn't understand the importance of the issue or the results of decontamination that the documents show was planned for the AQ labs.
See David Relman's article, "Have We Met The Enemy?"
"Anonymous" wrote: "Ed assumes that the strain that Yazid Sufaat was using was not virulent Ames."
DeleteWhy do you constantly use the term "virulent Ames"? Do you even understand what you write?
Ames is naturally virulent. So, any use of Ames can be fairly reliably assumed to be "virulent Ames" UNLESS specified otherwise. As I recall, Porton Down removed a couple plasmids from the Ames DNA and created a version of Ames that is similar to the Stern strain, which is a naturally "non-virulent" strain of anthrax discovered in the 1930's. Non-virulent Ames has nothing to do with anything in the Amerithrax investigation.
I made NO "assumptions" about any strain being used by Muslim terrorists.
There is absolutely NO reason to believe any Afghanistan lab used the Ames strain. The Ames strain is NOT a good strain for use as a weapon. Just about any antibiotic can kill it. Except for the anthrax letters, there is no record of ANYONE using the Ames strain in a bioweapon.
David Relman's article "Have We 'Met The Enemy'?" does not mention al Qaeda, any Afghan lab or anything about "decontamination." Maybe "Anonymous" just assumes it does.
I recall that American scientists once got two or three false positive results indicating that they found the Ames strain in a lab near Kandahar. I remember writing a lot about it, and how they went back, bagged up just about everything in the lab, did over a thousand new tests and found NO indication of the Ames strain in the Kandahar lab. It's all on my site. I just need to find the right search argument to look for it - when I get some free time.
Ed
Ah! Found it. I wrote about the Afghan lab on June 3, 2012. Here's some of what I wrote:
Delete---------------------------
"The 9,600 pages of documents supplied by the FBI to the National Academy of Sciences included a 19-page "Supplemental Document" from June 2008 titled "FBI WFO Report on Samples from an Overseas Site Identified by Intelligence." About 40 percent of the document is redacted, but the report explains that PCR (Polymerase chain reaction) tests were done using pieces of DNA that are supposed to be unique to the Ames strain. It says on page 5 (page 6 of the pdf file):
No viable Ba [Bacillus anthracis] was detected by culture analysis at the NBFAC [National Bioforensic Analysis Center at USAMRIID]. Molecular analysis of samples yielded positive results for all three of the NMRC's [Naval Medical Research Center in Bethesda, MD] PCR markers for Ba in 3 samples. The positive results were noted in one swab taken from the outside of an unopened medicine dropper package, known as E73; one swab taken from a sink, known as E98; and one swab from a drain hose, known at E99.
So, the search teams didn't find any actual spores or bacteria. Scientists couldn't grow any new anthrax bacteria from anything that was found. They merely got positive readings on the molecular level from swabs taken in three places in the lab.
According to page 67 of the NAS review report, the FBI conducted a third mission to Afghanistan to collect the entire sink, the entire drain hose and other objects to test more thoroughly.
These items were extensively sampled, and again tested for both viable B. anthracis and for B. anthracis DNA. This time, according to the June 2008 declassified document, all the tests were negative.
And on page 12 of the FBI WFO report (page 13 of the pdf file) it says,
1254 samples were taken from these 528 items and submitted to the NBFAC for analysis. All 1254 samples were negative for the presence of Ba via culture analysis at the NBFAC and PCR at NMRC.
So, the PCR tests of the three items initially produced "false positives," and after doing over a thousand tests, it was determined that there was no reason to believe that there was any actual anthrax at that overseas location. Nevertheless, Garrett evidently believes the initial inconclusive positive PCR readings meant al Qaeda had the Ames strain, even though absolutely no live spores or bacteria could be found and a more comprehensive series of PCR tests were also negative.
------------------------
People can argue that it is possible that some kind of different test might have found Ames anthrax, but there was NO AMES found at that lab in Afghanistan. Anyone who says there was is either lying or distorting the truth.
Ed
I just deleted another post by "Anonymous" that was just some rambling comments about possibilities of some Muslims being involved in the mailings and really said nothing. It's just the same kind of irrelevant blather that is constantly being posted to Lew Weinstein's blog.
ReplyDeleteAnd it ended with another rant about my handwriting hypothesis.
So, I deleted it.
It mentioned a 5 million dollar reward, which makes me wonder if "Anonymous" isn't trying to figure out how to collect that reward. For a long time he seemed to be obsessed with collecting a reward for stolen art.
If he doesn't have any idea who mailed the anthrax letters, maybe his endless postings are just his way of trying to get people to provide information to help him collect a reward of some kind.
Of course, that's just speculation. It's difficult to come up with an hypothesis when dealing with someone who refuses to be clear about anything he believes or wants and just dumps out endless irrelevant information along with complaints about people who can't be bothered to read all the junk he posts.
Ed
Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteI just noticed this posting from you on Lew Weinstein's blog:
"In the Fall 2001 anthrax mailings, cutting the paper was a slight attempt to conceal the source of the paper (from a larger sheet)."
Where did you get that nonsense? You certainly seem to state it as a belief.
How would cutting off the bottom of a sheet of paper conceal the source of the paper? That makes no sense at all.
The FACTS say that the bottom was cut off some of the letters, and the sides off of others, in order to allow the paper to be folded with the pharmaceutical fold and still fit inside a small post office envelope.
If you fold a 8-1/2 by 11 sheet of paper with the pharmaceutical fold, the result will be too big to fit in a small post office envelope. That's a fact.
If you cut off the bottom or the bottom and part of a side or two, you can do the pharmaceutical fold and the letter will fit into the small envelope. That's a fact.
The letters were all folded with the pharmaceutical fold. That's a fact.
The pharmaceutical fold was used for centuries to hold medicinal powders with minimum risk of the powders spilling out. That's a fact.
So, the facts say the letters were trimmed down so that when folded with the pharmaceutical fold they would easily fit into the small post office pre-stamped envelopes that were used in the mailings.
Ed
I just deleted another rant by "Anonymous" which says nothing relevant about the anthrax attacks of 2001. It began with this:
ReplyDelete"Ed, you suggest that I am overly focused on Yazid Sufaat and yet you nowhere have disclosed that Yazid Sufaat was a member of a secret (since abandoned) Malaysian biological weapons program. This bears on means."
Any discussion of "means" would have to explain how a suspect got access to flask RMR-1029, which was the murder weapon.
Babble about some lab near Kandahar or some Malaysian biological weapons program is just irrelevant babble if it doesn't begin with an explanation of how access was gained to flask RMR-1029.
"Means" doesn't mean they had a general knowledge of bioweapons. It means they had access to the "murder weapon."
Plus, I deleted the post because it contained another silly rant about my handwriting hypothesis, and "Anonymous" has made it clear that he just brings up that topic for malicious purposes, not for any kind of intelligent discussion.
Ed
"Anonymous" posted a message on May 5 which didn't work properly. I wasn't notified that it was in the queue. The message began with,
ReplyDelete"Given your persistent selective posting and mischaracterization of deleted posts ..." yada, yada, yada
I probably would have deleted it anyway, since it's just a complaint and says nothing of value.
Ed
From the very top of Mister Lake's comment:
ReplyDelete--------------
"Truthers" are people who believe that the government is wrong or lying about something, and the "Truther" believes he or she knows what the "truth" really is.
=================================================
Notice how this definition would fit the Bernstein and Woodward of the early 1970s when they were uncovering the Watergate conspiracy.
Merely labeling something a 'conspiracy' doesn't mean it didn't happen, doesn't mean someone wasn't able to pick up on aspects of the conspiracy, doesn't mean that the matter shouldn't be looked into further.
But in one way I wholeheartedly agree with Mister Lake: his penchant for always taking the law enforcement/DoJ/government line of the moment (whether it's on Ivins in Amerithrax or Curtis, not so long ago, in the most recent ricin case)means that the typology he's arrived at ("True Believers" ) with attendant subcategories (True Believers and Conspiracy Theorists) is appropriate for HIS PURPOSES. And what are his purposes? Not 'analysing' Amerithrax or other cases. His purposes are engaging in polemics on the Internet with the individual cases as mere fodder for that.
R. Rowley wrote: "Notice how this definition would fit the Bernstein and Woodward of the early 1970s when they were uncovering the Watergate conspiracy."
ReplyDeleteNO, it wouldn't. Woodward and Bernstein weren't working with beliefs. They were working with facts. They had no idea that there was a conspiracy. They were investigating a BURGLARY at the Watergate Hotel. That investigation and the facts they uncovered took them where they had never imagined going.
R. Rowley also wrote: "Merely labeling something a 'conspiracy' doesn't mean it didn't happen, doesn't mean someone wasn't able to pick up on aspects of the conspiracy, doesn't mean that the matter shouldn't be looked into further."
You make no sense.
Professor James Tracy labels the Boston Marathon bombing a government conspiracy, claiming that it was all a staged event, and all the blood and gore was fake.
The Boston Marathon bombing was real.
Professor Tracy's beliefs have NO BASIS in reality. He asks questions instead of supplying proof. He makes a claim and then demands that others prove him wrong. And, if you try, he'll find ways to argue that he is still right. That doesn't mean he's right. It means he's playing a stupid game.
R. Rowley also wrote this about me: "His purposes are engaging in polemics on the Internet with the individual cases as mere fodder for that."
On the contrary. My purpose is to RESOLVE arguments by getting people to look at the facts.
POLEMICS plural of po·lem·ic (Noun)
A strong verbal or written attack on someone or something.
The art or practice of engaging in controversial debate or dispute.
That's not what I do at all. I try to separate fact from fiction, evidence from beliefs.
It's the "Truthers" who engage in polemics. They dispute the facts and the evidence with nothing but argument and beliefs. Their main argument is "I do not believe the facts, I have a theory of my own." And they argue that theory even though they have no solid evidence to support it.
I'm an analyst. An analyst tries to figure out what's really going on by looking at the evidence. That's all I do. Writing things down is my main method for organizing my findings. It's also a way of getting people to help me with my analysis by seeing if they can find flaws with it.
It's the scientific method. The scientific method is VERY different from polemics. The scientific method is a search for the truth. Polemics is a search for an argument.
Ed
I wrote: "The scientific method is a search for the truth."
DeleteTruthers, of course, also argue that they are searching for "the truth." In reality, however, the facts say they believe they already know the truth, and they are searching for people to convert to their beliefs.
SCIENTIFIC METHOD - a method of investigation in which a problem is first identified and observations, experiments, or other relevant data are then used to construct or test hypotheses that purport to solve it
I probably should have written: Scientific method is a search for a solution to a problem.
The problem in the anthrax case is: What really happened?
The facts say that Bruce Ivins was the anthrax killer.
Arguments to the contrary do not argue facts. They argue beliefs. "Truthers" ask questions that are intended to create doubt. Finding "the truth" is NOT what they are after. Proving their beliefs to be right is their goal.
Ed
R. Rowley also wrote: "the typology he's arrived at ("True Believers" ) with attendant subcategories (True Believers and Conspiracy Theorists) is appropriate for HIS PURPOSES. And what are his purposes? Not 'analysing' Amerithrax or other cases."
ReplyDeleteLooking for the facts of a case is a totally different issue from tying to categorized those who disagree with the facts.
Looking for the facts and separating them from pure beliefs is a way of understanding what really happened. It's science. It's what an analyst does when he's trying to understand AN EVENT.
Examining the reasoning of people who refuse to look at the facts and argue only their beliefs, is a totally different field. It's psychology. It's what an analyst does when he's trying to understand PEOPLE.
Ed
Ed, with respect to the suggestion that either Jdey or El-Shukrijumah was the mailer, you did not respond to the facts at all. You instead just repost your usual schtick. You are the one who doesn't discuss the facts -- and that's because you are unaware of the facts.
ReplyDeleteFor a decade you argued that the hijackers were dead, dead, dead -- that was your Al Qaeda argument -- without taking into the account that participant in the planes operation were in fact NOT dead, dead, dead. You simply put your head in the sand and didn't read the $5 million manhunt that has been full-time and ongoing now for over a decade. You, Ed, are really uninformed -- but no one expects more from you. So that's okay.
Anonymous wrote: "Ed, with respect to the suggestion that either Jdey or El-Shukrijumah was the mailer, you did not respond to the facts at all."
ReplyDeleteYou do not post facts. You either post irrelevant gibberish that doesn't mean anything, or you just attack me personally. You seem to want me to HUNT for the facts on some web site somewhere.
If you have facts to support your beliefs, POST THEM HERE. Claiming that there are facts somewhere within the Lew Weinstein swamp is just a way of avoiding discussing the facts.
The FACT that the 9/11 hijackers were dead at the time of the mailings was an argument against them mailing the letters. It's still a valid argument and will always be a valid argument.
If you BELIEVE that someone associated with the 9/11 hijackers mailed the letters, PROVE IT. Provide EVIDENCE, not just irrelevant gibberish about meetings in Indonesia.
EXPLAIN YOUR ARGUMENT.
You have stated that Mohamed Atta wrote the anthrax letters. I have provided SOLID FACTS which show that it is NOT his handwriting on the letters. Anyone can see it is NOT Mohamed Atta's handwriting.
You haven't yet responded, but I assume that your argument will ignore the facts and just argue that I'm not a professional handwriting expert, and therefore my opinion is worthless.
But, you aren't a professional handwriting expert, either. So, why is your error-filled GRAPHIC better?
And why post graphics? Are you incapable of writing an explanation of your beliefs?
My web site gets 4-1/2 times the visitors that Lew Weinstein's site gets, and I get lots of emails helping me with information. So, the FACTS say that you are the one who is "really uniformed" and the one who "no one expects more from."
You may consider yourself informed on what so-and-so did in Indonesia, but the subject is the anthrax attacks of 2001. And, on that subject you appear to be totally ignorant, since you cannot intelligently debate the facts.
Ed
Ed has been blogging about the nandwriting looking like that of a child and yet never bothered to submit a FOIA request for the FBI's handwriting analysis after the case closed. Prior to the closing, the material would be exempt under (b)(7). Moreover, material relating to a living person arguably would be exempt under (b)(6) [though the issue could be addressed by redaction]. And of course the FBI does not have to create records that don't exist. Here, however, the reports by the FBI's Questioned Documents Unit do in fact exist and are records subject to the Act.
ReplyDeleteWILLIAM C. BARTLETT v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
CIVIL ACTION NO. 94-0836
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
867 F. Supp. 314
November 14, 1994, Filed
CASE SUMMARY:
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Plaintiff brought an action claiming that defendant Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) had improperly withheld records from him in violation of the Freedom of Information Act (Act), 5 U.S.C.S. § 552. The FBI filed a motion to dismiss or in the alternative for summary judgment alleging that the court had no subject matter jurisdiction over the litigation.
OVERVIEW: The court agreed with the FBI's contention that subject matter jurisdiction was lacking because no records requested by plaintiff had been located and because plaintiff's requests were outside the scope of the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C.S. § 552. Plaintiff's first request was for access to or copies of a report of forensic science handwriting examiners comparing the signature on his request under the Act with other records already in existence. The court held that to be subject to the Act, the requested record needed to be in existence at the time of the request; however, plaintiff was requesting the FBI to conduct a handwriting comparison and release the results to him. Therefore, because the request sought nonexistent material, it did not seek a record within the meaning of the Act.
Anonymous wrote: "Ed has been blogging about the nandwriting looking like that of a child and yet never bothered to submit a FOIA request for the FBI's handwriting analysis after the case closed."
ReplyDeleteYour argument seems to be that if I do not do things the way you do them, then I'm doing them incorrectly.
I had no need to file such a FOIA request. I didn't attempt to conduct an independent investigation of the case - as you appear to be doing. All I did was analyze the available facts in an attempt to understand what was going on.
There were numerous reports in the media about what the "handwriting experts" were saying. My analysis of their opinions was that they were mostly just distorting things to fit their beliefs, and no two "experts" seemed to agree on anything.
Your "case law" citation is about a request for documents which did not exist. That has nothing to do with the issue of an FOIA request for something that was not part of any court case and therefore only a matter of internal procedures and practices within the FBI.
Ed