If there was no snow on the ground last night, and when you wake up in the morning the ground is covered with snow, it is a reasonable deduction that it snowed during the night.
But, to conspiracy theorists and True Believers, if you didn't actually see it snow, then you do not know it snowed for certain, and it's possible there is some other explanation -- like a sinister government plot.
This is evidently why conspiracy theorists and True Believers cannot accept or understand circumstantial evidence. Circumstantial evidence requires making a deduction about things not actually witnessed, but for which there is sufficient evidence to make a logical deduction. Example:
1. An abundance of facts say that Bruce Ivins was the anthrax mailer.
2. The facts say that the letters were mailed from Princeton, 200 miles from where Ivins lived.
3. The facts say that Ivins would sometimes drive hundreds of miles to play tricks on people.
4. The facts say Ivins acted alone to send the anthrax letters.
5. The facts say Ivins could do this without his family knowing what he did.But, to conspiracy theorists and True Believers, if there are no actual witnesses who saw Ivins drive to Princeton and mail the letters, then there is no proof or evidence that Ivins drove to Princeton.
It can be deduced from the facts that Ivins drove to Princeton and back to mail the letters.
Nothing could be further from the truth, and that reasoning is disputed by countless thousands of criminal trials which successfully used circumstantial evidence.
Conspiracy theorists and True Believers seem totally incapable of understanding that circumstantial evidence can be as damning as direct evidence. Yet, somehow, they believe their own "evidence" for their own theory is better, even though they have neither direct evidence or compelling circumstantial evidence. They seem to just believe they are right, and they want the FBI to find the evidence that will prove them right.
Ed
The fact say that Dr. Bruce Ivins created and mailed the anthrax letters.
ReplyDeleteYet Mr. Rowley argues (without presenting convincing evidence) that the anthrax letters were mailed by some criminal mastermind who is also responsible for numerous other crimes and events.
Here is his theory as posted to this blog on May 29, 2012 (click HERE for the original):
----------
Just to be as clear as possible (without giving too much away!) about my hypothesis in its totality:
The same person:
1) sent* the petri dish in April of 1997 to B'nai Br'ith.
2) sent* white powder mailings to news outlets in 1999:
February 1999 (B): There is another hoax anthrax attack (see April 24, 1997). A handful of envelopes with almost identical messages are sent to a combination of media and government targets including The Washington Post, NBC's Atlanta office, a post office in Columbus, Georgia (next to Fort Benning, an Army base), and the Old Executive Office Building in Washington. The letters contained fake anthrax powder.
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/timeline/AAanthrax.html
3) sent* the Amerithrax letters of 2001.
4) sent* the St Pete hoax letters of 2001.
5) sent* the TOWN OF QUANTICO letter of Sept 2001.
6) sent* an anthrax-simulant mailing to a Reno, Nevada Microsoft office via Malaysia.
7) sent* the anthrax-contaminated mailing to Antonio Banfi in 2001.
8) sent* ricin through the mails in late 2003/early 2004(?), signing himself "Fallen Angel" and claiming to be in the trucking industry (again, a totally bogus story).
9) sent* the threatening Goldman Sachs letters of 2007.
10) sent* the Goldman Sachs apology letters of 2007.
11) sent* the "jihad boom" threatening postcards in Florida in 2007.
The use of the verb "send" is not meant to imply that the perp HIMSELF dropped these mailings off at a mailbox or post office.
In most instances he used a distribution network, of at least 4 persons, to accomplish all this. He likely sent the actually powders in baggies within an overnight deliverey box/envelope, with instructions as to how they were to be handled, opened so as to leave no forensic clues (fingerprints/fibers etc.
Nor do I assume that the above is a comprehensive list of his terrorist-fun activities. He's too old to have started in 1997.
-----
In addition, Mr. Rowley now appears to be arguing that a series of recent hoax letters mailed from Texas need to be added to his list, along with the anonymous "letter to the editor" sent to Marshall Smith at Brojon.org.
Compare the evidence presented by Mr. Rowley (if you can find any) to the mountain of evidence against Bruce Ivins presented by the Department of Justice.
Mr. Rowley evidently believes HE has the better case.
All it requires is that you believe Mr. Rowley without bothering to look at any evidence.
Who in their right mind would do that?
Ed
Mr. Rowley evidently believes HE has the better case.
ReplyDeleteAll it requires is that you believe Mr. Rowley without bothering to look at any evidence.
-------------------------------------------------------
Yeah, like I was SO out-of-line claiming for many months that the Task Force had had professionals do handwriting(printing) comparisons between Ivins' exemplars and those of the Amerithrax perp, got a non-match ruling, then buried the evidence. Why would
anyone believe me after THAT fiasco?
R. Rowley wrote: "Yeah, like I was SO out-of-line claiming for many months that the Task Force had had professionals do handwriting(printing) comparisons between Ivins' exemplars and those of the Amerithrax perp, got a non-match ruling, then buried the evidence."
ReplyDeleteYou just continue to show that you have no understanding of evidence - or of much of anything else related to this case.
A non-match on handwriting is NOT evidence, because the handwriting could have been disguised.
It's like saying that if Ivins' fingerprints were NOT found on the envelopes and letters, that is "evidence" of his innocence. YOU ARE ARGUING TOTAL NONSENSE.
R. Rowley also wrote: "Why would anyone believe me after THAT fiasco?"
What does the FBI's lack of handwriting evidence have to do with believing YOU?
I don't recall you ever writing ANYTHING that would give ANYONE any reason to believe you have a valid theory.
Arguing that you do not believe the government is not any kind of basis for people to believe you.
If you believe you have a better case against your "mastermind" than the FBI had/has against Bruce Ivins, PRESENT YOUR CASE.
If you are worried about being sued, present the evidence that cannot be grounds for being sued. You can start by telling us about the "16 points of correspondence" between the anthrax letters and the Assaad letter. If you have such "evidence," why won't you list the 16 points? If I had such "evidence," I'd certainly list them.
Is it because you have no real case against your "mastermind?" Is it because all you have is a belief that the FBI isn't as good at crime solving as you are?
If you have any kind of case at all, PRESENT YOUR CASE. Don't just argue that you don't believe the government. It makes you seem like a troll who just argues because he likes being annoying to others.
Ed
From the above heading, Mister Lake writing:
ReplyDelete---------------------------
But, to conspiracy theorists and True Believers, if there are no actual witnesses who saw Ivins drive to Princeton and mail the letters, then there is no proof or evidence that Ivins drove to Princeton.
=================================================
Again, that misstates things: I here in conversation with Mister Lake several times and lots of other Amerithrax sceptics in other venues have also noted the lack of: a gas receipt or any OTHER receipt indicating a vehicle trip north to NJ by Ivins; the lack of a speeding or parking ticket from the night in question indicating either a trip toward or a period in New Jersey; the lack of ANY sign, aside from speculation, that Ivins made the trip(s) in question. Those things (parking/speeding ticket, gas receipt etc. would indeed merely be circumstantial, but they would be SOMETHING!
The speculation that Mister Lake calls "deduction" is only a deduction if you start from the following premises:
a)Ivins is guilty.
b)He had no accomplices, so he HAD to have made the trip(s) personally.
c)The easiest way for a man with a working vehicle to make that trip unnoticed would be to use that vehicle.
------
But the WHOLE PURPOSE of examining whether it likely Ivins made the trip(s) (based on evidence available) is: to determine whether he WAS guilty of the crimes in question. IOW premise a) completely
short-circuits the reasoning, because it assumes an answer to the very thing being 'reasoned' about.
R. Rowley wrote: "The speculation that Mister Lake calls "deduction" is only a deduction if you start from the following premises:
ReplyDeletea)Ivins is guilty.
b)He had no accomplices, so he HAD to have made the trip(s) personally.
c)The easiest way for a man with a working vehicle to make that trip unnoticed would be to use that vehicle."
Mr. Rowley demonstrates once again that he is woefully ignorant of the evidence against Ivins.
1. The FBI didn't start with any assumption that Ivins was guilty. They went where the evidence took them.
2. The FBI started with the premise that Muslim terrorists were behind the mailings.
3. Facts about the Ames strain caused them to change their premise to assume for years that the culprit was an American scientist who lived within a hundred miles or so of the mailbox, since criminals do not typically travel long distances to commit their crimes.
4. Facts then began to show that very few people had access to the Ames strain, and most of them worked at USAMRIID. So, the FBI began to focus on USAMRIID.
5. It took over three years before Ivins even became a suspect as a result of his abilities with making spores and due to his attempts to mislead investigators.
6. Ivins told investigators that he would often drove ALONE to places hundreds of miles away to play tricks or to mail letters.
7. The FBI checked in-out logs and witnesses and found no reason to believe that Ivins had any accomplices.
So, the FACTS say just the opposite of what Mr. Rowley believes and/or claims. Putting the evidence together piece by piece over a period of YEARS eventually led to Bruce Ivins as being the anthrax killer.
Mr. Rowley also wrote: "But the WHOLE PURPOSE of examining whether it likely Ivins made the trip(s) (based on evidence available) is: to determine whether he WAS guilty of the crimes in question."
There was no "examining whether it is likely Ivins made the trip(s)." The facts gradually showed that Ivins made the anthrax powders in his own lab, and the facts showed he had no alibi for the times of the mailings, and the facts showed that driving long distances alone at night without telling anyone was what Ivins liked to do, therefore it can be DEDUCED from the FACTS that Ivins drove to New Jersey alone to mail the letters.
It is Mr. Rowley's logic that is fouled up. He assumes that Bruce Ivins was innocent (because Mr. Rowley has another theory), and he develops absurd scenarios about how he thinks the FBI incorrectly figured out that Ivins was the killer.
The FACTS say that Bruce Ivins was the anthrax mailer.
Mr. Rowley has presented NO evidence to show that his evidence against his suspect is better than the case against Ivins. His argument is that by attacking the FBI, people will somehow start to believe his theory - even though he shows no meaningful evidence for his theory. That's illogical.
Mr. Rowley's case is illogical. He argues that because he believes he is right, that MUST mean the FBI is wrong.
Ed
Here's an oddball thing I discovered today: evidently in Canada when they give the date via slashes, FIRST they give the year, THEN the month, THEN the day. Unless it's some quirk of the FINANCIAL POST, or some Internet-based aberration (ie they handle dates otherwise in hard copy texts).
ReplyDeleteLive and learn!
http://opinion.financialpost.com/2013/08/29/lawrence-solomon-kissingers-good-option/
http://business.financialpost.com/2013/08/30/the-abc-and-ds-of-investing-risk/
R. Rowley wrote: "Unless it's some quirk of the FINANCIAL POST, or some Internet-based aberration (ie they handle dates otherwise in hard copy texts)."
ReplyDeleteWhy not check other Canadian sites instead of developing a theory based upon just what the Financial Post does?
It appears to be "a quirk of the Financial Post." They evidently do things that way so that their file directories can be sorted in the order they want.
Here's what other Canadian sites do:
http://www.cbc.ca/thenational/ All dates are Sept. 1, 2013
http://www.cbc.ca/thenational/blog/ All dates are Sept. 1, 2013
http://www.thestar.com/ All dates are Sept. 1, 2013
http://www.ctvnews.ca/ All dates are Sept. 1, 2013
http://www.calgarysun.com/ All dates are Sept. 1, 2013
http://www.canadiantrainvacations.com/testimonials Sept. 1, 2013
So, the Financial Post SEEMS to be the LONE exception -- except for me. I have thousands of log files and email files that are filed by their dates which look like this: 130901 - because if I sort files for multiple years together, it will put all the files for 2013 in order instead of putting Sept. 2013 together with Sept. 2012 and Sept. 2011, etc.
Ed
Here's a web site where handwriting samples from kindergarten and first grade are compared: http://ochandwriting.com/handwriting_samples.html
ReplyDeleteHere's a site where a handwriting "consultant" shows off what are probably the best examples of kindergarten handwriting: http://teachingwritinginkindergarten.com/my_classroom/writing_samples
Here's a site with samples of handwriting apparently collected in the first weeks of kindergarten: http://www.onekama.k12.mi.us/e2003/kdgb/Journal/halloween.htm
Here are some samples of children's handwriting from the first week of first grade: http://sbusdyearoflearning.com/2013/08/08/day-9-david-erlbeck-1st-grade-
teacher-at-emory/
Here's a web site where a guy in England makes fonts out of children's handwriting, starting at age THREE: http://dalelane.co.uk/blog/?p=1951
And, here's the site where you can make fonts out of any kind of handwriting sample for $9: http://www.fontifier.com/
Ed
Since Mister Lake has recently been discussing novels, I thought I might take this opportunity to ask him whether, in those early years of the Case (2001-2006 say), anyone discussing Amerithrax on the Internet brought up the 1999 Robin Cooke novel VECTOR?
ReplyDeleteTherein in a prologue a Greek immigrant rug dealer in New York receives an odd bit of (apparent) junk mail. He opens it only to activate a spring mechanism which launches into the air a white powder mixed with tiny stars. The powder proves to be anthrax: the rug dealer becomes ill and dies a few days later.
The date of original publication, January of 1999 suggests that this is a potential partial inspiration for Amerithrax.
(For me in particular, coming upon this novel several years back, the congruences with the J-Lo letter in particular were striking:
an apparent bit of routine, harmless mail as a subterfuge; a surprise white powder content; death via anthrax sometime later; tiny stars in both packages.)
Thanks!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vector_(novel)
http://www.bookbrowse.com/reviews/index.cfm/book_number/275/vector
There's a National Enquirer article on my site that mentions "Vector."
ReplyDeletehttp://www.anthraxinvestigation.com/misc2.html#ne011031
It begins this way:
National Enquirer - Oct. 31, 2001
INVESTIGATORS probing the bioterrorist attack on American Media, Inc. believe the spores were delivered in a deadly “letter bomb” - and the senders were inspired by the best-selling Robin Cook book “Vector.”
The ENQUIRER’S exclusive in-depth probe also reveals a chilling link between Stevens and the terrorists behind the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon: The wife of Steven’s boss at the Sun newspaper spent a week with two of the terrorists, helping them find rental apartments in Florida – which they left just before the September 11 carnage.
But, I don't think anyone else viewed things that way (even if the Enquirer claims they did). Most people I talked with figured that the anthrax mailer got his idea from all the hoax anthrax letters that had been sent through the mail for the prior few years. That's probably where Robin Cook got his idea.
Ed
Well, since, to my knowledge, NONE of the pre-Amerithrax anthrax hoax letters were disguised as (a)(n) commercial (ie junk*) mailing(s), AND none, to my knowledge, contained tiny stars mixed in with the white powder in question, I'm going to have to disagree with your assessment.
ReplyDelete*Oddly enough Mister Lake and I, not that long ago, disagreed (Surprise!) about the definition of 'junk mail'. Here his more latitudinarian approach to the question in effect lumps the J-Lo
letter in with the mail piece of VECTOR: by his lights, they are both pieces of junk mail. I would note their congruences simply from the fact that they employ outer subterfuges (VECTOR: This is just a commercial mailing!; J-Lo:'This is just a piece of J-Lo fan mail!'; This connects them thematically to the other** EXPLICIT subterfuge in Amerithrax: that of the envelopes of the second batch: 'This is just a letter from a fourth grade class in New Jersey!').
In general hoax letters seem to either CLAIM their contents are dangerous or threaten in some way(via the language or via the white-powder contents). They seem to rarely employ subterfuge(s) of the this-is-a-harmless-missive type. For if they did, they wouldn't be reckoned 'threatening letters' at all. And we wouldn't likely know about them.
Another congruence I should have mentioned earlier was: the main villain of VECTOR is: a former Soviet citizen who worked at Biopreparat. This Russian-as-villain trope seems to be honored by
the Cyrillic elements that were contained in (at least) one St Pete hoax letter of Sept-Oct 2001............according to Don Foster.
**The first explicit subterfuge is: 'This is from Islamic terrorists!', based on the three slogans in the text.
R. Rowley wrote: "In general hoax letters seem to either CLAIM their contents are dangerous or threaten in some way(via the language or via the white-powder contents)."
DeleteWhich supports what I wrote about the hoax letters being the inspiration for the REAL anthrax letters. The REAL anthrax letters claimed the contents were dangerous AND included threats.
The facts say that the J-Lo letter had nothing to do with the anthrax attacks. The same with the St. Pete hoax letter. So, your SPECULATION about those letters is meaningless here.
If you have evidence, PRESENT IT. Don't just endlessly make UNSUPPORTED CLAIMS that mean nothing. All you are doing is PROVING that you have no evidence to support your beliefs.
Ed
Apparently Robert Graysmith at least touched on VECTOR in his book dealing with AMERITHRAX.
ReplyDeleteIt's called THE HUNT FOR THE ANTHRAX KILLER.
http://books.google.com/books?id=fy6dcvs0UvoC&pg=PT94&lpg=PT94&dq=novel+vector+by+%22robin+cook%22++amerithrax&source=bl&ots=mQCuoLZcr6&sig=LC7aeKEZ3_eDS5zCQX9G7szSFyQ&hl=en&sa=X&ei=U8g4UvzIC6TK2AW2j4HwDQ&ved=0CCkQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=novel%20vector%20by%20%22robin%20cook%22%20%20amerithrax&f=false
From my web site:
DeleteNovember 12, 2003 - Yesterday I finished reading Robert Graysmith’s book "Amerithrax: The Hunt for the Anthrax Killer", and I was pleasantly surprised. While I had been told that it is primarily a "rehash" of newspaper articles, and it is that, it is still a good overview of the attacks with countless details for flavoring.
Graysmith credits my web site as an "invaluable resource", and while reading the book I occasionally felt that I was reading my own words. Yet, as if to prove that everyone interprets facts differently, he begins his book in what I consider to be "fantasy land" by accepting as valid the notion that the J-Lo letter contained the AMI anthrax. And he even mentions it again in the very last paragraph as being the "Holy Grail" for the case.
and
"He’s wrong on lots of his facts. On page 50 he writes, "Using the code [on the envelopes], the Postal Service was able to locate the box where the anthrax mail originated." In reality, it was only through testing of nearly every possible mail box that they found the right one - a year after the mailing. And he seems to think that most or all the letters got wet somehow. And on page 147 he says that "The Post sample turned out to be nearly pure spores." [The Post sample was only 10 percent spores.] He thinks the anthrax mailer sent the Assaad letter. Bah! Humbug! On page 186 he says that the Ames strain was "perfected" at Iowa State University. And on and on. His understanding of the facts disagrees with my understanding of the facts quite often, but we also agree on many items. And he does supply information that I may have missed or forgotten or just never knew before."
Ed
Also from my web site:
DeleteJune 4, 2007 - Hmmm. Someone just informed me that a new fictional book by author Greg Bear titled "Quantico" has a fictional villain who sent the anthrax letters. On page 115 it says, "Tommy Juan Battista Juarez was the Amerithrax killer." It appears to indicate that the anthrax which killed Bob Stevens was in the J-Lo letter. Most likely, Greg Bear got that bogus info from Robert Graysmith's 2003 book "Amerithrax - The Hunt for the Anthrax Killer" which opened with several chapters about how the J-Lo letter killed Stevens. Fiction based upon fiction! I find that interesting. And it would seem that Greg Bear is convinced that the actual culprit will never be caught -- or at least not until his book completes its run through hardback and paperback."
Ed
And now as part of our ongoing series, world's most terrible summaries of postings on the Amerithrax Case on the Internet, we give you the latest entry:
ReplyDelete-----------------------
But, of course, there are still people who believe it was the J-Lo letter which contained the anthrax that killed Bob Stevens at AMI. One Anthrax Truther reminded me of that in a post this morning to my interactive blog. We were arguing where the anthrax killer (i.e., Bruce Ivins) got his idea to send anthrax letters through the mail. The blogger argued that he got it from the 1999 novel "Vector" by Robin Cook. I argued that he probably got it from all the hoax anthrax letters that were in the news at that time. The counter argument was that that cannot be, because the J-Lo letter was not like any hoax letter. The Anthrax Truther was arguing one disproved belief as proof of the validity of another disproved belief. That is what passes as "logic" among the Anthrax Truthers.
==========================================================
"Inaccuracies"
---------
1) I did not "argue"* that the Anthrax Killer (NOT Bruce Ivins)got the idea of sending anthrax through the mail from VECTOR (why would I, since an element of my hypothesis, which I've expressed here a number of times, is that the Anthrax Killer sent the petri dish labeled 'anthrachs' or possibly 'anthracs' etc. to B'nai Brith in APRIL OF 1997? ie almost two full years before the first publication of VECTOR). It would make no sense in terms of my hypothesis and the inherent chronology.
2)Rather I suggested (not 'argued'*) that the Anthrax Killer MAY have lifted 3 tropes from that prologue/text of VECTOR:
a)the this-is-just-a-harmless-mailing trope (evident BOTH in the J-Lo pseudo-fan letter AND in the return address of the 2nd batch letters (4th Grade etc.). In the latter case it's just a trick to get the person to open the letter(s). In the former case an ongoing deception, since Stevens died not 100% sure it was the J-Lo letter that did him in, not unlike the first victim of VECTOR.
b)the stars mixed with the anthrax in VECTOR may be why the J-Lo package/letter contained a Star of David charm (which would have to be in the rare to super rare category of white powder mailings (ie some tiny fraction of 1% is going to contain a star or stars).
At least I've never heard of even a single white-powder mailing that contained stars/a star. Except the J-Lo letter.
c)VECTOR's ex-Soviet bioweaponeer as (main) villain may be why the Amerithrax Killer used pseudo-Cyrillic elements in (at least)one
St Pete Hoax letter. To suggest (falsely) a 'Russian' perp.
It is the details of the mailings which link them thematically (or fail to do so).
*By using the verb 'argue' Mister Lake is projecting his own polemical pugnaciousness onto me. No thanks. The reader can reread my posts above to see whether I'm suggesting or 'arguing'.
Mr. Rowley,
ReplyDeleteWhether you are suggesting it or arguing it, your jumble of incoherent points are still total nonsense.
The FACTS say that the J-Lo letter did NOT contain anthrax.
1. The anthrax letter was opened by Stephanie Dailey. She tested positive for anthrax exposure (spores were found in her nostrils.)
2. The trail of anthrax through the postal system led directly from Princeton to Stephanie Dailey's desk.
3. The area around Stephanie Dailey's desk on the 1st floor was the most contaminated area in the AMI building.
4. The person who opened the J-Lo letter (Bobby Bender) did NOT test positive for anthrax exposure.
5. The 3rd floor area where Bender opened the J-Lo letter was the LEAST contaminated area in the building.
So, any discussion of the J-Lo letter being filled with anthrax is pure unsubstantiated speculation, i.e., baloney.
And, there is NO evidence that the St. Pete hoax letter had any connection to the real anthrax mailings. So, your speculation or suggestion or argument or claim is just more baloney.
If you want to make a claim, PRESENT FACTS TO SUPPORT YOUR CLAIM. Arguing, suggesting, claiming unsubstantiated baloney is still just baloney, no matter how you slice it.
Ed
Whether you are suggesting it or arguing it, your jumble of incoherent points are still total nonsense.
ReplyDelete=====================================================
I've reread my last post and I see nothing "incoherent" in it whatsoever. I take it you have NOTHING to say about:
1)the Star of David in the J-Lo letter (and how this corresponds to the stars in the anthrax powder in the prologue of VECTOR).
2)the fact that the J-Lo letter, far from being a 'threatening' letter, seems to be a harmless fan letter (and thus corresponds to the (apparently) harmless advertisement mailing in the prologue of VECTOR).
3)the fact that one St Pete hoax letter uses pseudo-Cyrillic in the lettering (and that this calls to mind the rogue Soviet villain of VECTOR).
And, as usual when you have nothing of substance to say, you substitute: invective. So: "baloney" (twice); "total nonsense".
I'm not going to respond in kind. No point to it. I'm going to take your above post seriously. In my next post(s).
I (first)
ReplyDelete-----
Mister Lake posted:
"The FACTS say that the J-Lo letter did NOT contain anthrax."
----------------------------------------------
Well then you'd better straighten out the above "facts":
-----------------------------------------------------
1. The anthrax letter was opened by Stephanie Dailey. She tested positive for anthrax exposure (spores were found in her nostrils.)
Problems:
a)the point ASSUMES (assumption=non-factually based premise) that there was only one anthrax letter in the AMI building in September of 2001. That's unproved and unlikely: the building housed TWO tabloids. Stephens worked at THE SUN and likely become exposed via a piece of mail directed to (someone who worked at) THE SUN. But there was a spore trail from the old 'NATIONAL ENQUIRER' building in Lantana to the new home in Boca Raton in the AMI building*. So letter #1, let's say. Stephens, working as photo-editor of THE SUN, would not be opening NATIONAL ENQUIRER mail, even when, as happened September 19th, 2001, he was (helping to) fill(ing) in for THE SUN correspondence editor. Exposure. Call it: letter #2. Stephanie Dailey HERSELF reported having handled TWO 'suspicious' pieces of mail in the time period in question. But then she worked in the mailroom and would likely have seen mail for both tabloids. I think she opened only one of those two
but saw the contents as 'talcum powder'.
*(for treatment of this by Leonard Cole see:
http://books.google.com/books?id=z6X_CJBJDcoC&pg=PA41&lpg=PA41&dq=ami+building+boca+raton+national+enquirer&source=bl&ots=xCadN6aAOz&sig=JiiXTKh_lpsdbxd6qjLSV8G6WUA&hl=en&sa=X&ei=KYc7Uo2CHrPCyAG5kYDYCg&ved=0CEMQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=ami%20building%20boca%20raton%20national%20enquirer&f=false
(Marilyn Thompson deals with some of this on pages 81 and 83 of her book. Her take is consistent with Cole's)
It was Jean Marie Malecki, the Palm Beach County Health Director, who stated that TWO pieces of mail were involved (ie contained anthrax). She said that based on the work of the epidemiological investigation. Again, see Cole, above link.
Ah, what the heck:
A bit of that linked page of Cole's book: " [...]The likelihood of more than one mail item is strengthened* by Jean Malecki,
the county health department director. The epidemiological investigation pointed to "at least two anthrax letters sent to AMI," she said. The investigation turned up:
-----
...two different routes that would eventually go back to the AMI building.....[...]
------------
*The reason the word "strengthened" is used here is that in the immediately preceding passage an FBI agent named Judy
Orihuela is cited as stating that Bobby Bender handled "one of the Lopez letters" meaning that Orihuela's assumption is
that there was more than one "Lopez letter".
----------------------------------------------------
R. Rowley wrote: "a)the point ASSUMES (assumption=non-factually based premise) that there was only one anthrax letter in the AMI building in September of 2001. That's unproved"
DeleteIt IS proved. You just don't understand FACTS OR EVIDENCE.
The facts I listed showed that the J-Lo envelope could NOT have contained anthrax since the person who opened it was not contaminated by the letter, and the area where it was opened was not contaminated by the letter.
R. Rowley also wrote: "So letter #1, let's say. Stephens, working as photo-editor of THE SUN, would not be opening NATIONAL ENQUIRER mail"
Right. There's no known DIRECT connection between the opening of the ONE anthrax letter and Stevens' infection. But the FACTS say that (1) Stevens SOMETIMES worked in the libraries on the first floor, which was a very contaminated area, and (2) Stevens was 63 years old, which the FACTS say made him more susceptible to anthrax than younger people. There were MANY people who could have been infected, but only two people were infected: 63-year-old Bob Stevens and 73-year-old Ernesto Blanco. So, there are factors involved besides actually handling of the letter.
R. Rowley also wrote: "It was Jean Marie Malecki, the Palm Beach County Health Director, who stated that TWO pieces of mail were involved (ie contained anthrax)."
SHE SAID THERE WERE TWO LETTERS WHICH COULD HAVE CONTAINED ANTHRAX. SHE DID NOT SAY THERE WERE TWO LETTERS THAT CONTAINED ANTHRAX. She had no evidence to support such a claim. FBI scientists PROVED that there was only ONE anthrax letter.
R. Rowley also wrote: "Orihuela is cited as stating that Bobby Bender handled "one of the Lopez letters" meaning that Orihuela's assumption is that there was more than one "Lopez letter"."
You're looking at some discussion where people are talking about what they remember. Someone remembers a different J-Lo letter, but they're also saying "the FBI felt there was more than one package." And Cole is jumbling things together to suggest that there were two J-Lo letters. That's like gossip. It's of no value. You need to learn the difference between gossip and evidence.
The J-Lo package did NOT contain anthrax.
The letter that Stephanie Dailey opened and then threw away contained anthrax.
That is what the FACTS say. Gossip changes nothing.
Ed
Part II
ReplyDelete----------
b) the above remark by Mister Lake states that Dailey 'opened' one of these suspicious pieces of mail. Certainly she opened SOME mail
possibly including the INQUIRER anthrax letter but that doesn't
establish in any way that there was no SUN anthrax letter. Or even NECESSARILY that her own exposure was a product of opening that letter.
Dailey seems to have been a 'mail handler' primarily (ie a sort of assistant to Blanco, the head of the mailroom).
In some accounts Dailey reported 'handling' the two pieces of (suspicious) mail. Handling, period. And that fits her job description. Her account in her interview with Larry King is very vague: she does report 'opening' a letter that contained 'baby powder' but seems to think this unconnected(!!) to her own exposure.
Since 2 of the 5 Amerithrax deaths were suffered by postal employees who are NOT believed to have 'opened' any contaminated pieces of mail, it's clear that opening the letters was not NECESSARY to become exposed. That is further buttressed by the deaths of Katherine Nguyen, and Ottilie Lundgren who are thought to have become exposed via spores on the OUTSIDE of cross-contaminated letters (ie envelopes). Again, no 'opening' was necessary. Come to that, if Stevens was exposed via the J-Lo letter, then 5 of the 5 fatalities were of persons who were NOT exposed via opening anthrax-bearing letters. Stevens did not open the J-Lo letter, he merely examined it closely at his desk. Too closely.
R. Rowley wrote: "Dailey seems to have been a 'mail handler' primarily (ie a sort of assistant to Blanco, the head of the mailroom)."
DeleteStephanie Dailey's job was to open mail for THE NATIONAL ENQUIRER. She had spores in her nostrils. The area around her desk was the most contaminated area in the building. Whether she thinks the letter she opened contained anthrax or not is irrelevant. The FACTS say she opened a letter filled with anthrax.
R. Rowley wrote: "Stevens did not open the J-Lo letter, he merely examined it closely at his desk. Too closely."
Yes, "Bender delicately transferred the letter from his palms to Bob’s palms.
“Bob walked back to his desk and sat down, holding the letter in his cupped palms over the keyboard of his computer, with his arms bent so his face was right over the powder and just inches away from it.”
If the J-Lo letter contained anthrax, carrying it around that way would have contaminated the entire area. The first tests of Stevens' desk didn't find ANY SPORES. They had to go back and swab Ivins' keyboard a SECOND time, and they found a SINGLE SPORE, which could have simply gotten there via air currents as people walked to and fro.
Besides, the J-Lo package contained an empty detergent box AND others said that the powder in the letter was LAUNDRY DETERGENT. It SMELLED like laundry detergent. And the people who SMELLED the powder did NOT test positive for anthrax exposure.
We do not know exactly how Bob Stevens was exposed, but it is a virtual certainly that it was NOT via the J-Lo letter.
Ed
R. Rowley wrote: "Dailey seems to have been a 'mail handler' primarily (ie a sort of assistant to Blanco, the head of the mailroom)."
DeleteStephanie Dailey's job was to open mail for THE NATIONAL ENQUIRER. She had spores in her nostrils. The area around her desk was the most contaminated area in the building. Whether she thinks the letter she opened contained anthrax or not is irrelevant. The FACTS say she opened a letter filled with anthrax
===============================================
That does not refute what I've contended ALL ALONG (including this thread above): there
were TWO anthrax-bearing letters: one for THE ENQUIRER, one for THE SUN.
It is YOU who have this incessant black-or-white mindset:
if there was an INQUIRER anthrax letter, that means there was no SUN anthrax letter. Doesn't follow.
And you are opposing not merely me in this but: that FBI agent already cited (Judy Orihuela), Jean Marie Malecki, the CDC etc. In this YOU are the "Truther".
===============================================
If the J-Lo letter contained anthrax, carrying it around that way would have contaminated the entire area. The first tests of Stevens' desk didn't find ANY SPORES.
----------------------------------------------
You write, and write CONSISTENTLY, as if there were no maintenance of any kind done in that building. Your experience MUST be different from mine: I think janitorial services are typically used in an office setting, if not daily (no pun intended), then a few times a week, likely in the off-hours . So, the anthrax spores found WEEKS AFTER September 19th were the remnants: the spores not cleared away via: vacuuming, sweeping, mopping etc.
In fact the BIGGEST spillages of anthrax powder(s) (ie the ones visible to the naked eye) would likely be the ones most likely cleaned up thoroughly: just as the squeaky wheel gets the grease, the dirty-looking linoleum get the broom/mop.
IN ADDITION, of course, office workers typically wipe off their own table-tops, if only to avoid getting coffee-stains (among other things) all over papers. That Stevens cleaned off his desk after spilling the white powder from the J-Lo letter on it seems reasonable, if not obvious. From September 19th (the day he looked at that letter) to October 25th, the last day before his vacation, he likely cleaned off his desk a half-dozen times (but if he was rather fastidious, more than that: I'm only assuming one desk-cleaning a day).
Once again, Mister Lake seems not able to picture the way ordinary people do ordinary things (mail letters, clean up their desks etc). For him Amerithrax is sui generis.
R. Rowley wrote: "You write, and write CONSISTENTLY, as if there were no maintenance of any kind done in that building."
DeleteNot so. It's been my theory since early 2003 that Bob Stevens was infected by the cleaning crew vacuuming the rugs and blowing spores into the air. I even contacted vacuum cleaner manufacturers at one point to confirm that the holes in vacuum cleaner bags would NOT prevent spores from being blown out of the bags.
Check my web page: http://www.anthraxinvestigation.com/Florida.html
Also, in my 2005 book I wrote on page 79:
--------------
So, if Bob Stevens didn’t contract anthrax from the J-Lo letter, how did he get the disease? There is absolutely no reason to believe he ever saw the real anthrax letter which was opened and tossed away by
Stephanie Dailey.
While reading Marilyn W. Thompson’s book "The Killer Strain", I came across a tiny tidbit of information on page 75 included in a three line description of what the 63-year-old Sun photo editor did during the first three days of the week in which Stephanie Dailey opened the anthrax letter:
“Monday: He worked.
“Tuesday: He worked.
“Wednesday: He worked late.
I found this as I was trying to determine whether Stevens had worked the three days before he left for his vacation in North Carolina, which began in mid-week - on Thursday, September 27. If Stephanie Dailey had opened the anthrax letter on Tuesday the 25th, it was absolutely necessary that Bob Stevens be at work on the 25th or 26th in order to be exposed.
So, Marilyn Thompson’s book told me he did work the days just before he went on his trip. And he even worked late on Wednesday the 26th, the evening before he left for North Carolina - the day after Stephanie recalls opening the anthrax letter. (According to Robert Graysmith’s book, “Amerithrax: The Hunt for the Anthrax Killer”, which came out months later, Stevens not only worked late, he worked “very late”.)
--------------
On page 80, in a section titled "DEATH BY VACUUM CLEANER" I describe what the facts say about the theory that Stevens was killed by the spores put into the air by the cleaning crew vacuuming rugs.
R. Rowley wrote: In fact the BIGGEST spillages of anthrax powder(s) (ie the ones visible to the naked eye) would likely be the ones most likely cleaned up thoroughly: just as the squeaky wheel gets the grease, the dirty-looking linoleum get the broom/mop."
Pure fantasy. The ONLY place where spores might have been visible to the naked eye is around the waste basket where Stephanie Dailey dumped the anthrax letter.
Ed
Part III
ReplyDelete-----
On to Mister Lake's second point: 2. The trail of anthrax through the postal system led directly from Princeton to Stephanie Dailey's desk.
-------------------------------------------------------
Not in the case of the NATIONAL ENQUIRER letter. THAT trail led first to the ENQUIRER's old address in Lantana, only
subsequently to the new one in the AMI building in Boca Raton. This is in the passage I already linked to above, the
passage in Leonard Cole's book:
http://books.google.com/books?id=z6X_CJBJDcoC&pg=PA41&lpg=PA41&dq=ami+building+boca+raton+national+enquirer&source=bl&ots=xCadN6aAOz&sig=JiiXTKh_lpsdbxd6qjLSV8G6WUA&hl=en&sa=X&ei=KYc7Uo2CHrPCyAG5kYDYCg&ved=0CEMQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=ami%20building%20boca%20raton%20national%20enquirer&f=false
That trail is most consistent with 1) an anthrax-bearing letter for the Enquirer. Which wouldn't have contaminated Stephens because he worked for THE SUN, and IN ADDITION, didn't work in the AMI mailroom (which obviously was handling/delivering mail for/to both tabloids).
Back to Mister Lake:
3. The area around Stephanie Dailey's desk on the 1st floor was the most contaminated area in the AMI building.
----------------------------------
Makes sense. Because her desk was either in the mailroom or adjacent to it. So BOTH anthrax-bearing letters (the one mailed to THE SUN, the one mailed to the NATIONAL ENQUIRER) were, prior to delivery, in close proximity to that desk and were being jostled by being dumped on the floor preliminary to sorting etc. Some of the very processes that contaminated the Brentwood postal facility (minus only the automatic sorting machinery of the USPS) but the letter(s)at the Brentwood facility were NOT opened. Leakage sufficed.
That Dailey also opened a letter that contained what seemed to her to be baby powder loosely confirms that
there were not merely "two white powder mailings" but two anthrax-bearing mailings at the AMI building.
Back to Mister Lake:
-------------------------------------------------------
4. The person who opened the J-Lo letter (Bobby Bender) did NOT test positive for anthrax exposure.
-------------------------------------------------------
Opening a letter isn't a magical process which automatically puts the contents of that letter into your respiratory
tract. For that to happen, certain conditions have to be met. Bobby Bender was lucky, that's all. Plus he wasn't
nearsighted, but I repeat myself!
I wrote: "The trail of anthrax through the postal system led directly from Princeton to Stephanie Dailey's desk."
DeleteI shouldn't have used the word "directly." The letter went through many different post offices, including the one in Lantana, before it ended up on Dailey's desk. I was trying to make the point that "The trail of anthrax through the postal system led from Princeton to Stephanie Dailey's desk." It did NOT lead to Bob Stevens' desk.
The argument that the area around Dailey's desk was contaminated because it was near the mail room and thus could have been contaminated by the J-Lo letter passing through is ABSURD. Assuming that the closed letter was dropped on the floor, causing the contamination, is SCIENTIFICALLY RIDICULOUS.
R. Rowley wrote: "That Dailey also opened a letter that contained what seemed to her to be baby powder loosely confirms that there were not merely "two white powder mailings" but two anthrax-bearing mailings at the AMI building."
FALSE. The ONLY valid evidence is the testimony of the people and the results of the field testing for spores. That evidence says there was only ONE anthrax letter, and it was the one opened by Stephanie Dailey at her desk. The FACTS override and DISPROVE Stephanie Dailey's beliefs AND the gossip.
You are arguing that beliefs and gossip override all the FACTS. That may be your belief, but it has nothing to do with a REAL police investigation or what constitutes scientific evidence.
Ed
Assuming that the closed letter was dropped on the floor, causing the contamination, is SCIENTIFICALLY RIDICULOUS.
Delete=========================================
Obviously you've NEVER worked:
1)at the Post Office
and/or
2) in a mail room
----------------------------------------
TYPICALLY mail is put in large burlap-type sacks, the easier to carry. When you reach your destination (the mail room) and are ready to sort, you up-end the sack, and the contents fall to the floor (or to a workstation if the workstation has enough room). While in the burlap bag there will be leakage of spores (because of the pores in the envelope(s)), so the bag itself will be 'hot' with some settling (temporarily) of spores on other letter surfaces (ie that's what 'cross-contamination' is)as well as on the inside surface of the sack. Opening/upending the sack naturally causes some of those spores to end up on the floor. Others float, at least temporarily, in the air.
Even if the anthrax-bearing letter isn't at the top of the sack (and thus the first letter to hit the floor) it will land on top of OTHER letters, and in turn be landed on, causing further compression, further leakage. How do you think all those spores got all over 3 entire floors of the AMI building? YOUR version, that one letter alone, that never got past Stephanie Dailey's desk, caused UPPER floors of the building to become contaminated makes no sense. It's the physical properties of leakage (plus the J-Lo letter) that caused all that contamination.
--------------------------------------------
R. Rowley wrote: "That Dailey also opened a letter that contained what seemed to her to be baby powder loosely confirms that there were not merely "two white powder mailings" but two anthrax-bearing mailings at the AMI building."
FALSE. The ONLY valid evidence is the testimony of the people and the results of the field testing for spores. That evidence says there was only ONE anthrax letter, and it was the one opened by Stephanie Dailey at her desk.
------------------------------------------
The CDC, Jean Marie Malecki, and the FBI evidently don't agree with you, Mister Lake!
R. Rowley wrote: "TYPICALLY mail is put in large burlap-type sacks,"
DeleteYes, I HAVE worked in a mailroom. I was the guy who drove to the post office to get the mail to bring it to the mail sorters. Mail bags are CANVAS, not burlap. They would not easily leak spores. I was also the guy who delivered the mail in the office after it had been sorted.
When the bags are opened on the sorting counter, the mail is carefully pulled out and distributed along the counter. The last mail in the bottom of the bag may be dumped on the counter. Everyone does it every day, so they know not to drop anything on the floor, since that means someone has to bend over to pick it up. Accidents happen, of course, but it's ridiculous to believe that the anthrax letter just happened to fall on the floor -- OR that such an action would cause ALL the contamination in the mailroom area.
Tests were done on the vehicle and the car and the mail sorting table and the slots in the sorting racks. There were a few spores found, but the real concentration was by Stephanie Dailey's desk where she opened the letter and then threw it and its contents into a wastepaper basket.
I saw you visited my J-Lo page last night and this morning. So, you've seen the charts showing where they found spores.
"How do you think all those spores got all over 3 entire floors of the AMI building? "
The FBI determined that the spores were tracked there by people coming to the mailroom area near Dailey's desk to get copy paper for the copy machines.
"The CDC, Jean Marie Malecki, and the FBI evidently don't agree with you, Mister Lake!"
You're looking at early BELIEFS. I'm looking at later FINDINGS AND FACTS. When it appeared that the CDC's report could not be right, several different agencies went back into the building to do a scientific evaluation of the location of the spores. The results PROVED that the CDC's initial findings (based only upon interviews) was wrong. The J-Lo letter did NOT contain anthrax. The letter opened by Stephanie Dailey was the ONLY letter that contained anthrax.
Ed
"The CDC, Jean Marie Malecki, and the FBI evidently don't agree with you, Mister Lake!"
DeleteYou're looking at early BELIEFS. I'm looking at later FINDINGS AND FACTS.
---------------------------------------------------
You've provided NOTHING from the Task Force/DoJ on the J-Lo letter. What "findings"? Sheer rhetoric devoid of substance.
You're defending (in this AMI matter) not the Task Force/DoJ, but your own long-standing polemical stance.
And document on this website.
Big difference.
----------------------------------------------
The letter opened by Stephanie Dailey was the ONLY letter that contained anthrax.
------------------------------------------
You've failed for 12 years now to explain how Stevens on the third floor (the least contaminated part of the building) became infected by an anthrax letter opened by Dailey on the FIRST FLOOR. If you can't do it, it can't be done.
R. Rowley wrote: "You've failed for 12 years now to explain how Stevens on the third floor (the least contaminated part of the building) became infected by an anthrax letter opened by Dailey on the FIRST FLOOR. If you can't do it, it can't be done."
DeleteYou are confirming that you are just a TROLL. Your reasoning is illogical, incoherent nonsense, evidently just to create arguments.
Do you think Stevens LIVED on the third floor? Do you think he arrived and left via a helicopter on the roof? What is your proof of that?
Stevens' desk was on the third floor, but he spent much of his time in the first floor photo library (he was a photo editor). Of course, he would also have to pass through the first floor to get to the third floor.
No one knows exactly how Stevens became infected from the anthrax letter opened by Stephanie Dailey, but we KNOW he wasn't infected from the J-Lo letter because the FACTS say there was no anthrax in the J-Lo letter. The powder in the J-Lo letter was LAUNDRY DETERGENT.
As I've stated in various comments in this thread, the facts suggest that Ivins was infected while working in the photo library late in the evening while the janitorial staff were vacuuming the rugs. The vacuuming process stirred up the spores and aerosolized them. And, Stevens was 63 years old and probably tired from working so late, so his immune system was not able to protect him.
It's not something that can be conclusively proved, but it fits all the facts. The theory that he was infected by the J-Lo letter fits NONE OF THE FACTS. It's a gossip-based theory based upon BELIEFS, not facts.
Ed
R. Rowley wrote: "I take it you have NOTHING to say about:
ReplyDelete1)the Star of David in the J-Lo letter (and how this corresponds to the stars in the anthrax powder in the prologue of VECTOR)."
I haven't read "Vector," so there's nothing I can say except, "So what?"
One is a STAR OF DAVID, which would have a totally different meaning if it was a 5-pointed star of some kind.
To me, it's the same as "DXer" arguing that the anthrax letter had a green eagle stamp on it and the green eagle is also a symbol of some kind to al Qaeda terrorists. You're making connections where there are no logical connections.
"2)the fact that the J-Lo letter, far from being a 'threatening' letter, seems to be a harmless fan letter (and thus corresponds to the (apparently) harmless advertisement mailing in the prologue of VECTOR)."
Again, so what? The fact that one is a love letter and the other is an advertisement says that the TWO LETTERS ARE DIFFERENT. It's a wild stretch of the imagination to suggest that they are in some way similar. For every "similarity," there are probably ten differences. Again, you're making connections where there are no logical connections.
"3)the fact that one St Pete hoax letter uses pseudo-Cyrillic in the lettering (and that this calls to mind the rogue Soviet villain of VECTOR)."
It calls YOUR mind to such things. No one else sees any "pseudo-Cryillic" lettering. What others see is someone writing with their "wrong hand."
And since these three UNRELATED items mean nothing to anyone but you, that makes them "incoherent."
If you consider this as being "evidence" of something, you need to do some research on what constitutes true evidence. You have nothing but MEANINGLESS, INCOHERENT "suggestions" which do not stand up under any kind of scrutiny. In other words, it's just "baloney."
Ed
Part IV(?) Back to Mister Lake:
ReplyDelete---------------------------------------------------
5. The 3rd floor area where Bender opened the J-Lo letter was the LEAST contaminated area in the building.
---------------------------------------------------
This is likely because as mail was being distributed, they began habitually on the floor the mailroom was on,
the first floor (most contaminated). There, mail which had accumulated a thin (invisible) sprinkling of spores
via the leaking through the envelope pores was moved around and spores fell to the floor. By the time the
mail person got the mail cart to the next floor (second) there was, say, 1/3rd less mail, and thus less mail to
lose its sprinkling/coat via jostling/air currents etc. By the time the mail cart got to the third floor, 2/3rds of
the mail was already gone, there was only 1/3rd of the potential for casual contamination via jostling, air currents
etc. If the AMI building had been a 10 story building, we would have expected progressively less contamination
as you moved upwards from one floor to the next, with the top floor having the least. It's a product of how mail
is typically delivered in a multiple story building.
However, since Stevens worked in the LEAST contaminated floor, that indicates all the more that something ELSE
happened to cause him to become exposed. His exposure is unlikely to be explained merely in terms of him
passing THROUGH the first floor on the way to/from his work area, as if that WERE the case, we would expect more
persons on the first floor (besides the mailroom employees Blanco and Dailey) to have been exposed AND more people
working on the 2nd and 3rd floors to have been exposed (as verified via nostril testing).
R. Rowley wrote: "It's a product of how mail is typically delivered in a multiple story building."
DeleteUtter nonsense. My first job was in a mail room. The mail from the post office is brought into the mailroom in mail bags and carry bins. In the mailroom the mail is first sorted into slots in a sorting cabinet for each department or person. It's then taken from the slots and put into a compartment for each department or person in a mail cart. The mail cart is then pushed around the building as the mail is delivered by the mail clerk (Ernesto Blanco) to each person or department and placed in their in-box. This is the way it was done at AMI, too.
This procedure does not allow for an UNOPENED letter to leave most of its spores on the first floor, more on the second floor, and the least amount on the third floor where the letter is finally opened. By that reasoning, most of the spores should have been in the Postal facility in Trenton.
R. Rowley also wrote: "However, since Stevens worked in the LEAST contaminated floor, that indicates all the more that something ELSE happened to cause him to become exposed."
Agreed. The FACTS say that right after the anthrax letter was opened, Stevens worked late at night ON THE FIRST FLOOR in the photo library to get things done before he went on vacation to North Carolina. He would have been there when the cleaning crews were vacuuming the rugs. That suggests that the vacuum cleaners were spraying spores all over the place, since anthrax spores are small enough to go through the holes in the sides of the vacuum cleaner bags.
Ed
Part V(?)(and final in the series)
ReplyDelete---------------
Let's go to the CDC report on the AMI cases:
http://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/8/10/02-0354_article.htm
Under the heading "Results" and subheading "Case investigation":
-----
Workplace interviews regarding mail exposure showed that the index patient rarely handled or opened workplace mail, but co-workers recalled that he had examined a piece of stationery containing a fine, white, talc-like powder on September 19. The patient was observed holding the stationery close to his face as he looked at it over his computer keyboard.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further down in the same CDC report under heading "Discussion":
----------
The index patient’s infection most likely occurred from inhalation of B. anthracis spores following a primary aerosolization, i.e., spores released into the air after opening a spore-containing letter. This scenario is consistent with co-workers’ recollections that the index patient held a letter containing powder over his computer keyboard, as well as environmental samples showing contamination at his keyboard, an incoming-mail desk near his workspace, and his mailroom mailbox. The second case-patient did not recall opening or seeing a letter containing powder, and the mechanism of spore aerosolization resulting in his infection is unclear. He was likely exposed while delivering 10,000–15,000 mail pieces daily to the workplace mailroom; both the mailroom and mail van were contaminated with B. anthracis spores. He may have inhaled spores after mail was compressed or shaken during delivery or after he (unknowingly) or a co-worker opened a spore-containing envelope. A secondary aerosolization, i.e., spores resuspended in the air after settling to a surface following an initial release, may also have resulted in his infection.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's clear that the CDC report is attributing the 'index patient's' (ie Stevens') infection to the J-Lo letter, since
NO OTHER such letter was reported by co-workers as being held by Stevens.
It's also clear that the 'second-case patient' (ie Blanco) "did not recall opening or seeing a letter containing powder."
In other words, Blanco's exposure was likely one of a general exposure to unusually 'hot' (ie airborne spore containing)
environments: the mail vehicle, the AMI mailroom etc.
R. Rowley wrote: "It's clear that the CDC report is attributing the 'index patient's' (ie Stevens') infection to the J-Lo letter, since NO OTHER such letter was reported by co-workers as being held by Stevens."
DeleteCorrect. But the CDC report was WRONG. It didn't make any sense that the OTHER people who looked at the J-Lo letter weren't also exposed. So, FORENSIC EXPERTS went back into the AMI building several times and did all the tests to see where the spores were actually located. Those tests showed that the CDC report was wrong, that the letter opened by Dailey was the one and ONLY anthrax letter. The spores on the other floors were tracked there by people who came down to the mailroom to get copy paper for copy machines.
The CDC was working only with eye-witness testimony, which is notoriously unreliable. The final report also looked at physical evidence.
I exchanged emails with the CDC trying to get them to revise their report, but that wasn't the way they did things.
I also exchanged emails with an FBI scientist who was involved with the search for spores in the AMI building. He wrote a report which stated and proved that there was only ONE anthrax letter sent to AMI, and it was the one opened by Dailey. Unfortunately, it was decided not to publish the report since it just seemed to be arguing with people who had their own beliefs about the J-Lo letters and it was clear that no scientific evidence from the FBI would change their minds. (That was also at the time when the conspiracy theorists who were arguing that the spores were "weaponized" were at their peak volume.)
Ed
Correct. But the CDC report was WRONG. It didn't make any sense that the OTHER people who looked at the J-Lo letter weren't also exposed. So, FORENSIC EXPERTS went back into the AMI building several times and did all the tests to see where the spores were actually located.
Delete--------------------------------------
Where's the link? Where's the documentation? Who are these "forensic experts"? (And why do I have to ask?).
You cite one UNNAMED (FBI) 'scientist' (when I'm guessing dozens of people were involved in just the AMI part of Amerithrax in 2001).
------------------------------------
He wrote a report which stated and proved that there was only ONE anthrax letter sent to AMI, and it was the one opened by Dailey.
-----------------------------------
There's no way you can logically explain why there were two separate and distinct anthrax spore trails to AMI,
unless there were two letters.
Those two spore trails ARE 'forensic evidence', they do not rely on eyewitnesses.
The question of 'how many letters?' has nothing to do with 'weaponization'.
=================================================
It didn't make any sense that the OTHER people who looked at the J-Lo letter weren't also exposed.
-----------------------------------------------
You keep on phrasing it that way. It wasn't because Stevens "looked" at the J-Lo letter that he was exposed to spores, it was because he:
1)was nearsighted and had the letter mere inches from his nose.
2)wasn't content with a quick glance (he didn't HAVE to take that letter from Bobby Bender's hands), but thought to take it to his work area.
3)lingered over that J-Lo letter: put it on his desk, perused the contents for who-knows-how-long? Perhaps moved the powder around to better see the text of the letter etc.
(But possibly, ie more speculatively):
4)dumped the white powder in a waste basket next to his desk. This would have made a greater number of spores airborne.
R. Rowley wrote: "Where's the link? Where's the documentation? Who are these "forensic experts"? (And why do I have to ask?)."
DeleteYou've been reading my J-Lo page. http://www.anthraxinvestigation.com/J-LoLetter.html
It says under "Fact #4 that the CDC did their first tests in the AMI building in October 2001, and their second set of tests in October-November 2001.
Under "Fact #5" is says the FBI went in again in August and September 2002 to determine more details. You have to read the articles at the links to find out exactly which agencies were involved.
"There's no way you can logically explain why there were two separate and distinct anthrax spore trails to AMI"
Where's your documentation that there were TWO trails of anthrax spores? I recall reading something to that effect, but I think it was later debunked.
Your SPECULATION about how Stevens contracted anthrax is not consistent with the FACTS. READ MY J-LO WEB PAGE. The facts are explained there, including a new one (#6) which I added this morning as a result of this discussion.
Ed
R. Rowley wrote: "I take it you have NOTHING to say about:
ReplyDelete1)the Star of David in the J-Lo letter (and how this corresponds to the stars in the anthrax powder in the prologue of VECTOR)."
I haven't read "Vector," so there's nothing I can say except, "So what?"
-------------------------------------------------------
Oh, so now you're not just too lazy to learn the Hebrew alphabet, you're too lazy to read a 5-page prologue to a book in lots of public libraries, a book which Malecki HERSELF noted in October, 2001 (ie 12 years ago) showed remarkable correspondences to the AMI situation? Okay, maybe in your NEXT 12 years of Amerithrax!
(And by the way, you don't have to read the book, the synopsis provided is MORE than enough. Unless you assume I made up the plot lines/details).
(And notice that Mister Lake does not dispute that perhaps a tiny fraction of 1% of white powder mailings will include a star/stars.
So the "so what?" is: this is vastly unlikely as a coincidence, vastly MORE unlikely than finding an office or house chapter of a fraternity or sorority directly across the street from a large university, one of the 'coincidences' that evidently so 'impresses' you!)
-----------------------------------------------------
"2)the fact that the J-Lo letter, far from being a 'threatening' letter, seems to be a harmless fan letter (and thus corresponds to the (apparently) harmless advertisement mailing in the prologue of VECTOR)."
Again, so what? The fact that one is a love letter and the other is an advertisement says that the TWO LETTERS ARE DIFFERENT.
=======================================================
They are both subterfuges. THAT'S the point (which you seem to go out of your way to avoid). They are both NOT 'threatening letters'.
-----------------------------------------------------
"3)the fact that one St Pete hoax letter uses pseudo-Cyrillic in the lettering (and that this calls to mind the rogue Soviet villain of VECTOR)."
It calls YOUR mind to such things. No one else sees any "pseudo-Cryillic" lettering.
====================================================
No, you slipped up again. That letter was NEVER revealed publicly. It was PROFESSOR FOSTER who saw it as an FBI consultant and who reported it in VANITY FAIR as, in his words, "Russian" or "Russian-like", with me merely substituting the more cautious 'Cyrillic' since that's all you can say about the forms: a pseudo-Bulgarian printer would likely produce the same forms.
----------
What others see is someone writing with their "wrong hand."
--------------
Again, you are mixing things up: NO ONE saw the St Pete letters as being done with "the wrong hand" since no one saw the letters who was not on the Task Force/a consultant for the Task Force.
Neither Professor Foster nor I said anything about the lettering of the address on the envelope of the Troxler letter, the only thing in the public venue. (See: scroll at least 2/3rds way down:
http://www.sptimes.com/News/101301/TampaBay/Brokaw_s_aide_tests_p.shtml
-----------------------------------------
And since these three UNRELATED items mean nothing to anyone but you, that makes them "incoherent."
Again, you are wrong: the Palm Beach County Health Director Jean Marie Malecki was the first one to make the VECTOR-to AMI connection, and she did that in 2001, 4 years before I became interested in the case. The Cyrillic elements were written up by Don Foster in 2003, 2 years before I became interested in the case, and I have no reason to doubt his word on the appearance of the printing.
So you're just flat out wrong, and in getting all that stuff mixed up, you're the one coming off as 'incoherent'.
R. Rowley wrote: "Oh, so now you're not just too lazy to learn the Hebrew alphabet, you're too lazy to read a 5-page prologue to a book in lots of public libraries, a book which Malecki HERSELF noted in October, 2001 (ie 12 years ago) showed remarkable correspondences to the AMI situation?"
DeleteIt's not a matter of being "too busy." It's a matter of having no reason to read things which are of no value or interest to me.
If you BELIEVE this information IS of value, are you TOO LAZY to explain HOW it is of value? You want me to figure it out for myself? I've got better things to do.
R. Rowley also wrote: "That letter was NEVER revealed publicly. It was PROFESSOR FOSTER who saw it as an FBI consultant and who reported it in VANITY FAIR as, in his words, "Russian" or "Russian-like", with me merely substituting the more cautious 'Cyrillic' since that's all you can say about the forms: a pseudo-Bulgarian printer would likely produce the same forms."
I looked at the ENVELOPE. It appears the ENVELOPE was addressed using the "wrong hand." Professor Foster's beliefs in the Vanity Fair article were shown to be largely NONSENSE. Plus, there's absolutely NO reason to take his word for anything. You may do so because it suits your purpose, but before I'll accept that there was anything "Russian like" in the printing in the letter, I NEED TO SEE THE EVIDENCE.
R. Rowley also wrote: "So you're just flat out wrong, and in getting all that stuff mixed up, you're the one coming off as 'incoherent'."
No, my response to your incoherent arguments will seem incoherent to you. The only solution is for us to focus on a single topic instead of jumping all over the place and you referring to people's BELIEFS that are not evidence of anything.
Ed
R. Rowley wrote: "Oh, so now you're not just too lazy to learn the Hebrew alphabet, you're too lazy to read a 5-page prologue to a book in lots of public libraries, a book which Malecki HERSELF noted in October, 2001 (ie 12 years ago) showed remarkable correspondences to the AMI situation?"
DeleteIt's not a matter of being "too busy." It's a matter of having no reason to read things which are of no value or interest to me.
===========================================
So,
1)in 2001 Palm Beach County Health Director Jean Marie Malecki says (and is reported as saying in the press) that
there are strong similarities between details of a crime novel, VECTOR, and the details of the AMI anthrax contamination.
2)you, Mister Lake, who has devoted 12 years to recording, via 3 ginormous websites and 2 books, countless details of the Amerithrax Case, have 'no interest' in those details, in those correspondences.
Hmmm, time for me to bite my tongue!
Mr. Rowley,
ReplyDeleteYour arguments are incoherent and illogical.
Example of an incoherent argument:
You say I'm "just too lazy to learn the Hebrew alphabet."
Why should I learn the Hebrew alphabet?
You say it's so I can make some comparison. WHAT comparison? Why don't you show us YOUR comparison?
You argue that Don Foster said that the St. Pete letter was "Russian" or "Russian-like", with you substituting the more cautious 'Cyrillic.'
What does that mean to anyone if there is no publicly available copy of the St. Pete letter to view?
Are we supposed to simply believe someone without any proof?
Are we suppose to compare something when there is nothing to compare to?
YOUR ARGUMENT IS INCOHERENT AND MEANINGLESS.
YOUR ARGUMENTS ARE ALSO ILLOGICAL.
Your argument that I need to believe Palm Beach County Health Director Jean Marie Malecki in spite of what the facts say is ILLOGICAL. Who cares what she BELIEVES if the facts say she was wrong? It's ILLOGICAL to accept BELIEFS as valid and FACTS as meaningless.
At one time, a HUNDRED or more scientists who were experts on the Ames strain all BELIEVED that the Ames strain came from Iowa.
FBI agents, who may or may not have been scientists, found solid FACTS which proved that the Ames strain came from TEXAS.
Should we still believe all the scientists? Why? It's a virtual certainty that NONE of them still believe that the Ames strain came from Iowa. You may not be able to comprehend it, but THEY UNDERSTAND THAT FACTS OVERRIDE ALL THEIR BELIEFS, and they all almost certainly realized they were wrong.
So, what Malecki may have BELIEVED before all the facts were known is irrelevant. What Leonard Cole may have believed before he knew all the facts is irrelevant.
The FACTS say that there was only one letter, and it was the letter opened by Stephanie Dailey. And, since we do not know what Malecki believes today, I think it's a good bet that she goes with the facts and accepts that there was only one letter. If she sticks with her BELIEFS in spite of what the facts say, then that is evidence she is INCOMPETENT.
Ed
You say I'm "just too lazy to learn the Hebrew alphabet."
ReplyDeleteWhy should I learn the Hebrew alphabet?
=====================================
Because you ALREADY wrote (several times and in several threads)
that:
1)the interpolated Hebrew elements don't exist.
2)I'm imagining/fantasizing them.
But to determine 1), you need to know that alphabet.
Therefore, all I'm doing is pressing on you a LESSER illogic:
attitudinizing first (over many months), analyzing the hypothesis on its merits AFTER (puting the cart before the horse).
Your preference is the GREATER illogic: NEVER studying the very thing you would need to either confirm or deny (and I mean on the merits)the very hypothesis you pretend (very unconvincingly) to be interested in.
(And we've been over THIS at least 2-3 times in the past, with me TWICE stating that for me (or anyone) to evaluate a hypothesis that postulated Devangari script elements interpolated in the Brokaw letter printing, I (or anyone) would FIRST have to become fairly familiar with the Devanagari script. THAT'S basic logic.
Anyone interested in verifying this can do a GOOGLE search with terms "r rowley" "anthrax" "devanagari". The 'hit' parade is all on this blog.
And if you bring this up again in the next 5 years, Mister Lake, I'll answer the same way. Because it IS a point of logic: you cannot evaluate X + Y without familiarity with X and Y.
To sum up: there were TWO spore trails discovered in Florida:
ReplyDelete1)one that went DIRECTLY from the post office to the AMI building in Boca Raton.
2)one that went FIRST to the old Enquirer building in Lantana and ONLY then to the AMI building in Boca Raton.
No one anthrax-bearing letter could produce the two trails.
--------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, Stevens getting exposed/then sick/then dying is incompatible with an Enquirer letter doing the exposing: he didn't handle (even as a fill-in)Enquirer mail, only THE SUN mail.
And he was in the least contaminated part of the building so general ambient contamination via spores doesn't explain it.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Those who investigated this in 2001 seem to have been of one accord: there were two anthrax-bearing letters in the AMI building in September of 2001.
Mr. Rowley,
ReplyDeleteYou are looking more and more like a TROLL who does nothing but create meaningless, idiotic arguments in order to achieve your goal of being an irritating pest.
Your arguments are false.
You CLAIM that there are "Hebrew elements" somewhere in the anthrax documents, but you will not explain further. You will not show anyone your evidence. Instead you want ME to study Hebrew so that I can disprove something you have not proven or even explained.
That is just plain ridiculous. It's the argument of a TROLL who just wants to argue meaningless nonsense.
Your argument is: "you cannot evaluate X + Y without familiarity with X and Y."
My argument is: I have no reason to evaluate X + Y if there is no meaning or purpose to evaluating X + Y.
I cannot disprove your beliefs if you will not explain your beliefs.
Your argument seems to be that if I cannot disprove something that you cannot or will not explain, then I have no argument.
That is the argument of a TROLL. It's an argument only for the sake of creating an argument.
You also wrote: "To sum up: there were TWO spore trails discovered in Florida"
That is another BOGUS CLAIM without evidence.
The FACTS say there was ONE letter that went from Princeton through various post offices until it reached AMI in Boca Raton. There is NO SECOND TRAIL. That's something you apparently just made up.
The idea that Steven could ONLY have been exposed to spores that were in a letter that someone REMEMBERS seeing him smell IS PREPOSTEROUS. The building was thoroughly contaminated, and he could have been exposed in any number of ways. I've explained the most likely way - by working late when the cleaning crew was vacuuming the rugs and blowing spores into the air.
Furthermore, in addition to all the other facts which say Stevens was infected by spores from the letter Dailey opened, the TIMING of Stevens infection fits with him being infected while working late on Wednesday, September 26. While it is not totally impossible for him to have been infected a week earlier, on September 19 (when he sniffed the J-Lo letter), it is EXTREMELY unlikely.
The onset date for Bob Stevens' symptoms was September 30, four days after the evening he worked late and 5 days after Dailey opened the anthrax letter.
The onset date for Ernesto Blanco's symptoms was September 28, three days after Stephanie Dailey opened the anthrax letter at her desk near the mailroom, and probably four days after Blanco personally handled it.
In most cases, symptoms of inhalation anthrax develop in less than seven days after exposure. That fits with BOTH cases at AMI and the opening of the letter by Dailey.
Exposure to the J-Lo letter on September 19 would mean an incubation period of 11 days for Blanco and 12 days for Stevens. While not impossible, it is ANOTHER FACT which says they were more likely BOTH exposed to the letter opened by Dailey, NOT the package opened by Bobby Bender.
Ed
You CLAIM that there are "Hebrew elements" somewhere in the anthrax documents, but you will not explain further
ReplyDelete====================================================
There you go again, blaming your poor memory of our previous exchanges on my refusal to "explain further'.
I just did a GOOGLE search using terms "r rowley", 'anthrax', and
"Hebrew". Here's what I got:
------------------------------------------------------------
Debating the Anthrax Attacks of 2001: Subject: Facts vs Interpretations
anthraxdebate.blogspot.com/2013/05/subject-facts-vs-interpretations.html
May 22, 2013 - r rowley May 31, 2013 at 6:39 AM. "1) 2) and 3) eliminate 99+% of the US population, including Bruce Ivins (who knew no Hebrew). But, before ...
Feb. 25, 2012 Discussions - Debating the Anthrax Attacks of 2001
anthraxdebate.blogspot.com/2012/.../feb-19-feb-25-2012-discussions.ht...
Feb 19, 2012 - r. rowley February 19, 2012 at 11:55 AM .... r. rowley February 20, 2012 at 7:55 PM ...... 2)Brokaw/Post letter done in pseudo-Hebrew style.
Debating the Anthrax Attacks of 2001: June 2013
anthraxdebate.blogspot.com/2013_06_01_archive.html
Jun 3, 2013 - For example, R. Rowley (in an email) CLAIMS that the misspelled word ... thoroughly familiar with the Hebrew alphabet as being the printer."
Debating the Anthrax Attacks of 2001: Subject: Rationalizing
anthraxdebate.blogspot.com/2013/04/subject-rationalizing.html
Apr 29, 2013 - Likewise, R. Rowley rationalizes that the Assaad letter sent to authorities after .... In the Quantico letter, the spelling of the Jewish state is “Isreal.
Debating the Anthrax Attacks of 2001: Subject: Double Standard for ...
anthraxdebate.blogspot.com/.../subject-double-standard-for-evidence.ht...
Mar 31, 2013 - http://anthraxdebate.blogspot.com/2012/05/may-13-to-may-19-2012- ... R. Rowley wrote: "That's likely going to come from the Amerithrax mastermind too." ...... In the Quantico letter, the spelling of the Jewish state is “Isreal.
Debating the Anthrax Attacks of 2001
anthraxdebate.blogspot.com/
Aug 28, 2013 - An abundance of facts say that Bruce Ivins was the anthrax mailer. 2. ..... For example, R. Rowley (in an email) CLAIMS that the misspelled word ... who ISN'T thoroughly familiar with the Hebrew alphabet as being the printer."
Feb. 23, 2013 Discussions - Debating the Anthrax Attacks of 2001
anthraxdebate.blogspot.com/2013/02/feb-17-feb-23-discussions.html
Feb 17, 2013 - R. Rowley wrote: "HOW the scientists come to make estimates. .... style, while the Brokaw Amerithrax letter was printed in pseudo-Hebrew style.
Debating the Anthrax Attacks of 2001: Subject: Claims, Arguments ...
anthraxdebate.blogspot.com/.../subject-claims-arguments-and-evidence_3.h...
Jun 3, 2013 - From Mr. Rowley: "The multiple Hebrew elements [in the Amerithrax ...... Like R. Rowley, instead of supplying evidence to support his original ...
----------
http://www.google.com/#q=%22r+rowley%22+anthrax+hebrew
================================================
Did you (re)read those previous threads, all on this very blog, before you wrote that "[I]will not explain further"? I'm guessing not. Because I've been rather detailed.
-----------------------------------------
In addition, the latest edition of my Hebrew elements document I posted over at Lew Weinstein's in mid-August:
http://caseclosedbylewweinstein.wordpress.com/2013/08/13/in-the-formal-handwriting-examination-conducted-in-the-amerithrax-investigation-it-was-concluded-that-bruce-e-ivins-probably-did-not-write-the-writings-appearing-on-the-anthrax-envelopes-and/comment-page-1/#comment-24997
(comment #5)
I posted it there because links AUTOMATICALLY come out as hyperlinks when a user posts, and thus the casual reader can make comparisons between alphabet and (Brokaw) text.
I should have noted in my previous post: Mister Lake is known to read Lew Weinstein's blog, at least occasionally. Because he reports in general terms on DXer's posts there from time to time.
ReplyDeleteR. Rowley wrote: "There you go again, blaming your poor memory of our previous exchanges on my refusal to "explain further'."
ReplyDeleteAnd there you go again, claiming that endless, meaningless arguments are the same as an explanation. But, the link HERE to Lew's site does provide some answers.
1. You claim the highlighting on the T's is consistent with "the most common style of the Hebrew alphabet (Aleph-Beth) when it is printed".
But, your argument is just plain silly, since it makes no sense that only one specific character would SOMETIMES be similar to Hebrew writing that is MECHANICALLY PRODUCED. There are no thick lines when an ordinary human writes Hebrew characters with a felt tip pen. The thick lines are part of stylized CALLIGRAPHY which appears in many other languages, too. It's an ART FORM, not any "normal" way of writing. It's done with a brush or a flat tipped ink pen. There are ENGLISH FONTS which also have lines thicker than others.
2. You argue that the fact that some of the T's do NOT have a thick cross-bar matches something else in the Hebrew alphabet.
That is an example of finding similarities where no real similarities exist. Using your methodology, you could probably find similarities to characters in almost ANY alphabet.
3. You argue that there is some meaning to the fact that "The two letters 'IC' (ic) in 'AMERICA' in the third line are written closer together than the other letters of the word are."
That is just plain NUTS. It's ILLOGICAL. The fact that you found a letter in the Hebrew alphabet that looks like "IC" printed close together is just a meaningless fact. In order to have any MEANING to the writing on the anthrax letters, you would need to show that this is a COMMON error for people who normally write in Hebrew. And you ignore the fact that this does NOT occur in the senate letter.
4. You argue the the letter "G" in great is similar to a different letter of the Hebrew Alphabet.
Same old, same old. It's finding a match that makes no sense. The way that G was written is also the way COUNTLESS AMERICANS write G's. There's nothing unique or Hebrew-like about it. It's American-like.
5. You argue that the question mark in the senate letter resembles another Hebrew character.
No, it doesn't. You are just seeing similarities because you are looking for similarities. The Hebrew character is a single stroke of the pen. The question mark in the senate letter consists of THREE STROKES. And the idea that someone is going to somehow by habit draw a question mark like a letter of the Hebrew alphabet is ILLOGICAL. It would be like accidentally drawing a star instead of an H. Who in the history of the world has ever done that?
I can see why you are reluctant to explain yourself. Your explanation is LUDICROUS. It's finding screwball similarities where no logic or reason would suggest such similarities might appear. It's a demonstration of how a handwriting analysis should NOT be done.
Then to make things even more comic, when you can't find any Hebrew characters to match with, you start looking for matches in the CRYLLIC alphabet, as if that could possibly make sense.
But, I think you have cleared up your argument. It proves absolutely nothing, other than you have NO CLUE how to do a handwriting analysis.
Ed
R. Rowley wrote: "There you go again, blaming your poor memory of our previous exchanges on my refusal to "explain further'."
ReplyDeleteAnd there you go again, claiming that endless, meaningless arguments are the same as an explanation. But, the link HERE to Lew's site does provide some answers.
================================================
Oh, so you've reread ALL those posts in ALL those threads and you can't find a single one (a single post) that has Hebrew 'details'?
Sorry, don't believe you!(But heck, I'm a 'Truther' so that makes you AUTOMATICALLY right! Yeah, riiight.)
And, as someone who obviously has been engaged in 'endless, meaningless arguments' on the Internet for DECADES before Amerithrax and before I ever even glimpsed the Internet (and someone who has the BBS/blog/message-board polemical style to prove it!) you're a fine one to talk!
============================================
3. You argue that there is some meaning to the fact that "The two letters 'IC' (ic) in 'AMERICA' in the third line are written closer together than the other letters of the word are."
That is just plain NUTS. It's ILLOGICAL. The fact that you found a letter in the Hebrew alphabet that looks like "IC" printed close together is just a meaningless fact.
------------------------------------------------
In total isolation yes. But it's not in total isolation, it's in a document which lists multiple Hebrew features. In its totality, DOZENS of features.
Are YOU the same Ed Lake who says that the 'fact' of the Trenton mailbox being X number of hundred feet from the OFFICE of KKG
'can't be taken in isolation'? That it has to be added to other "facts" etc.? Or was that ANOTHER Ed Lake?
-----------------------------------------------------------
But, I think you have cleared up your argument. It proves absolutely nothing, other than you have NO CLUE how to do a handwriting analysis.
-------------------------------------------------
It's not 'handwriting analysis', it's graphemics, which I mention in the same thread. Your rush-to-judgement has failed you here as it does elsewhere: I made two lousy posts on the thread at Lew Weinstein's and you couldn't even bother to read them both!?!?!
http://caseclosedbylewweinstein.wordpress.com/2013/08/13/in-the-formal-handwriting-examination-conducted-in-the-amerithrax-investigation-it-was-concluded-that-bruce-e-ivins-probably-did-not-write-the-writings-appearing-on-the-anthrax-envelopes-and/comment-page-1/#comment-25027
(Let the reader note: Mister Lake is obviously self-satisfied: his ZERO knowledge of the Hebrew beats my minimal knowledge(because he says so!*) and just think of all the time (not to mention drudgery!) he saves via his 'short cut'!)
*How very Brother Jonathan-like!
2. You argue that the fact that some of the T's do NOT have a thick cross-bar matches something else in the Hebrew alphabet
ReplyDelete================================================
Why do you go from my VERY precise language in the document to your (all-too-typically) vague language? It isn't "something" it's the letter Daleth! And because the 8th and last T of the Brokaw text is written in such a way as to be midway between a T and a Daleth, ALL 8 instances of the letter T in the Brokaw text were Hebrewized.
====================================================
That is an example of finding similarities where no real similarities exist
--------------------------------------------------
Nope. Next polemical tactic!
I can see why you are reluctant to explain yourself. Your explanation is LUDICROUS
ReplyDelete=================================================
It's vastly less ludicrous than thinking for 12 years that a single anthrax letter can leave two separate and distinct trails from the post office to the AMI building, so don't throw stones!
R. Rowley wrote: "It's not 'handwriting analysis', it's graphemics, which I mention in the same thread."
ReplyDeleteWhatever you call it, it's still ridiculous. It's an exercise in finding "evidence" to fit a theory instead of developing a theory FROM the evidence. It's a demonstration of how NOT to do an analysis.
In totality your analysis totals to NOTHING. All the findings are IN YOUR IMAGINATION. They are not "evidence" that can be presented in court.
It is a FACT that the mailbox was x feet from the KKG office.
The distance between the mailbox and the KKG office is a FACT which can be seen be anyone. That FACT connects to the FACT that Ivins had an obsession with KKG. That FACT connects to the FACT that Ivins would sometimes drive hundreds of miles to commit criminal acts connected to KKG.
The match between the question mark in the senate letter and a Hebrew character is something YOU see. It is YOUR BELIEF. It is NOT A FACT.
The fact that some T's in the letters have a thick crossbar like a Hebrew letter of no relation is a fact. But it's a fact that has no meaning even if you had a hundred such facts, because there's no explainable or understandable pattern to it.
In order to be evidence in court in the trial, the average person would have to see the pattern and accept that all the items of evidence WHEN VIEWED TOGETHER could ONLY mean that X committed the crime.
What you are doing is asking the jury to look at a string of coincidences to come to the conclusion that there are Hebrew characteristics in a writing sample. But, a hundred such coincidences are still just coincidences. No logical conclusion can be drawn from them by any juror. The jury would see that you are seeing connections where no connections exist.
All you do is endlessly demonstrate that you do not understand the difference between beliefs and facts.
Ed
R. Rowley wrote: "It's not 'handwriting analysis', it's graphemics, which I mention in the same thread."
ReplyDeleteWhatever you call it, it's still ridiculous. It's an exercise in finding "evidence" to fit a theory instead of developing a theory FROM the evidence. It's a demonstration of how NOT to do an analysis.
=========================================================
Amazing. That's what YOU'VE done in at least two (Amerithrax) areas: the child-printed-it hypothesis, and the J-Lo-letter-didn't-contain-anthrax hypothesis. And done if for something like
a decade. Projection on your part, big time.
----------------------------------------------------------
For me personally it wouldn't matter whether the TOTAL number of AMI-contaminating letters was 1 or 2 or 17. It in no way changes my hypothesis.
What's REALLY important for me is this: no one who worked at AMI,
not Stevens, not Bobby Bender, not Stephanie Dailey, not Ernesto Blanco (no one) reported a threatening text in any letter, let alone any white powder letter. We can be sure there was no:
WE HAVE THIS ANTHRAX
(or)
TAKE PENACILIN NOW
(or)
DEATH TO[fill in blank]
in any such letter or letters.
Meaning: the original recipe Amerithrax plan was an apparently harmless fan or similar letter that nevertheless harbored deathly
bacillus anthracis. It was only the Sept 11th hijacking attacks which convinced the Anthrax mastermind to change his motif, and 'go Muslim'.
The fact that some T's in the letters have a thick crossbar like a Hebrew letter of no relation is a fact. But it's a fact that has no meaning even if you had a hundred such facts, because there's no explainable or understandable pattern to it.
ReplyDelete===================================================
There is and it's in the document I linked. Apparently you tried a 'short cut' there as well!
R. Rowley wrote: "What's REALLY important for me is this: no one who worked at AMI, not Stevens, not Bobby Bender, not Stephanie Dailey, not Ernesto Blanco (no one) reported a threatening text in any letter, let alone any white powder letter. We can be sure there was no:
ReplyDeleteWE HAVE THIS ANTHRAX
(or)
TAKE PENACILIN NOW
(or)
DEATH TO[fill in blank]
in any such letter or letters."
You are spouting total nonsense. We KNOW no such thing. The FACTS say just the opposite:
The FACTS say that the Brokaw letter was opened and read, then it was viewed as trash or hate mail and filed away after the powder was dumped into the trash. There were no calls to the police, there was no concern that the threat was real. It was forgotten about until after people started coming down with anthrax.
The FACTS say that a letter just like the Brokaw letter was received at the New York Post and thrown away because it looked like trash mail or junk mail or mail not worth opening. Luckily, it was found before it disappeared into some garbage dump somewhere.
The FACTS say that a letter just like the Brokaw letter was received by Dan Rather's assistant and thrown away. We don't know if it was opened or not. No one even remembers the letter.
The FACTS say that a letter just like the Brokaw letter was received by someone in Peter Jennings' office and thrown away. We don't know if it was opened or not. No one even remembers the letter.
The FACTS say that a letter just like the Brokaw letter was opened by Stephanie Dailey at AMI and thrown away. Dailey remembers throwing it away, and she remembers there was a powder inside, but doesn't recall what the letter said.
All FIVE of those organizations were so accustomed to receiving hate mail and screwball mail that it was routine for them to just glace at it and chuck it in the trash even if it contained a vague threat. Receiving vague threats and warnings was routine for them.
As proof of that, the J-Lo letter was thrown away UNOPENED. It was only because a fan of J-Lo was curious about the letter that it was dug out of the trash and opened.
Your logic is based upon a total lack of understanding of how things work in an environment unlike what you personally experience.
Ed
R. Rowley wrote: "What's REALLY important for me is this: no one who worked at AMI, not Stevens, not Bobby Bender, not Stephanie Dailey, not Ernesto Blanco (no one) reported a threatening text in any letter, let alone any white powder letter. We can be sure there was no:
ReplyDeleteWE HAVE THIS ANTHRAX
(or)
TAKE PENACILIN NOW
(or)
DEATH TO[fill in blank]
in any such letter or letters."
You are spouting total nonsense. We KNOW no such thing. The FACTS say just the opposite:
The FACTS say that the Brokaw letter was opened and read[...]
========================================================
I talk about the AMI letter or letters and Mister Lake immediately starts talking about the Media and Politician letters.
That's like saying last February had to have been a warm month,
because last March was a warm month! It just doesn't follow logically.
The point of my last post was: No one who worked at the AMI building ever went on record as saying there was a threat, Muslim or otherwise associated with the J-Lo (there were MANY witnesses to the J-Lo letter), OR with the white powder letter that Dailey looked at. So it's a change in M.O.
==================================================
That's all my 'total nonsense' for today!
R. Rowley wrote: "I talk about the AMI letter or letters and Mister Lake immediately starts talking about the Media and Politician letters."
DeleteYou were NOT talking about the AMI letter. You were talking about what THE FACTS say about the AMI Letter. You argued that because no one remembered a letter which contained the "DEATH TO AMERICA" threat (a fact), that no such letter was received (a conclusion).
I pointed out to you that it was routine for people at news organizations to receive and toss out threat letters without paying any attention or remembering the details. The facts to not fit your beliefs. Therefore your reasoning was fatally flawed. I.e., you don't know what you are talking about.
You may not be able to follow the logic, but that seems to be the cause of all your problems: You seem to have NO understanding of basic reasoning and logic.
R. Rowley also wrote: "That's all my 'total nonsense' for today!"
And this is my final response to your "total nonsense" for today.
Ed
R. Rowley wrote: "I talk about the AMI letter or letters and Mister Lake immediately starts talking about the Media and Politician letters."
DeleteYou were NOT talking about the AMI letter. You were talking about what THE FACTS say about the AMI Letter.
================================================
Gee, now I KNOW we speak different languages!
R. Rowley also wrote: "That's all my 'total nonsense' for today!"
DeleteAnd this is my final response to your "total nonsense" for today.
===================================================
That's Mister Lake: oblivious to irony in all its forms!
In a comment HERE, R. Rowley wrote: "It's not 'handwriting analysis', it's graphemics"
ReplyDeleteComparing a writing sample to Hebrew lettering is NOT "graphemics," Mr. Rowley.
Wikipedia says: "Graphemics examines the specifics of written texts in a certain language and their correspondence to the spoken language." That is nothing like what you are doing.
My small dictionaries don't even include the word "graphemics," but my Oxford Unabridged Dictionary has "grapheme" which is a noun defined as: "(1) a class of letters, etc., representing a unit of sound. (2) a feature of a written expression that cannot be analyzed into smaller meaningful units." The adjective form is "graphemic."
What you are doing in comparing characters in the anthrax letters to Hebrew has nothing to do with "graphemics." It is a bizarre attempt to see meaning in things where there is no such meaning.
It is like looking at the clouds and seeing cloud formations that look vaguely like letters of the alphabet and then concluding that the clouds are made by the same person who wrote the anthrax letters.
It's an absurd "analysis" that is suited only for teasing pre-school children. It is nothing that is worthy of any kind of adult discussion.
If presented to a jury, the jurors would never see the logic to it. They'd just wonder how you can believe there IS any logic to it.
Comparing such baseless beliefs to circumstantial evidence is absurd. Circumstantial evidence requires that the juror have some understanding of how the world works, so that if there was no snow on the ground last night, and there is snow on the ground this morning, it can be logically and reasonably concluded that it snowed during the night. That's how things NORMALLY work.
Finding similarities between Hebrew characters and the lettering in the anthrax letters has no familiar basis for a jury to make the connection. A juror's personal experiences would far more likely make him see that there IS NO CONNECTION. And it would likely make the juror believe that the presenter has no case and is just trying to con the jury into believing he has a case.
Ed
It's an absurd "analysis" that is suited only for teasing pre-school children. It is nothing that is worthy of any kind of adult discussion.
Delete======================================
If that were true then all you have to do is copy and paste
what you see as "absurd", but since you don't know the alphabet, don't care to LEARN the alphabet etc, the "child" here is you: it's like discussing the Latin alphabet with a 1 year old: a waste of (my)time, and the 'child's'.
-----------------------------------------------
If presented to a jury, the jurors would never see the logic to it. They'd just wonder how you can believe there IS any logic to it.
------------------------------------------
I readily admit that a jury composed of Ed Lake's would react that way. They are like juror #3 and juror #10 in TWELVE ANGRY MEN.
From Sunday's comment:
ReplyDelete[...]
Before the discussion reached that point, however, it did produce one finding of some value. The Truther continues to argue his belief that the so-called "J-Lo letter" opened at the AMI offices in Boca Raton, Florida, on September 19, 2001, contained the anthrax that killed Bob Stevens.[...]
---------------------------------------------------------
ANYONE who has read the above thread in its entirety, anyone, that is, who is not named Ed Lake, knows that this is inaccurate.
Above I cited not my "belief" but the CDC document on the matter.
From my 8:18 AM post of September 20th: (partial)
----------------------------
Let's go to the CDC report on the AMI cases:
http://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/8/10/02-0354_article.htm
Under the heading "Results" and subheading "Case investigation":
-----
Workplace interviews regarding mail exposure showed that the index patient rarely handled or opened workplace mail, but co-workers recalled that he had examined a piece of stationery containing a fine, white, talc-like powder on September 19. The patient was observed holding the stationery close to his face as he looked at it over his computer keyboard.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further down in the same CDC report under heading "Discussion":
----------
The index patient’s infection most likely occurred from inhalation of B. anthracis spores following a primary aerosolization, i.e., spores released into the air after opening a spore-containing letter. This scenario is consistent with co-workers’ recollections that the index patient held a letter containing powder over his computer keyboard, as well as environmental samples showing contamination at his keyboard, an incoming-mail desk near his workspace, and his mailroom mailbox. The second case-patient did not recall opening or seeing a letter containing powder, and the mechanism of spore aerosolization resulting in his infection is unclear. He was likely exposed while delivering 10,000–15,000 mail pieces daily to the workplace mailroom; both the mailroom and mail van were contaminated with B. anthracis spores. He may have inhaled spores after mail was compressed or shaken during delivery or after he (unknowingly) or a co-worker opened a spore-containing envelope. A secondary aerosolization, i.e., spores resuspended in the air after settling to a surface following an initial release, may also have resulted in his infection.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's clear that the CDC report is attributing the 'index patient's' (ie Stevens') infection to the J-Lo letter, since
NO OTHER such letter was reported by co-workers as being held by Stevens.
[End of 8:18 post excerpt]
======================================================
HOW is this accurately 'summarized' by saying that it's merely my
'belief'?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!??
It's the finding of the pertinent national epidemiological investigative body. And the same finding ('belief' in Lakespeak) was what Health Director Jean Marie Malecki came to. She was the responsible COUNTY official involved. And what FBI agent Judy Orihuela (involved in the FBI investigation of the AMI building contamination), also cited by me, thought as revealed by her comment that Bobby Bender had had 'one of the Lopez letters'.
*I should have noted that the date of the document is October of 2002, so a year after the Amerithrax attacks.
And further down the thread I asked Mister Lake for a single CDC or other agency/FBI/county health department etc. document with a counter-finding. He failed to do so. He merely made reference to some e-mail, apparently of years earlier, he received from some unnamed FBI scientist. In other words, Mister Lake was citing some dissident scientist whose dissent on the matter never reached the light of day.
ReplyDeleteSo, why does Mister Lake misinform his Sunday readers? I submit it's because he's always trying to make himself out to be Mister Mainstream in all Amerithrax matters and does this CHIEFLY by denigrating the 'crackpots'(my term) that he catalogs and labels, counter-labels, re-labels, overlabels etc.: "truthers", "conspiracy theorists" etc.
For him to ADMIT that the pertinent government agencies had found in the 2001-2 period, and NEVER RECANTED, that the J-Lo letter exposed Stevens to anthrax spores, would be to admit that he himself is a dissident in the matter (as he is in the child-printed-it hypothesis) and this is for him (ie for his own self-image) intolerable.
And that situation explains all his OTHER inaccurate 'comment' entries when he's referring back to the discussion blog: what he's doing is not summarizing the discussion taking place, but the way he PICTURES that that discussion SHOULD have gone based on his own
(intellectual)taxonomy scheme.
From Sunday's comment:
ReplyDelete[...]
The argument caused me realize (or remember) that the on-set dates of the infections contracted by both Stevens and Blanco were consistent with the letter Dailey opened on September 25 or 26 and inconsistent with the opening of the J-Lo letter on September 19.
[...]
===============================================
Not with the 26th. The 25th was Stevens's LAST DAY of work before his vacation. He fells sick during that vacation. A sickness unto death. So he never spend a micro-second of time in the AMI building after September 25th.
What you are doing in comparing characters in the anthrax letters to Hebrew has nothing to do with "graphemics." It is a bizarre attempt to see meaning in things where there is no such meaning.
ReplyDeleteIt is like looking at the clouds and seeing cloud formations that look vaguely like letters of the alphabet and then concluding that the clouds are made by the same person who wrote the anthrax letters.
========================================================
No, it's not.
Here's OTHER letterings that are in pseudo-Hellenic, pseudo-Hebrew etc style:
http://www.abstractfonts.com/search/pseudo%20hebrew
Here's a pseudo-Chinese font:
http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-56007499/stock-photo-pseudo-chinese-latin-font-letters-a-i.html
And, since Mister Lake's studied Japanese, he would recognize some of the stuff here: Pseudo-Chinese, pseudo-Japanese etc:
http://www.dafont.com/theme.php?cat=201
The people who come up/came up with these fonts aren't 'looking at clouds'. Rather they are taking strokes from one writing system and applying them to another (usually Latin) writing system. Interpolating.
All I did was RECOGNIZE this when it was done to Latin letters in the Brokaw letter (somewhat like Don Foster did with one of the St Pete hoax letters, only he did it with Cyrillic interpolations).
R. Rowley wrote: "Above I cited not my "belief" but the CDC document on the matter."
ReplyDeleteIf you believe what they wrote, then it is your belief. They were citing TESTIMONY. When FACTS dispute the testimony, FACTS are what is acceptable as evidence.
R. Rowley also wrote: "It's clear that the CDC report is attributing the 'index patient's' (ie Stevens') infection to the J-Lo letter, since NO OTHER such letter was reported by co-workers as being held by Stevens."
Agreed. We've already covered this. The CDC's report is based upon INTERVIEWS, and their work was done in late 2001. The FBI report is based upon SCIENCE, and their work was done in August and September 2002.
R. Rowley also wrote: "For him to ADMIT that the pertinent government agencies had found in the 2001-2 period, and NEVER RECANTED, that the J-Lo letter exposed Stevens to anthrax spores, would be to admit that he himself is a dissident in the matter (as he is in the child-printed-it hypothesis) and this is for him (ie for his own self-image) intolerable."
Government agencies rarely "recant." If someone proves them wrong, they just continue on with the updated, correct data as if they never made a mistake. If government agencies had to recant things every time they made a mistake, they'd never get anything done.
R. Rowley also wrote: "The 25th was Stevens's LAST DAY of work before his vacation."
According to my 2001 calendar, the 25th of September was a Tuesday and the 26th was a Wednesday.
I cited page 75 of Marilyn Thompson's book "The Killer Strain" which said:
“Monday: He worked.
“Tuesday: He worked.
“Wednesday: He worked late."
Looking at that page, I see the quote is from Malecki's notes. It also says,
"Maureen Stevens gave Malecki more facts about her husband's late workday. He had stayed later than usual the night before they left for North Carolina. He had been in the office alone during some of this time."
What is your source?
R. Rowley also wrote: "The people who come up/came up with these fonts aren't 'looking at clouds'. Rather they are taking strokes from one writing system and applying them to another (usually Latin) writing system. Interpolating."
And what does the creation of fonts have to do with anything?
R. Rowley also wrote: "All I did was RECOGNIZE this when it was done to Latin letters in the Brokaw letter"
AND the question mark in the senate letter.
You make no sense. Are you saying the similarities to Hebrew characters that you see are DELIBERATE? For what purpose?
If they are accidental, then they are totally illogical. No one accidentally draws a Hebrew Kaf accidentally when drawing a question mark. That's not logical. They might accidentally draw the equivalent of a Hebrew question mark (if there is such a thing), but they wouldn't accidentally draw a Hebrew character that happens to look a little bit like a question mark. That's not how writing mistakes are made. That's not how the human mind works.
Handwriting analysis is based upon how the human mind automatically does things. When trying to write in a disguised style, you may often accidentally put in some of your own style. That's how most forgeries are detected. It's how YOU draw an A versus how the A YOU ARE FORGING is supposed to look.
There's probably a better analogy than looking at clouds that look like letters of the alphabet, but I can't think of one at the moment. The point is: YOUR HEBREW LETTER THEORY IS BOGUS. It makes no sense. It can't be done accidentally. You have presented no evidence that it was done deliberately. And your opinion that the characters in the letters are similar to Hebrew is not shared by anyone else on this planet, as far as I know. It's an opinion that makes no logical sense.
Ed
I wrote: "And your opinion that the characters in the letters are similar to Hebrew is not shared by anyone else on this planet, as far as I know. It's an opinion that makes no logical sense."
ReplyDeleteI should have written: "And your opinion that some of the characters in the letters are similar to Hebrew is not seen as significant by anyone else on this planet, as far as I know. It's an opinion that makes no logical sense."
Ed
R. Rowley wrote: "If that were true then all you have to do is copy and paste what you see as "absurd", but since you don't know the alphabet, don't care to LEARN the alphabet etc, the "child" here is you: it's like discussing the Latin alphabet with a 1 year old: a waste of (my)time, and the 'child's'."
ReplyDeleteIt's not a matter of cutting and pasting. And there doesn't seem any need to "learn the alphabet." To show the absurdities I'd have to use graphics (showing the Hebrew character side by side with the character in the letter) , which I can't do here. I'd have to use more than the 4,096 characters allowed here, or break the post in to multiple posts the way you do. It belongs on a web page, not in the middle of a blog thread.
And, I don't want to create a web page that serves no purpose other than to show how ridiculous your theory is. I would be thoroughly ridiculing you and your theory.
I created such a page for "DXer's" theory that Mohamed Atta's handwriting matches the anthrax handwriting, but that was because there seems to be a lot of people who think that Muslim terrorists were behind the anthrax attacks. Plus, DXer used graphics to explain his theory. You just use words and links to graphics where letters have to be found in list. If you used graphics to explain your theory, you would by yourself prove that your theory is nonsense, and I wouldn't have to do it.
R. Rowley also wrote: "How does pretending-to-be-a-Muslim via the three slogans in each text (Brokaw and Leahy) make any more "sense" than pretending GRAPHICALLY to be an Israeli?"
(1) It makes more sense because the anthrax letters were sent immediately after an attack by Muslim terrorists upon America - 9/11. (2) It makes more sense because "09-11-01" was put at the top of the letters, connecting the letter to the Muslim terrorist attack on 9/11. (3) It makes more sense because it was the perfect time to pretend to be a Muslim terrorist and to send such letters in order to accomplish a goal of blaming Muslim terrorists for the anthrax attacks.
Are you saying that you imagine that the Hebrew-like characters were put into the letters because the writer wanted to PRETEND TO BE AN ISRAELI? What sense does that make when everyone right after 9/11 would (and did) automatically assume the letters were sent my Muslim terrorists?
Your reasoning just gets more and more illogical and preposterous. As "DXer" repeatedly says, "It's a non-starter." It's TOTALLY ILLOGICAL (although I can see it appears logical to you).
I wrote that no one on this planet believes your theory, and you respond that most people on this planet haven't looked at any Amerithrax-devoted websites. That's the kind of nonsense arguments you use. What about all the people who HAVE looked at Amerithrax-devoted web sites? Do any of them believe your theory? It seems absurd that any of them would -- it's a "non-starter" that makes absolutely NO SENSE.
Ed
Mister Lake posted:
DeleteR. Rowley also wrote: "How does pretending-to-be-a-Muslim via the three slogans in each text (Brokaw and Leahy) make any more "sense" than pretending GRAPHICALLY to be an Israeli?"
(1) It makes more sense because the anthrax letters were sent immediately after an attack by Muslim terrorists upon America - 9/11. (2) It makes more sense because "09-11-01" was put at the top of the letters, connecting the letter to the Muslim terrorist attack on 9/11. (3) It makes more sense because it was the perfect time to pretend to be a Muslim terrorist and to send such letters in order to accomplish a goal of blaming Muslim terrorists for the anthrax attacks.
==========================================
What you're CLAIMING (without knowing you're even claiming it!) is that
Amerithrax with an unambiguous message is somehow "better" for the perps. An all-Muslim message therefore is better than a mixed message.
But what if their GOAL is not merely to cause fear, but to cause maximum confusion (among the populace, among the investigators)? THEN the mixed message (texts which contain elements of Muslim threats + the sinuous letter "S" which looks like an Arabic 'ya' ; PLUS multiple Hebrew alphabet elements ; PLUS two-stage renderings of all instances of the letter "R" so as to suggest a native user of a Cyrillic alphabet: is better.
(Another advantage is: the huge number of foreign elements in the strokes etc. make the printing utterly unlike the natural printing of the printer, in a way that simply 'going Arabic' could not: Arabic writing is more-or-less intrinsically cursive in nature, so doing block printing with Arabic strokes would be something like squaring a circle)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your reasoning just gets more and more illogical and preposterous. As "DXer" repeatedly says, "It's a non-starter." It's TOTALLY ILLOGICAL (although I can see it appears logical to you).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What DXer is (mostly) referring to is: a perp working at a certain university,
one that did not have virulent anthrax in the fall of 2001, NOT the totality of my hypothesis, with which he is no more familiar than you are.
(What DXer thinks about the J-Lo letter I don't know, I never asked him).
I should have noted in my last post that the-creating-maximum-confusion
Deletetrope is on tap in the NON-graphic elements of the case (as I see it):
1) sending, BEFORE the fall of 2001, multiple anthrax hoax letters from Trenton and Indianapolis to media outlets. Some to the same recipients as the Amerithrax letters proper (ie Tom Brokaw).
2) sending from St Pete anthrax hoax letters to media figures (Judith Miller and Howard Troxler) concurrently with the Amerithrax letters proper (Sept-Oct 2001). At least ONE of those St Pete letters was ALSO sent to NBC/Tom Brokaw.
3) the switching from the fan-mail motif of the J-Lo letter to the Muslim fanatic motif of the Amerithrax texts proper.
4) the Town of Quantico letter, a red herring.
5) the sending, via an accomplice of the Anthrax Gang, of a hoax letter from London. It, like one of the Amerithrax letters proper, was addressed to
Senator Daschle.
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/01/04/us/a-nation-challenged-threats-powder-sent-to-daschle-hoax-is-seen.html
Etc.
All to maximize confusion.
And, I don't want to create a web page that serves no purpose other than to show how ridiculous your theory is. I would be thoroughly ridiculing you and your theory.
Delete====================================================
Oh, and you haven't been doing that since at least 2012?!??!?!?!!?
You could have fooled me! And anyone else who has read your comments: "nonsense" "utter nonsense" (etc ad nauseum) are USUALLY
what people write when they are ridiculing something. But as I observed on a few occasions: Mister Lake and I seem to speak two different language entirely.
Mr. Rowley,
ReplyDeleteAnother reason I'd want to use a web page to analyze your theory about the Hebrew characters is because a web page allows me to make corrections. In this blog, the only way I can make a correction to a post is to delete the entire post and then post a new version. If I delete a post that has responses, all the responses get permanently deleted.
I tend to make about 25 corrections in the first two hours after uploading a new page, and then I'll make more after having time to think about what I wrote.
One thing I thought about while at the health club during the past couple hours is that your theory seems to be very similar to one I mentioned on my web site back in 2006. A woman in California was sending emails to me and dozens of politicians and newspapers explaining her theory that writings on sidewalks and streets matched the anthrax writings and the person responsible was a music company executive. She sent me a list of links to pictures she'd taken of the writings on the pavement. Here are some from that list:
http://informexp.com/0011664-R1-004-0A.jpg
http://informexp.com/0011664-R1-006-1A.jpg
http://informexp.com/0011664-R1-008-2A.jpg
http://informexp.com/0011664-R1-010-3A.jpg
http://informexp.com/0011664-R1-012-4A.jpg
http://informexp.com/0011664-R1-014-5A.jpg
http://informexp.com/0011664-R1-016-6A.jpg
http://informexp.com/0011664-R1-018-7A.jpg
http://informexp.com/0011664-R1-020-8A.jpg
http://informexp.com/0011664-R1-022-9A.jpg
http://informexp.com/0011664-R1-024-10A.jpg
http://informexp.com/0011664-R1-026-11A.jpg
http://informexp.com/0011664-R1-028-12A.jpg
http://informexp.com/0011664-R1-030-13A.jpg
http://informexp.com/0011664-R1-032-14A.jpg
http://informexp.com/0011664-R1-034-15A.jpg
http://informexp.com/0011664-R1-036-16A.jpg
http://informexp.com/0011664-R1-038-17A.jpg
http://informexp.com/0011664-R1-040-18A.jpg
http://informexp.com/0011664-R1-042-19A.jpg
http://informexp.com/0011664-R1-044-20A.jpg
http://informexp.com/0011664-R1-046-21A.jpg
http://informexp.com/0011664-R1-048-22A.jpg
http://informexp.com/0011664-R1-050-23A.jpg
http://informexp.com/0011664-R1-052-24A.jpg
And her explanations:
5A-25A Various marking along EL Camino in San Bruno, and many are around the Dialysis Center
10A-12A PGE with unique G (subtle, next to USA) found around Embaradero Center and MP Caltrain?
13A strange U in USA
14A-16A G as it seem to train up to Dialysis Center
17A 5/20/03
21A 350 RCA notice a different A, but similar R and C
23A-25A LANE CLOSED (was there a parade on Sneath Lane, and was this a police marking?)
9A-10A 25 IN ... PoT HoLE
15A-18A LANE CloSED (was there a parade on Sneath Lane, and was this a police marking?)
12A BEGIN TARER
19A RCA
21A-25A taken to show 5, near Colma BART
She appeared to be as certain as you are in that her analysis was right. And to me she made about as much sense.
Ed
" A woman in California was sending emails to me and dozens of politicians and newspapers explaining her theory that writings on sidewalks and streets matched the anthrax writings[...]"
Delete==========================================
Gee, once again Mister Lake and I seem to live in different worlds: overwhelmingly in my experience writings ON SIDEWALKS are products of children with chalk. A child-printed-it theory in effect, however this particular woman interprets the writings on the sidewalk, so I see her as having MUCH more in common with you than with me!
[See:
http://www.google.com/search?q=children+write+on+sidewalks+with+chalk&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=19NCUqjnI8fmqwHMvoDwBg&ved=0CCwQsAQ&biw=1134&bih=813&dpr=1]
Unless you are leaving stuff out like: she claims to see Hebrew letter interpolations WITHIN those writings on the sidewalk. And/or Cyrillic.
And/or Arabic. Or for that matter any non-Latin alphabet writing system.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
5A-25A Various marking along EL Camino in San Bruno, and many are around the Dialysis Center
10A-12A PGE with unique G (subtle, next to USA) found around Embaradero Center and MP Caltrain?
13A strange U in USA
14A-16A G as it seem to train up to Dialysis Center
17A 5/20/03
21A 350 RCA notice a different A, but similar R and C
23A-25A LANE CLOSED (was there a parade on Sneath Lane, and was this a police marking?)
9A-10A 25 IN ... PoT HoLE
15A-18A LANE CloSED (was there a parade on Sneath Lane, and was this a police marking?)
12A BEGIN TARER
19A RCA
21A-25A taken to show 5, near Colma BART
-------------------------------------------------------------
These appear to be road signs, which are generally manufactured by/for
the state Departement of Transportation and/or the municipal equivalent.
They would not reflect ANYONE's personal style, however camouflaged, that I can see. I have no corresponding idea of my own.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANOTHER way that she shares something with Mister Lake and the Task Force (but not me!) is: she sees a single perp.
Which suggests she was able to do nothing with:
1) the pre-Amerithrax hoax letters from Trenton and Indianapolis
(see second entry here:
http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?anthraxattacks_other=anthraxattacks_anthrax_letters___hoax_letters&timeline=anthraxattacks
2) the Town of Quantico letter
(see: http://www.foxnews.com/story/2008/09/16/fox-news-exclusive-anonymous-note-casts-doubt-on-anthrax-probe/
3) the St Pete hoax letters
(see: http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=a092001petersburgletters#a092001petersburgletters
entry: September 20-October 15, 2001: Hoax Anthrax Letters from St. Petersburg Initially Thought to Be Real
4) the November hoax letter to Senator Daschle from London.
I'm guessing the woman in question had no background in crime analysis.
So what's the Task Force's excuse?
Mr. Rowley,
ReplyDeleteMore of her logic is below the dotted line. I XXXXX-ed out the music executive's name, and none of the FBI links work anymore.
------------------------------
Compare S in next two links with S in Antrax letters in links that directly follow:
http://informexp.com/SPRINT.jpg "S" in "SPRINT" near Menlo Park CALTRAIN
http://informexp.com/0003313-R2-024-10A.jpg compare "S" and use of smaller "o" in Antrax letters with the links PACIFICA WATER DISTRICT BUILDTING WITH HANDWRITING.
http://www.fbi.gov/pressrel/pressrel01/3b.jpg smaller "o" , YoRK , PoST, oF YoRK (EDITOR?)?
http://www.fbi.gov/pressrel/pressrel01/3a.jpg "PENASILIN" NOTE LETTERS S, A, G
http://www.fbi.gov/pressrel/pressrel01/2b.jpg A in "ALLAH" seems to stand on one leg, which may be seen below in in http://informexp.com/SAGAN.jpg in ("SPARC") taken from http://www.forbeswolfe.com/archives/bill_pic.jpg
http://www.fbi.gov/pressrel/pressrel01/2a.jpg "RockEFELLER"
http://www.fbi.gov/pressrel/pressrel01/1a.jpg WE HAVE THIS ANTHRAX
http://www.fbi.gov/pressrel/pressrel01/1b.jpg SENATOR DASHLE note SCHool
http://www.fbi.gov/pressrel/pressrel01/4a.jpg SENATOR LEAHY notice 433, first 2 and take special note of "S"
XXXXXXXXXXX's handwriting may match anthrax letters (above). see links below, and he may also be the pennisula arsonist.
http://informexp.com/FRAT.jpg Compare L's ("Plague"), 2's ("2yr")
A's may tend to stand on one leg ("SPARC") spacing and slant, and how he may tend to drag down, o's may tend to be much smaller than other letters.
http://informexp.com/SAGAN.jpg look at the position of where the 2 starts and stops. A in "SENATE" may seem to stand on one leg.
http://informexp.com/0006259-R2-004-0A.jpg 4408 in both compare with white and yellow in link below:
http://informexp.com/4806254-R2-024-10A.jpg yellow and white writing to compare with "r" in photo below:
http://informexp.com/NoMorePrisonsNOT.jpg "r" in prison
http://informexp.com/S09a.jpg "r" in prison REFENCE VIEW close to Sacrifice Bar now Benders in SF, CA
http://informexp.com/4806254-R2-004-0A.jpg "p" in prison near Menlo Park CALTRAIN
http://informexp.com/4806254-R2-006-1A.jpg "p" in prison near Menlo Park CALTRAIN
compare the above writing with the link below:
http://informexp.com/NoMorePrisonsNOT.jpg
http://informexp.com/S09a.jpg reference OF ABOVE PHOTO close to Sacrifice Bar now Benders in SF, CA
Then compare writing with writing on XXXXXXXXXXX's face in the link below:
http://www.forbeswolfe.com/archives/xxxxxxxxxpic.jpg "S" in Sun and Sagan (top of “S” is often smaller than the bottom) and all the "A" may tend to slant to the left
http://informexp.com/4594569-R2-004-0A.jpg compare "S" with the links above LOPPED TREE IN CENTER DIVIDER ON EL CAMINO IN REDWOOD CITY
http://informexp.com/0003313-R2-024-10A.jpg compare "S" with the links PACIFICA WATER DISTRICT BUILTING WITH HANDWRITING
-------
And that's just the first 25% of what was in the email.
Does any of this look familiar to you? To me, she seems to use the same logic you use.
Ed
Saw the movie "Contagion" (2011) over the weekend. To my surprise there was an interesting stat related by one of the big-shot medical types in a scene where she is trying to explain mere contact (as opposed to air borne) transmission (in the case of the movie, of a virus).
ReplyDeleteShe says that on average a person will touch their face:
1) 2,000 to 3,000 times A DAY
or
2) 3 to 5 times A MINUTE during waking hours.
So, assuming Bob Stevens was just ordinary in that respect, AND he dipped at least one hand into the white powder of the J-Lo letter to 1) pluck out and examine the Star of David charm and/or to push the powder out of the way to better look at the text:
1) if he went 30 minutes without washing his hands, he had 90 to 150 hand-to-face touches.
2) if he went 1 hour without washing his hands, he had 180 to 300 hand-to-face touches.
I think that this ALONE is sufficient to explain his infection.
It's a bit egotistical to quote yourself but in this instance I've had quite the provocation.
ReplyDeleteUpthread I posted:
-------------
So, why does Mister Lake misinform his Sunday readers? I submit it's because he's always trying to make himself out to be Mister Mainstream in all Amerithrax matters and does this CHIEFLY by denigrating the 'crackpots'(my term) that he catalogs and labels, counter-labels, re-labels, overlabels etc.: "truthers", "conspiracy theorists" etc.
========================================================
In his latest posts ( September 23, 2013 at 1:50 PM and the two before that)
he's essentially playing the same game: 'Gee, all these CRAZY people with their ideas about who did Amerithrax, why they'll all the same!'
---------------------------------------
Except that they aren't. Not only would I say that the woman cited has little in common with me, beyond the fact that she thinks the Task Force came to a wrong conclusion, I would furthermore say that she has little in common with: DXer, Lew Weinstein, Meryl Nass, Noah Shachtman, Michael Kirk, Stephen Engelberg, and countless other persons who have studied the case and come to the same basic conclusion: the Task Force blew it.
R. Rowley wrote: "But what if their GOAL is not merely to cause fear, but to cause maximum confusion (among the populace, among the investigators)?
ReplyDeleteThat's a TROLL-type rationalization. It's dreaming up a "possibility" in order to ignore the real facts. You are distorting the facts in order to make your illogical theory work. If put to a jury, everyone would see that.
R. Rowley also wrote: "And anyone else who has read your comments: "nonsense" "utter nonsense" (etc ad nauseum) are USUALLY what people write when they are ridiculing something."
Yes, but ridiculing your theory as part of an argument is different from creating a web page which ridicules your theory. You can respond to an argument, you have no real way to respond to a web page. Creating a web page is like putting up a billboard that ridicules your theory. People would see it as "unfair," since you cannot respond except to create a web page "billboard" of your own somewhere. PLUS, it's like taking an argument out of a bar and putting it on TV. My web site has a MUCH bigger and very different audience than this blog.
R. Rowley wrote: "Gee, once again Mister Lake and I seem to live in different worlds: overwhelmingly in my experience writings ON SIDEWALKS are products of children with chalk."
You obviously didn't look at the pictures. I don't think there are ANY of children's writing with chalk. MOST OR ALL are done with paint. They are mostly writings by utility workers marking the location of underground pipes. Some are graffiti. A few are art work.
She is doing what you do. She's seeing MATCHES between certain characters in the anthrax letters and other characters written on sidewalks. You are seeing MATCHES between certain characters in the anthrax letters and characters in charts of Hebrew characters. There's no sensible logic to either one.
You consider the number of matches to be circumstantial evidence comparable to the FBI's circumstantial evidence against Ivins. She does the same thing and has MANY MORE MATCHES than you have, thus, by your standards, she makes a far better circumstantial case than you do.
R. Rowley also wrote: "So, assuming Bob Stevens was just ordinary in that respect, AND he dipped at least one hand into the white powder of the J-Lo letter to 1) pluck out and examine the Star of David charm and/or to push the powder out of the way to better look at the text:" ..... "I think that this ALONE is sufficient to explain his infection."
Except for one thing: THE FACTS SAY THE J-LO LETTER DID NOT CONTAIN ANTHRAX.
R. Rowley also wrote: Not only would I say that the woman cited has little in common with me, .."
Her theory has MUCH in common with yours:
1. She's finding illogical matches to individual characters in the anthrax writings and so are you.
2. She's providing no explanation for such matches other than that it is just to confuse investigators.
3. She can make no logical case against her suspect by using any evidence that would be allowable in court. Just like you.
4. She is finding evidence to support her beliefs instead of letting the evidence point to the culprit. Just like you.
5. She ignores any evidence that does NOT point to her suspect. Just like you.
6. She is ignorant of how circumstantial evidence works. Just like you.
7. She is the only person in the world who believes her theory. Same with you.
8. She probably thinks her evidence is better than the evidence against Bruce Ivins, but she cannot explain how. Same with you.
Ed
Her theory has MUCH in common with yours:
ReplyDelete1. She's finding illogical matches to individual characters in the anthrax writings and so are you.
----------------------------------------------------------
Show where my 'matches' are "illogical". Oh, I forgot! To do that you would have to know the Hebrew alphabet. So Mister Lake merely ASSUMES that they are illogical. An act of illogic on his part.
--------------------------------------------------------
2. She's providing no explanation for such matches other than that it is just to confuse investigators.
The Amerithrax lettering matches don't need to be 'explained' any more that the child-printed-it features do: they are done FOR THE SAME PURPOSE: to disguise the printer's normal style/confuse investigators. The two things go together. Duh!
3. She can make no logical case against her suspect by using any evidence that would be allowable in court. Just like you.
(Gee, Mister Lake, how do YOU know what my evidence is? Every time you state even a subhypothesis of mine, you screw it up, so you would be about the last person on the 'planet' I'd ask about that, especially when we consider where you got your 'law degree' from!)
4. She is finding evidence to support her beliefs instead of letting the evidence point to the culprit. Just like you.
(Nope, that's exactly what I haven't done. In my efforts to show that to you-----now over the course of 2 or 3 years-------I REPEATEDLY cited the impossibility of that based on the chronological development of my ideas.........only to be told by Mister Lake he's not interested in that chronology! Meaning he's not really interested in checking his own characterization, a man with a closed mind)
5. She ignores any evidence that does NOT point to her suspect. Just like you.
(I'm unaware of any evidence in the slightest bit incompatible with my Anthrax Gang having done the crime, and having done much besides that. Since Mister Lake doesn't know who those people are, he's in no position to judge that either).
6. She is ignorant of how circumstantial evidence works. Just like you.
(Again, that misstates things: there's no 'circumstantial' evidence that Ivins made those drives to Princeton, there's no evidence at all! There's no 'circumstantial' evidence that Ivins did anthrax drying/purifying, there's no evidence at all! There's no 'circumstantial' evidence Ivins printed or xeroxed those texts, there's no evidence at ALL! Etc.
7. She is the only person in the world who believes her theory. Same with you.
(This is Mister Lake playing the psychic for the millionth time. Sorry, your psychic powers have failed you once again: I've been corresponding via email with a journalist on Amerithrax since late 2006, and if he doesn't believe my hypothesis, he's done an EXCELLENT job of pretending to!)
8. She probably thinks her evidence is better than the evidence against Bruce Ivins, but she cannot explain how. Same with you.
(Actually, it's not that I 'cannot' explain; it's that I won't: the R. Rowley book on Amerithrax will have a distinct solution to the case (without using the perps' last names), one that I have no intention of telegraphing via the Internet).
But you are right in one respect: the 'evidence' against Ivins sucks.
And that's why the Amerithrax Investigative Summary was deceptive about:
1) the lyophilizer.
2) the ongoing animal trials.
3) the findings of their own document examiner: the non-match to Ivins' printing.
R, Rowley wrote: 'Show where my 'matches' are "illogical"."
ReplyDeleteI've already done that repeatedly. It's illogical to see a connection between the way a question mark is written in the anthrax letter and the Hebrew character "kaf" as displayed in a chart. It's also illogical to see a connection between the highlighting of some of the T's in the first anthrax letter and a calligraphy version of the Hebrew letter "daleth." There's no logical way such "similarities" would be created by unintentional habit, and there's no logic to doing it on purpose to fool the FBI, since there appear to be only one or two people in the world who can even make sense out of such a thing - one of them being Mr. Rowley.
Mr. Rowley also claims once again that he came to his conclusion that a "mastermind" was behind the anthrax letters AND numerous hoax letters by looking at the evidence. He uses as his "proof" the "fact" that he didn't come to his conclusion until years after the attacks. And I've explained many times that WHEN he came up with his theory doesn't in any way mean he used evidence to create it. If someone comes up with a new theory tomorrow, that doesn't make it valid just because it's been 12 years since the attacks occurred.
Mr. Rowley HAS SHOWN NO FACTS to support his theory. Why? He explains: "Actually, it's not that I 'cannot' explain; it's that I won't: the R. Rowley book on Amerithrax will have a distinct solution to the case (without using the perps' last names), one that I have no intention of telegraphing via the Internet"
Well, until that time comes, I'm just going to assume that you have no evidence, since I've seen no evidence that you do have evidence.
I wrote that Mr. Rowley doesn't understand circumstantial evidence, and he responded: "there's no 'circumstantial' evidence that Ivins made those drives to Princeton, there's no evidence at all! There's no 'circumstantial' evidence that Ivins did anthrax drying/purifying, there's no evidence at all! There's no 'circumstantial' evidence Ivins printed or xeroxed those texts, there's no evidence at ALL! Etc."
That testimony is clear and UNDENIABLE PROOF that Mr. Rowley doesn't understand circumstantial evidence. Only a person who doesn't understand circumstantial evidence could make the claim that there is no circumstantial evidence that Ivins did those things. The evidence is clear and undeniable to anyone who DOES understand how circumstantial evidence works.
Mr. Rowley says he's been corresponding with a journalist since late 2006 who either believes his theory or does "an EXCELLENT job of pretending to." That's apparently his idea of "circumstantial evidence" showing his theory is valid.
Mr. Rowley wrote: "I'm unaware of any evidence in the slightest bit incompatible with my Anthrax Gang having done the crime"
What about the evidence that the attacks were carried out by someone with access to the spores contained within flask RMR-1029 who also had the means to grow those seed spores into new spores and to turn the new spores into powders? Does your "Anthrax gang" have the means to do that, or do you simply argue that the FBI has not proved that it is IMPOSSIBLE for your "Anthrax gang" to have done it "somehow?"
Your theory is ILLOGICAL, you have shown no real evidence to support it, and your arguments confirm that you wouldn't be able to put together a logical case, anyway, since it would be based upon circumstantial evidence, and you CLEARLY do not understand circumstantial evidence.
Ed