Sunday, August 4, 2013

Subject: How Ivins Made the Attack Powders


Recently, in the Frederick News-Post, some "experts" who were co-workers of Dr. Ivins were still arguing that it was "impossible" for Ivins to have made the attack powders without his co-workers noticing what he was doing.  That is just plain ignorant.

But, I can see the problem.  In the Amerithrax Investigation Summary, the Department of Justice didn't describe how Ivins "most likely" made the anthrax powders.  They wouldn't have done that in court, either.  They'd just have proved that Ivins had the means to make the anthrax powders. 

When you start talking about which means Ivins most likely used, then you are getting into "speculation."  And, the defense would argue that it is "just speculation."  So, it's better to prove in court with expert testimony that Ivins could have created the attack spores in a number of different ways, and then leave it to the defense lawyers to try to "prove the negative" - that Ivins could NOT have made the anthrax powders.

But, there will never be any trial, so "experts" can continue to argue that it was "impossible" for Ivins to have made the powders unnoticed, because making spores using the STANDARD methods involved lots of time and lots of specialized equipment - some of which was inoperable.  And the media can continue to print their silly claims without serious fear that some real expert is going step forward and prove them wrong.


The facts which say that Ivins used spores grown on plates inside autoclave bags that had been left to grow for weeks seem UNDENIABLE.  It's easy to understand.  It's relatively simple to do.  There's solid evidence to support it.  It's something that a "normal" scientist would very likely do when committing such a crime, since it is so simple.  Yet, it appears to be something that Ivins co-workers haven't even considered.

Or, if they have considered it, they don't want it discussed because it places some of the blame on them for allowing Ivins to keep hazardous waste in the form of bags full of inoculated plates around for WEEKS, instead of demanding that they be immediately sterilized and then incinerated as any "normal" scientist in any "normal" microbiology lab would be expected to do.

Why isn't the media making a big deal of this?  You'd think that the Frederick News-Post would be concerned about scientists in their community leaving dangerous biohazard waste laying around for weeks in violation of every known protocol.  Instead, however, they ignore the facts and allow scientists to make totally silly claims that it would have been "impossible" for Bruce Ivins to make the attack spores unnoticed.
  

So, it's up to a NON-expert like me to do a better job of arguing against the "experts" whenever they repeat their silly claims.  The next time the Frederick News-Post or any other media outlet publishes such ignorant claims, I'll try to have a rebuttal ready to post as a comment after the article.  The 12th anniversary of the anthrax attacks will be coming up very soon.  The Truthers can continue to ignore the facts, but they cannot dispute them.   And, History says that gradually the facts will be accepted, particularly since NO ONE has ever disputed the facts on this issue.  

Ed

108 comments:

  1. Hello Mr Lake

    Really he needs to make the poison?

    Does he can steal the poison and then delete or modify the inventory or related files?

    __I do not think Bruce Ivins is the poisoner because he hates a college fraternity. He had a "long and strange obsession" with Kappa Kappa Gamma. And none of this organization were killed or poisoned slightly.

    "Federal agents say Ivins traced his twisted relationship with Kappa Kappa Gamma back to his college days at the University of Cincinnati. By his own account, Ivins was turned down for a date by a fellow undergraduate, a member of the sorority, and his resentment festered for 40 years.
    ...........................
    More than six years into the anthrax investigation, according to investigators, Ivins would admit to authorities that he had written the letter to the Frederick News-Post under Nancy Haigwood's name. He also admitted to vandalizing her home in 1982 and breaking into two Kappa Kappa Gamma houses to steal material on the sorority's secret codes and rituals.
    .........................
    The mailbox on Nassau Street was just a few doors from a building that leased office space to a sorority: Kappa Kappa Gamma."

    http://edition.cnn.com/2011/10/01/us/anthrax-killer-case

    + Clearly he hates fraternity and anyone knows this hatred for this reason the poison was sent from this special place: the mailbox on Nassau Street.

    My suspect is a colleague of Dr. Ivins, a subordinate who hates the behavior of the doctor.

    Federal agents had documented a pattern of Ivins' after-hours work in his lab, alone, shortly before the anthrax letters were mailed. Scientists hired by the FBI had matched four genetic mutations in the attack anthrax to the same mutations in a flask of anthrax in Ivins' lab, labeled RMR-1029.Too much work in a short time.

    + Or the doctor must fulfill an order or he is hiding something bad. My opinion is that the doctor tries to hide a theft.

    Bye.


    ReplyDelete
  2. Joseph from Spain wrote: "Does he can steal the poison and then delete or modify the inventory or related files?"

    He didn't have to "steal" anything. He made the spores as part of his regular job, right in front of everybody. They were spores used to count how many spores were in a dose that would be given to an animal.

    Ivins was also supposed to DESTROY the spores as soon as he finished counting them. But, he didn't destroy them. He saved them, and they were all he needed to make the powders for the letters. He destroyed EMPTY plates.

    Joseph from Spain also wrote: "My suspect is a colleague of Dr. Ivins, a subordinate who hates the behavior of the doctor."

    The facts say that Ivins acted alone. His favorite colleague had left USAMRIID in 1999. I think The FBI was able to eliminate both colleagues as suspects. ONLY Ivins spent enough time in the lab to turn the spores that were in the garbage and supposed to be destroyed - into what was in the letters.

    All the facts say Ivins did it, and he did it alone.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  3. From Sunday's comments section:
    ---------------
    I've been saying for almost 12 years that Bruce Ivins almost certainly did not write the anthrax letters or address the envelopes.
    ================================================
    What you've been saying for almost 12 years is: an adult almost certainly did not write the anthrax letters or address the envelopes. Naturally, that includes the adult Ivins but several hundreds of millions more Americans too.

    However, I don't agree that the document you found is "inconclusive" (the gloss put on things by the Amerithrax Investigative Summary).

    ANY analyst is going to have qualifiers on something like that and saying that person X "probably did not write" texts A, B, and C is a conclusion, no matter how unpalatable that may have been to the Task Force. So, YET AGAIN we find the Task Force/DoJ misrepresenting things in that Final Report.

    ReplyDelete
  4. R. Rowley wrote: "What you've been saying for almost 12 years is: an adult almost certainly did not write the anthrax letters or address the envelopes."

    Oops. You're right. I just went back and fixed that comment. It now says:

    I've been saying for almost 12 years that the anthrax mailer almost certainly did not write the anthrax letters or address the envelopes. The anthrax mailer manipulated someone else into doing the writing for him - most likely a child just starting first grade.

    Thanks.

    R. Rowley also wrote: "ANY analyst is going to have qualifiers on something like that and saying that person X "probably did not write" texts A, B, and C is a conclusion, no matter how unpalatable that may have been to the Task Force."

    Maybe, but the USPIS analysts specifically state why they use the word "probably":

    "The qualified findings expressed above are due to the lack of original documents from which the examination and comparisons were conducted. The submission of the original questioned and known writings could provide for more definitive findings. In addition, the submission of known exemplars reflecting the writings appearing on the "anthrax" envelopes and letters would need to be examined prior to fully eliminating Bruce E. Ivins as the writer of these questioned writings.

    In other words, they only looked at photographs and would need to see the original documents to be sure. They would need to look at the original documents before they could fully eliminate Ivins as the writer of the anthrax documents.

    The FBI/DOJ didn't misrepresent things in the "Final Report." The USPIS handwriting experts weren't the ONLY handwriting experts used in the case.

    BTW, I found an interesting comment on page 47 of part 57. It's from March 11, 2008:

    In support of the AMERITHRAX investigation, Laboratory Division, Cryptanalysis and Racketeering Records Unit (CRRU) is requested to conduct all logical analysis of the [KKG] Cipher and its possible application to the letters and envelopes used in the 2001 mailings. In addition to the application of the Cipher to the mailings, CRRU is also requested to consider and advise the AMERITHRAX Task Force of other possible applications of the Cipher to this crime, in light of IVINS's obsession with KKG and interest in codes.

    In other words, the FBI consulted their Cryptanalysis and Racketeering Records Unit to see if the cypher used by Kappa Kappa Gamma in their ritual book may ALSO have been used somewhere by Ivins in the anthrax letters or anywhere else.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. R. Rowley also wrote: "ANY analyst is going to have qualifiers on something like that and saying that person X "probably did not write" texts A, B, and C is a conclusion, no matter how unpalatable that may have been to the Task Force."

      Maybe, but the USPIS analysts specifically state why they use the word "probably"[...]
      =========================================================
      But you are imagining that there's such a thing in this field as absolute certainty, hence no need to talk about 'probability' when that kicks in. That just isn't so. Back to the Task Force in 2001, talking about the JOINT authorship of the texts:
      -----------
      "The FBI Behavioral Analysis Unit (BAU)found that "there is a high probability, bordering on certainty,that the letters and envelopes were authored by the same person" based on the observed linguistic similarities among the letters."

      http://books.google.com/books?id=VlhRVMN-E2cC&pg=PA12&lpg=PA12&dq=anthrax+letters+%22probability+bordering+on+certainty%22&source=bl&ots=bGVfHLk6ZV&sig=Uz6H6MqlRIyHgsuKD48-M7kJm-k&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Aq4LUrGoAsWw2gWTuIHgCQ&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=anthrax%20letters%20%22probability%20bordering%20on%20certainty%22&f=false
      ======================================================
      So, as far as I can tell,

      1)"high probability, bordering on certainty," whether talking about a match or NON-match, is the highest category.
      (Since, to my knowledge, not a living soul thinks there are multiple hands at work in the PRINTING of Amerithrax texts).

      2)"high probability", no 'bordering' at all, the second highest category.

      3) "probable", whether a match or non-match, the 3rd highest
      category.
      ===================================================
      Back to Mister Lake:
      ------
      BTW, I found an interesting comment on page 47 of part 57. It's from March 11, 2008:

      In support of the AMERITHRAX investigation, Laboratory Division, Cryptanalysis and Racketeering Records Unit (CRRU) is requested to conduct all logical analysis of the [KKG] Cipher and its possible application to the letters and envelopes used in the 2001 mailings. In addition to the application of the Cipher to the mailings, CRRU is also requested to consider and advise the AMERITHRAX Task Force of other possible applications of the Cipher to this crime, in light of IVINS's obsession with KKG and interest in codes.
      ===================================================
      So, that was in March of 2008. Does anyone think that CRRU
      didn't respond prior to February of 2010?

      Delete
    2. R. Rowley wrote: "But you are imagining that there's such a thing in this field as absolute certainty, hence no need to talk about 'probability' when that kicks in."

      Not so. I've stated many times that handwriting is an art, not a science. And I made it a point to show that there are handwriting experts arguing just the opposite of other handwriting experts.

      The "high probability, bordering on certainty" was that all the anthrax letters and envelopes were written by the same person. I've seen no disagreement with that finding from anyone.

      But the "handwriting experts" disagree on just about everything else.

      R. Rowley wrote: "Does anyone think that CRRU didn't respond prior to February of 2010?"

      I didn't find any response. I would assume that the CRRU's response was negative, i.e., the KKG cipher code was NOT used in any document by Ivins that they could find. If they had found Ivins used the KKG cipher somewhere, we would almost certainly have heard about it.

      I thought that quote was interesting because it seems to indicate that shortly after FBI Agent Darin Steele found the hidden message in the media letter (as a result of reading Godel, Escher, Bach), the FBI asked the GRRU to look for other coded messages Ivins may have written.

      Your previous argument was that they'd need the GRRU to verify that what Agent Steele found was correct. I see no reason to do that. But, it was probably a good idea to ask the GRRU to look for other possible codings by Ivins elsewhere.

      Ed

      Delete
    3. R. Rowley quoted from page 12 of the Amerithrax Investigation Summary: "The FBI Behavioral Analysis Unit (BAU)found that "there is a high probability, bordering on certainty,that the letters and envelopes were authored by the same person" based on the observed linguistic similarities among the letters."

      Hmm. I just realized they used the word "authored" instead of "written." I wonder if that was done purposely. I can "author" a book, but the printing in the book isn't my printing.

      If Ivins wrote out the texts and a child copied those texts to write the anthrax letters, can't it still be said that Ivins "authored" the letters?

      And they are talking about "linguistics," NOT about handwriting. So, they're saying that the words -- such as the last three lines of both letters being identical -- say that the same person did the "authoring." They're saying NOTHING about the handwriting.

      Interesting.

      I also found a counterpoint to that quote in USA Today at this link: http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/life/2001-10-22-penmanship.htm. It says:

      Days before authorities determined the strain of anthrax found in letters to newscaster Tom Brokaw and Sen. Majority Leader Tom Daschle were the same, handwriting experts reached a similar conclusion: One person launched both mail-in bioterror attacks. A third attack also may be linked by letters. An unopened envelope, laden with anthrax and mailed to the editor of the New York Post, matches the terrorist's handwriting characteristics, according to Sunday's Post.

      The paper did not publish a photo of the envelope, but handwriting experts have seen photos of the Brokaw and Daschle ones.

      "There are enough unconscious, habitual characteristics to say it's the same person," says Gideon Epstein, formerly chief forensic document examiner for the U.S. Army and for the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service.

      "The more envelopes that surface, the more evidence you have for identifying the perpetrator," says Epstein, who is now in private practice in Rockville, Md.


      So, the same person "authored" both letters, and the same person WROTE the addresses on both envelopes.

      But, the facts say that the "author" and the "writer" are NOT the same person.

      I find that very interesting.

      Ed

      Delete
  5. I forgot to provide the link to the USPIS report that says Ivins "probably" did NOT write the anthrax letters. The report is on pages 31 and 32 of Amerithrax pdf file 57 of 59. Here's the link to that file: http://vault.fbi.gov/Amerithrax/amerithrax-part-57-of/view

    Or, if you don't want to go to the FBI's web site, you can view just the 2 page USPIS report from my site by clicking on this link:
    http://www.anthraxinvestigation.com/USPIS-Handwriting-rpt.pdf

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  6. Thanks for the stuff from Brother Jonathan. One thing that really stands out is: his response to the letter to the editor at the bottom. In part it reads:
    --------------------
    One problem with most marker pens is they tend to dry out and start to skip and produce thin writing if the tip is exposed for about 20 minutes to half an hour. Assuming the writer began with the 3 envelopes, the envelope writing would appear bold but have the typical "mechanical" problems of a young writer such as writing in modified uncial characters and the increasingly sloping lines of the addresses.

    The first letter to Daschle still retains the bold smooth lines of the envelopes. The second letter to Brokaw begins to show the felt pen tip was starting to dry out and the writer was becoming fatigued after continuous "work" for about œ hour. The result is the Brokaw letter shows several repeat strokes on the T's and A's where the drying pen began to skip. Also this second letter shows a much greater scrawling appearance due to the fatigue of the writer and the now thinner strokes from the drying pen, giving more the impression of a typical first-grader with a pencil. The Brokaw letter shows that both the pen and the writer had come to the end of their usefulness, so the 3rd letter to the NY Post was made by photocopying the Brokaw letter.
    ======================================================
    Was there a reason in November of 2001 to think:

    a)that the Brokaw letter was written AFTER the Daschle letter?
    (since it was mailed three weeks before the Daschle letter)

    b)that the NY POST letter was a photocopy(of the Brokaw letter), but the Brokaw letter itself WASN'T(!) a photocopy?

    (My understanding of the Amerithrax texts PROPER is: they are all
    photocopies)

    ReplyDelete
  7. R. Rowley wrote: "Was there a reason in November of 2001 to think:

    a)that the Brokaw letter was written AFTER the Daschle letter?
    (since it was mailed three weeks before the Daschle letter)"


    I'm not sure. The Daschle letter was the FIRST letter to be confirmed to contain anthrax. The Brokaw letter was analyzed shortly afterwards. It may have seemed at the time that all the letters were mailed at the same time.

    That's probably part of Marshall Smith's reasoning. He also says that the child was getting tired, so that's why the Brokaw letter was shorter.

    Smith had evidently not yet read about the postmarks. He also had not yet read that ALL the letters were photocopies. So, he was making deductions based upon what he knew and deduced at the time. Everyone does that.

    The only real question is: Why didn't he ever go back and correct his errors?

    Maybe he just didn't feel it was worth the bother. Who knows?

    You might not believe it, but there are still people around who think that Muslim terrorists sent the letters, and that the handwriting could belong to Mohamed Atta. That proves that some people can believe ANYTHING, and their beliefs do not have to have anything to do with reality.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  8. Mr. Rowley,

    Near the start of Marshall Smith's article, he wrote:

    ----------
    Exactly a week later on September 18th, three letters were sent supposedly containing powdered anthrax spores. Two of the letters were sent to the New York Post and Tom Brokaw in New York City. The third letter was sent to Senator Tom Daschle in Washington DC. The letters appear to be dated 09-11-01 but that is deceiving. All that can be known is that the letters were written after the 9-11-01 terror attack and before the postmarked date of 9-18-01.
    ------------

    This says he believes that all three letters were sent at the same time.

    He seems to have thought that the date on the letters was supposed to be interpreted as the date ALL the letters were written. But, he is not "deceived" and deduces that they must have been written after 9/11.

    If you dig deeper into Smith's conspiracy theory, you'll find that he initially doesn't appear to believe there was any anthrax in the letters at all. He seems to believe the victims were all killed by RADIATION sickness.

    Here's part of his thinking on October 26, 2001:

    ------------
    (BJNews, October 26, 2001) I just today had a phone conversation with my father who is a senior nuclear engineer and international expert on radiation and nuclear reactors. He was on the investigative teams at the Three Mile Island and Chernobyl nuclear disasters. In the early 1970's, he was the corporate manager of all GE nuclear sites including Three Mile Island, so he knows the facilities and their operations quite well.

    I discussed with him my scenario for WTC terrorist pilot Muhammed Atta's complaint to his local pharmacist in Boca Raton, Florida, about his red burning itchy hands, just a week before the attack: it might have been due to radiation burns, and not due to anthrax. Investigators have confirmed from the Florida pharmacist that it was not anthrax, but... Atta may have divided up about a pound of powdered plutonium into four separate vials to be taken aboard each of the four hijacked planes. This would account for his red itchy radiation burned hands. That made sense to my father.

    My investigational hypothesis is that if the four planes carried a pound of plutonium, then the plutonium would have been burned or oxidized during the World Trade Center attack into a very fine white ash of plutonium oxide and would have spread in the smoking plumes from the flaming twin towers in the first two hours before they collapsed.

    --------------

    and

    -------------
    To indicate that the current anthrax hoax is possibly part of a cover-up of the aftermath of a more terrible WTC 9-11 event, I would note that the symptoms of being under a plutonium cloud with very fine radiation particles raining down, would include: (1) lesions on the skin of the head, neck, face and hands where particles have landed, (2) pneumonia-like filling of the lungs where particles have been inhaled and (3) general weakness, nausea, vomiting of blood and severe intestinal distress where the radiation particles have landed on food or water which is ingested
    -------------

    and

    -------------
    Just this morning I received today's CDC October 26 Anthrax update. I analyzed the medical diagnosis for each of the "suspected" and "confirmed" cases of anthrax and I can easily show that quite possibly none of those people contracted or died from anthrax infection. And that is according to the CDC's second definition of what constitutes a "confirmed" case.
    ----------------

    Source: http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/salting_america.htm

    The evidence showing his theory was bogus kept pouring in, and that's evidently why he didn't continue promoting it after November 2.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  9. I KNEW I should have looked into "Brother Jonathan" more thoroughly back in 2006; if I had, I would have found this:(partial Wiki)
    ----------------------------------
    Brother Jonathan
    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    ------------------------------------
    deletion
    ------------------------------------
    Brother Jonathan was a fictional character developed as a good-natured parody of all New England during the early American Republic. It was widely popularized by the weekly Brother Jonathan and the humor magazine Yankee Notions. The phrase "We must consult Brother Jonathan" is used officially in New England to this day.
    In editorial cartoons and patriotic posters outside New England, Brother Jonathan was usually depicted as a long-winded New Englander who dressed in striped trousers, somber black coat, and stove-pipe hat. He much resembled Abraham Lincoln shortly before his assassination, who by donning the same famous props of Brother Jonathan put himself forth as a representative of New England in the minds of the American public well acquainted with the Brother Jonathan of the popular press. Inside New England, "Brother Jonathan" was depicted as an enterprising and "go-ahead-itive" businessman who blithely boasted of Yankee conquests.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brother_Jonathan
    ===============================================================
    Freshly baked hypothesis: OUR "Brother Jonathan" was a "good-natured parody". This explains much about what was at his site and is still available via the Way Back Machine. He never meant his ideas....It's a parody site.
    However, it's a parody with a difference....

    ReplyDelete
  10. R. Rowley wrote: "Freshly baked hypothesis: OUR "Brother Jonathan" was a "good-natured parody". This explains much about what was at his site and is still available via the Way Back Machine. He never meant his ideas....It's a parody site."

    The correct term for your hypothesis is "half baked," not "freshly baked."

    Marshall Smith explains who "Brother Jonathan" was on his web page here: http://web.archive.org/web/20070710103715/http://www.brojon.org/features/brojonstory.html

    Snippets:

    "In 1776 a group of British colonies formed a coalition or union of independent states. Each state had its own laws, practices and social customs so citizens of each of the states could choose which religion, culture, beliefs or benefits they preferred by either living in that state or moving to the one which most matched their own. This mutual respect of differing opinions and beliefs was personified in the symbol of the new union, the United States of America. That symbol was called "Brother Jonathan."

    As the French, after their revolution, called themselves "Citizen", the people of the new American union called themselves, "Brother Jon", "Brother Jonathan," or simply "Brother." The symbol of Brother Jonathan implied a citizen of the various states without regard for which state. This practice based on the concept of the new egalitarian republic continued until the mid 19th century and abruptly ended with the US Civil War."


    and

    " Since about 15 years ago, when I first discovered the old symbol of Brother Jonathan, I have wondered at how it was so popular and widely accepted and honored around the world in the 19th century, but somehow has completely disappeared in the 20th century. It was for the conception of Brother Jonathan which the French acknowledged with their gift of Lady Liberty. But now the mystery is solved.

    I did a number of radio interviews on KKUP discussing the concept of Brother Jonathan. My notes and research have long been collected into a file in preparation for a book appropriately entitled "Goodbye Brother Jonathan." In 1989 during call-in interviews, I suggested the "United States" would disappear by the year 2000. Most callers to the radio program scoffed at the idea. But it is clear, this has already occurred. The "United States of America" has now become "Unitedstatesofamerica." They look and sound the same. Most people don't notice the difference. The difference is the final demise of Brother Jon.

    People will only notice the arrival of tyranny when the "Unitedstatesofamerica" anoints its new populist leader, Queen Hillary of Rodham, as its savior of the new realm. Even this event has already occurred. Most people have not noticed. It has not yet been announced on the evening TV news. And when it is, again, most people will simply not notice. I wish this were a joke. But I have watched my prediction from 10 years ago turn inexorably into reality. "


    And

    "Thus for almost 100 years Brother Jonathan was the symbol of the United States, which stood firmly against tyranny and monarchy anywhere in the world, though it was only a verbal reference and not a drawing or visual symbol."

    Besides, his conspiracy theory is NOT on BroJon.org, it was (and IS) found on www.theforbiddenknowledge.com. The Full link: http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/salting_america.htm


    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  11. Mr. Rowley,

    I didn't have anything better to do, so I did some research on "Brother Jonathan."

    "Brother Jonathan is a nickname for the United States that pre-dates Uncle Sam and John Bull is a nickname for England."

    Source: http://www.teachushistory.org/war-1812-hartford-convention/resources/brother-johnathan-administering-salutary-cordial-john-bull

    "While Uncle Sam is now regarded as the universal symbol of the United States, he is actually an adaptation of Brother Jonathan, an even earlier National Symbol. Prior to the Civil War, Brother Jonathan was our primary symbol, and during the Civil War years, the mantle was passed from Brother Jonathan to Uncle Sam."

    Source: http://www.sonofthesouth.net/uncle-sam/brother-jonathan.htm

    "The symbolic Uncle Sam's appearance evolved from that of Brother Jonathan, the most common earlier symbol for the United States. The two characters were used interchangeably from the 1830s through the 1860s."

    Source: http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/british/britintr.html

    "Thomas Nast, a prominent 19th-century political cartoonist, produced many of the earliest cartoons of Uncle Sam. However, historians and collectors take note: Many of Nast`s cartoons may appear to depict Uncle Sam, while in fact they depict Yankee Doodle or "Brother Jonathan." It is easy to mistake a Brother Jonathan cartoon for one of Uncle Sam, since both figures wear star-spangled suits of red, white and blue. As a rule, Brother Jonathan was drawn with a feather in his cap, while Uncle Sam was not; and Uncle Sam is nearly always drawn with a beard, while Brother Jonathan was clean-shaven."

    Source: http://www.parkersmaplebarn.com/unclesam.php

    "The popularity of Uncle Sam as a national symbol after 1812 can be seen as America's first step toward a sense of identity other than regional. Previous symbols, such as Yankee Doodle and Brother Jonathan originated and referred specifically to New Englanders. While foreigners associated these figures with the nation as a whole, internally they were linked to the North and represented that region alone. To many residents of the South, Yankee Doodle and Brother Jonathan were completely alien images."

    Source: http://xroads.virginia.edu/~cap/sam/end.htm

    Thus endeth our history lesson for today.

    Any day you learn something new is a good day. :-)

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  12. Mr. Rowley,

    I just changed the Wikipedia entry for "Brother Jonathan." I left the old stuff there, but put the quotes I cited above before the old stuff.

    Wikipedia was definitely wrong on that entry.

    We'll now see if their editors find a reason to undo what I've added.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brother_Jonathan

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  13. I'll continue to look into it but I'm more convinced than I was even yesterday that it's a parody.
    None of the stuff on Bro Jonathan's site, excepting only the parental directory(2010) postdates 17-Nov-2006 13:20. Six and a half years ago. What happened to him/Marshall Smith?

    I suspect that even the latter name was picked for its parodic value:
    http://www.marshallsmith.org/en/what-is-mss
    -----------------------
    Perhaps more later.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Apparently we aren't the only ones to explore this question


    Who is Marshall Smith of Brother Jonathan Gazette? Background? Bio? Qualifications? Credentials?
    Searches for info on Smith yield nothing. He writes on a wide variety of topics with apparent expertise, reports to have done in-depth research on myriad subjects, and seems to have held any number of important positions. Would like some unbiased info or verification of his believability.


    Best Answer - Chosen by Voters

    Hi Beachgirl,
    I met the MarshallSmith once, a few weekends ago. I was walking to the corner market for a loaf of bread when I had to pass by a neighborhood church. I was somewhat acquainted with the structure as it was always mentioned in the newspaper's community section. Known as "The loft," folks would gather there on Thursday evenings for poetry readings.
    However, this day happened to be a Saturday afternoon and a pair of gentlemen greeted me as I walked by. They invited me inside to sample an hour of their presentation. Ok, I went inside and found myself to be a prospective new recruit for their brand of religion.

    Most of the pews were filled with hooded monks chanting a haunting rhythm. There were others who like me, were wearing their regular denims. The service began like most others that church-goers would be familiar with. A grand master of ceremonies led the group through some songs and gave a sermon. Near the end of the hour it was time for their ritual of "laying on of the hands." Some of the parishioners would come forward and ask for prayers for their ailments or for a sick grand mum who fell down in the tub. All the hooded dudes whose faces could not readily be seen would all place a hand on the person and their combined energies were presumed to have a strength and expedite a solution to the problem.

    OK now, there was another new guy in the pews who was watching eagerly. I recognized MarshallSmith from a wanted poster viewed earlier at the post office. When he saw a chance, he approached the ring of conspirators and described how he was always moving around and never able to settle down. The hooded goons closed in upon him, all to make a physical connection. The master of ceremonies began a prayer, a dogmatic mix of logic and pure hocus-pocus. I immediately saw the effects of the procedure as the tension went out of MarshallSmith's body. When the beseeching was near an end, the master asked, "Are the brothers ready?"

    A suspenseful few moments passed until he almost shouted, "NOW!"

    On that cue, the brothers began to pummel their hapless victim. Continually delivering blows over head and to the solar plexus until MarshallSmith was down on the floor getting stomped. After another minute, the grand Pooh-Bah decided the treatment administered was sufficient to induce a relaxing calm that would assuage the nervousness of MarshallSmith for a long, long time.

    I can't say for certain if MarshallSmith got the comeuppance he deserved as I had a loaf of bread to buy and some other errands to do that day. I hope for you Beachgirl, that you do find a sense of closure to this difficult episode of life.

    -Zach

    PS- Believe it or not.
    7 years ago
    http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20060708120511AA2CxKv

    ReplyDelete
  15. R. Rowley wrote: "I'll continue to look into it but I'm more convinced than I was even yesterday that it's a parody."

    So, it appears, once again, you're going to believe what you want to believe - regardless of what the facts say.

    It seems clear that Marshall Douglas Smith likes to play games with people, but that's the mark of a I'm-smarter-than-you "prankster," which is VERY different than doing parody.

    R. Rowley also wrote: "Who is Marshall Smith of Brother Jonathan Gazette? Background? Bio? Qualifications? Credentials?"

    Why do you care? What difference does it make?

    The only issue should be: Is what he says true?

    Obviously, he was wrong in his belief that the anthrax letters were a hoax to cover up a greater radiation disaster.

    But, he also seems VERY likely CORRECT in his observations of how his children wrote when they just started first grade.

    At this link: http://www.cosmologystatement.org/ he "signs" a letter that appears to question the Big Bang Theory. He's listed under "Scientists and Engineers," and he indicates he's affiliated with "The Teddy Speaks Foundation." The link goes to his web page titled "Where Dr. Einstein Went Wrong." It can be accessed via the WayBack Machine: http://web.archive.org/web/20100819002021/http://brojon.org/frontpage/EINSTEIN-WENT-WRONG.html

    That page is VERY technical, and in the page he writes, "I should add that I have a degree in physics from the University of Santa Clara. For years, I confounded my professors by working out complex problems in relativistic mechanics in my head."

    In part 2 he wrote: "In 1959 I read his paper and found that it contained a simple arithmetic error, therefore the theory must be false.

    Years later as a college physics student I told my professors about my discovery of the math error. They didn't believe me, even when I showed them a much simpler way to solve advanced physics problems. My solution was so simple that I could solve most of the problems in my head. Today as a senior physicist, I ask, "Why is it that modern science for 100 years has believed a theory which is based on a simple math error?"


    I suspect that all this is true. But, it could also mean that he may be some kind of "savant" in that he is brilliant in some ways, but totally looney in others.

    He says he went to Del Mar High School.

    He makes the same kind of mistakes that all conspiracy theorists make:

    "Charles Darwin was also very wrong. Evolution by "natural selection" was not the process which created the myriad lifeforms that now exist on earth. There is plenty of evidence which can prove that. The one item of critical evidence to prove that Darwin's Evolution is not correct is that after 150 years of diligent searching, not one, no, not even one example of a missing link or any intermediate species form has ever been discovered. "

    He's claiming that not finding evidence IS evidence. That's nonsense. It's the kind of nonsense logic that Anthrax Truthers use. And, he's very wrong about not finding "missing links." Many evolutionary links have been found. He's doing as you do: demanding that people find the evidence that he wants found. If it's not the kind of evidence HE WANTS, then he won't believe the facts.

    It's quite possible that he's using a phoney name. But, I'll do more research to see what I can dig up. The data found so far says he was probably about 15 in 1959, which would make him about 69 years old today. He could be dead. Or he may have suffered some kind of accident or illness that made him unable to continue with his rantings on the Internet. That would certainly explain why he suddenly vanished.

    Ed




    He has written that his father worked in a nuclear power plant.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. R. Rowley also wrote: "Who is Marshall Smith of Brother Jonathan Gazette? Background? Bio? Qualifications? Credentials?"

      Why do you care? What difference does it make?
      ===================================================
      Those questions were written NOT by me but by the person at Yahoo question-and-answer(s), as the link I provide at the bottom documents:
      http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20060708120511AA2CxKv

      Delete
    2. Mister Lake posted:
      ---------------------------
      R. Rowley wrote: "I'll continue to look into it but I'm more convinced than I was even yesterday that it's a parody."

      So, it appears, once again, you're going to believe what you want to believe - regardless of what the facts say.
      ==========================================
      What "facts"? I'm suggesting-------and perhaps I should have avoided the word "parody" in this contexrt------that
      the person who wrote the BroJonathan Gazette:

      1) likely wasn't someone named Marshall Smith.

      2) likely doesn't really believe the stuff he writes on the Internet under that handle

      (And let me add)

      3) likely grossly distorts his own background in the bargain.

      Those things aren't refuted by citing FURTHER writings by the very imposter in question. For if he's a troll (for want of a better term) he's not suddenly going to level with you just because you 'asked nice'.

      Back to Mister Lake:
      =============

      It seems clear that Marshall Douglas Smith likes to play games with people, but that's the mark of a I'm-smarter-than-you "prankster," which is VERY different than doing parody.
      =======================
      In my book he's a troll. But whether you want to call the extended WRITINGS of a troll 'parodies' or 'provocations' or
      'satires' doesn't, it seems to me, much matter.

      Delete
    3. Posted by Mister Lake:
      ----------------
      He makes the same kind of mistakes that all conspiracy theorists make:

      "Charles Darwin was also very wrong. Evolution by "natural selection" was not the process which created the myriad lifeforms that now exist on earth. There is plenty of evidence which can prove that. The one item of critical evidence to prove that Darwin's Evolution is not correct is that after 150 years of diligent searching, not one, no, not even one example of a missing link or any intermediate species form has ever been discovered. "

      He's claiming that not finding evidence IS evidence. That's nonsense.
      ==============================================
      So claiming that not finding evidence IS evidene is nonsense?
      What about this? (from this very website):

      The Case Against Dr. Ivins


      The facts say that Dr. Ivins was the anthrax mailer:


      [numbered items or 'facts' follow]


      19. There is no evidence that Dr. Ivins could not possibly have sent the anthrax letters.
      ========================================

      Delete
    4. R. Rowley wrote that I wrote: "19. There is no evidence that Dr. Ivins could not possibly have sent the anthrax letters."

      That is NOT using no evidence as evidence. It's just the opposite. It's using no evidence as no evidence.

      Is it asking too much to ask that someone provide evidence that Ivins could NOT have sent the anthrax letters?

      All the conspiracy theorists and True Believers provide are arguments that they don't BELIEVE the evidence against Ivins, and that they BELIEVE someone else did it. But they have no real EVIDENCE that someone else did it.

      R. Rowley also wrote: "In my book he's [Marshall Smith] a troll. But whether you want to call the extended WRITINGS of a troll 'parodies' or 'provocations' or
      'satires' doesn't, it seems to me, much matter.


      I wouldn't use any of those terms for his writings. It's clear he believes what he writes. He seems to be a True Believer who is also a conspiracy theorist. He repeats his claims all over the Net, and he started writing a book about one of his main conspiracy theories - that the Rockefellers were out to take over the world.

      Ed

      Delete
    5. R. Rowley also wrote: "In my book he's [Marshall Smith] a troll. But whether you want to call the extended WRITINGS of a troll 'parodies' or 'provocations' or
      'satires' doesn't, it seems to me, much matter.

      I wouldn't use any of those terms for his writings. It's clear he believes what he writes. He seems to be a True Believer who is also a conspiracy theorist. He repeats his claims all over the Net, and he started writing a book about one of his main conspiracy theories - that the Rockefellers were out to take over the world.
      ==================================================
      Well then, I pity you. And I noticed this same propensity of yours each and every time we discussed the Town of Quantico letter denouncing Ayaad Assaad: I would point out the major SELF-CONTRADICTIONS in the text. You wouldn't deny that they WERE self-contradictions, but nevertheless you went blithely on acting as the letter had credibility,
      at least as reflecting the beliefs of the writer. Since the Amerithrax mastermind wrote the Town of Quantico letter, this makes you unable to evaluate the overall situation of Amerithrax (which involved an array of 'hoax' letters------Town of Quantico, St Pete etc.)

      Delete
    6. R. Rowley wrote: "Since the Amerithrax mastermind wrote the Town of Quantico letter, this makes you unable to evaluate the overall situation of Amerithrax (which involved an array of 'hoax' letters------Town of Quantico, St Pete etc.)"

      You are stating your beliefs - which have nothing to do with reality.

      You are also showing you do not have any understanding of basic scientific and investigative reasoning.

      When I take the Assaad letter "at face value," that doesn't mean I believe what it says. It means I have NO reason to DISBELIEVE what it says. Until, I see reason to disbelieve it, I MUST take it at face value. To do otherwise (as you do), would be to inject personal BELIEFS into the evaluation.

      That's what you do, not what I do.

      Ed

      Delete
    7. When I take the Assaad letter "at face value," that doesn't mean I believe what it says. It means I have NO reason to DISBELIEVE what it says
      =================================================
      Well, I and Ayaad Assaad disagree with you! Mister Assaad knows from his own experience, I from linguistic analysis.

      Delete
    8. R. Rowley wrote: "Well, I and Ayaad Assaad disagree with you! Mister Assaad knows from his own experience, I from linguistic analysis."

      You STILL do not understand basic reasoning.

      If I have no opinions or beliefs but just take what the letters says at face value because there are no FACTS to contradict it. Your OPINION and Mister Assaad's OPINION change nothing. The only thing that would say that the letter should NOT be taken at face value is some SOLID FACTS. OPINIONS MEAN NOTHING WHEN YOU ARE TRYING TO FIND THE TRUTH.

      Ed

      Delete
    9. R. Rowley wrote: "Well, I and Ayaad Assaad disagree with you! Mister Assaad knows from his own experience, I from linguistic analysis."

      You STILL do not understand basic reasoning.

      If I have no opinions or beliefs but just take what the letters says at face value because there are no FACTS to contradict it.
      =====================================
      In going over this subject TWICE before with you, I cited the experience of the (Vichy) French government during WWII when THOUSANDS of such letters (letters of denunciation) were received. I supplied links to one or more sites dealing with this historical phenomenon. I noted that such letters (especially the anonymous kind) are NOTORIOUSLY unreliable, so much so that the French police had STANDING ORDERS to ignore all unsigned ones.

      Your response? You ignored totally the historical experience and record of the (un-)reliability of letters of denunciation. Just ignoring an argument doesn't make it go away. And your "basic reasoning" has to be EMPLOYED in evaluating whether a source of information is reliable or not. As a GENERIC source, such letters are seldom reliable.

      Since there isn't the SLIGHTEST bit of evidence that Coptic Christian Assaad ever said anything remotely like what the letter-writer claimed, that should tell us SOMETHING about the letter writer's reliability.

      Delete
    10. R. Rowley wrote: "I cited the experience of the (Vichy) French government during WWII when THOUSANDS of such letters (letters of denunciation) were received."

      You STILL do not understand basic reasoning.

      Letters of denunciation from WWII have NOTHING to do with the Assaad letter until PROVEN otherwise. You're taking examples from history and applying it to a recent event as if things cannot happen in any other way for any other reason! That's ERRONEOUS reasoning.

      R. Rowley also wrote: "Since there isn't the SLIGHTEST bit of evidence that Coptic Christian Assaad ever said anything remotely like what the letter-writer claimed, that should tell us SOMETHING about the letter writer's reliability."

      There isn't the SLIGHTEST bit of evidence that Copic Christian Assaad DID NOT say what is claimed in the letter.

      You're distorting things to make them fit your beliefs. The letter says NOTHING about Assaad being a Muslim. So, what does his religion have to do with anything?

      The letter says he "expressed contempt for the U.S. Government." Haven't you done the same thing on this blog many times?

      The letter says Assaad "expressed his excitement at every terrorist attack in Israel." Assaad was from Jordan. Do you believe Jordan and Israel are buddy-buddies? Have you forgotten the "Six Day War" fought between Jordan and Israel?

      You are arguing from ignorance and distorting facts to make them fit your beliefs.

      Ed

      Delete
    11. R. Rowley wrote: "I cited the experience of the (Vichy) French government during WWII when THOUSANDS of such letters (letters of denunciation) were received."

      You STILL do not understand basic reasoning.

      Letters of denunciation from WWII have NOTHING to do with the Assaad letter until PROVEN otherwise. You're taking examples from history and applying it to a recent event as if things cannot happen in any other way for any other reason! That's ERRONEOUS reasoning.
      =============================================
      No, YOU are the one using faulty reasoning: according to you we have to look at the Town of Quantico letter as something sui generis, an unprecedented event in human history. It just isn't so. I cited Vichy France ONLY because it was a spectacular instance of this phenomenon:
      the letter of denunciation. But, since human nature doesn't vary THAT much from nation to nation, from era to era, we can be sure that such letters are sent in each and every society where literacy (ie the ability to write such letters) is widespread.

      They serve multiple functions: to exact revenge (for slights real and imagined), to eliminate rivals (in romance, in the business world or bureaucracy), to get rid of people whose apartments or jobs we eye enviously etc.

      In fact, the HONEST letter of denunciation, quite apart from Vichy France, seems to be in the minority, perhaps in the extreme minority. THAT'S a basis for evaluating an anonymous letter-of-denunciation: take it with a grain of salt until/unless you find something behind it. Mister Lake, as always, wants to reverse things: the letter-writer gets the benefit of the doubt. Despite the fact that the historical record indicates that 1)the letter's motivations are likely hidden and basely personal 2)they are mere allegations/innuendos, and as such, completely outside the channels of Due Process.
      --------------------------------------------
      And by the way, the FBI's handling of this, (ie the two interviews with Assaad) is supportive of this very suspiciousness toward the letter-writer: though they (erroneously in my view)took the Town of Quantico letter as being totally unrelated to Amerithrax, they SEEM to have thought it was related to the 'Camel Club' antics at USAMRIID in the mid to late 1990s and that there was no basis for suspecting Assaad.

      In other words, it was a letter of provocation. NOT merely a letter of denunciation.

      Delete
    12. R. Rowley wrote: "No, YOU are the one using faulty reasoning: according to you we have to look at the Town of Quantico letter as something sui generis, an unprecedented event in human history. It just isn't so."

      Spouting nonsense and claiming I'm arguing things I'm not arguing just shows you have no understanding of basic reasoning or logic.

      The Assaad letter was hardly a "unprecedented event." Whenever there's a major crime, there are usually HUNDREDS of tips that come in. The Assaad letter was just a "tip" about a suspicious person. That's something the police see every day. And, after 9/11, I wouldn't be surprised if the FBI didn't get a THOUSAND "tips" about "suspicious Middle East men."

      YOU are making it out to be something more than what it was. And, since it was a tip, the FBI had to check it out. If you think they would or should just ignore tips about possible terrorists, you know NOTHING about the FBI, about reasoning, about criminal investigations, about history, or about this case.

      If you want to call it a "letter of denunciation" and/or a "letter of provocation," that's up to you. Your beliefs do not change anything.

      Ed

      Delete
  16. Mr. Rowley,

    I think the key to finding Marshall Douglas Smith is probably his connection to HAARP. That seems to be the one thing he sticks with.

    At this web page http://rense.com/general9/radio.htm it says Smith "was the radio engineer who broke the story (first posted on the MC and EWAR lists) of the strong 3.39 MHz signals from HAARP.

    And Smith writes of himself:

    "I have degrees in mechanical and electrical engineering and in physics. I am a licensed radio engineer. I have worked for many years on NASA Space Shuttle projects and am familiar with government and military facilities. I have not been to Gakona Alaska but I have reviewed the technical specifications of all the equipment installed at HAARP. It is not possible for the HAARP equipment to do the many things claimed for it by the public."

    Pages about HAARP on brojon.org (via the Wayback machine):

    http://web.archive.org/web/20080517172458/http://www.brojon.org/frontpage/HAARP_10days.html

    http://web.archive.org/web/20100825201428/http://www.brojon.org/frontpage/HAARP_Columbia.html

    More related to the shuttle disaster and his claimed role in the shuttle program:

    http://web.archive.org/web/20100814065829/http://www.brojon.org/frontpage/SOLVING_NASA_FOAM_PROBLEM.html

    " Nobody at NASA understood nor knew how to solve the problem. One senior consultant engineer claimed he had a solution. NASA quickly convened an 8-member Materials Review Board investigating team to find out if that engineer really had an answer to the problem. I know that engineer very well, in fact, it was me, Marshall Smith.

    I gave a half hour technical presentation to the MRB team describing the problem in detail, and showing how it could be solved right on the launch pad with no delays. At the end of the presentation, I finished with, "... and thus proving that this bird is ready to fly!" Before I could finish that sentence, the 8-member MRB and about 30 other Air Force generals, corporate presidents, NASA hdqrs people, and others who were flying satellites on Discovery, all started applauding, cheering and yelling.


    He's definitely in love with himself -- if he's still alive.

    There is no parody in anything he writes. It's all about how he's smarter than everyone else. That's the standard way for a conspiracy theorist to think.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There is no parody in anything he writes. It's all about how he's smarter than everyone else. That's the standard way for a conspiracy theorist to think.
      ---------------------------------------------
      I think he's just a made-up character. There's a lot of that on the Internet.

      Delete
    2. R. Rowley wrote: "I think he's just a made-up character."

      Marshall Douglas Smith is a REAL person who lives (or lived) in San Jose, California.

      I provided a link to a 1996 newspaper story about him: http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-18743890.html

      I've found no obituaries for him, so he's probably still alive. But age may have taken a toll on him. That's probably why he stopped posting to the Net about 5 years ago.

      Ed

      Delete
    3. R. Rowley wrote: "I think he's just a made-up character."

      Marshall Douglas Smith is a REAL person who lives (or lived) in San Jose, California.
      ==============================================
      Mister Lake, "Smith" is easily one of the most common surnames in the US and the English-speaking world. Even if you COMBINE it with the rarer "Marshall" you are STILL going to get hundreds, if not thousands, of such persons in the USA. That California, our most populous state, has Marshall Smiths in the dozens to hundreds I have no doubt.
      That does not establish that ANY link you find with that name is evidence that that person wrote anything in Bro-
      Jonathan's Gazette.
      (And----- this slipped by me-----does he use "Douglas" as a middle name in BroJonathan's Gazette? If so, I didn't see it.)

      Delete
    4. R. Rowley wrote: "Mister Lake, "Smith" is easily one of the most common surnames in the US and the English-speaking world. Even if you COMBINE it with the rarer "Marshall" you are STILL going to get hundreds, if not thousands, of such persons in the USA."

      You're just believing what you want to believe. There is plenty of EVIDENCE that Marshall Smith is a real person who uses his real name everywhere.

      Instead of fully answering your question here, I'll post it at the bottom of this thread. But first, I'll have to go back and put my research findings in order. So, it's going to take awhile (maybe hours) to get everything together.

      Ed

      Delete
    5. R. Rowley wrote: "Mister Lake, "Smith" is easily one of the most common surnames in the US and the English-speaking world. Even if you COMBINE it with the rarer "Marshall" you are STILL going to get hundreds, if not thousands, of such persons in the USA."

      You're just believing what you want to believe. There is plenty of EVIDENCE that Marshall Smith is a real person
      who uses his real name everywhere.
      ================================================
      Boy, for a person who's been on the Internet a long time, you seem not to understand the simplest thing: it's a Hall of Mirrors.

      But let me return the compliment:
      "You're just believing what you want to believe."

      What YOU want to believe is: the world can be neatly divided into 3 categories:

      1)True Believers (who, as the name indicates, truly believe what they write)

      2)Conspiracy Buffs (who also truly believe more elaborate
      scenarios than the above)

      3)An unnamed category, but one which surely includes Mister Lake. And who, need we say it?, ALSO write what they believe.

      Left out: trolls, agents provocateurs, amateur fiction writers, etc. People who DON'T mean what they write.
      I've specialized in looking at this last group.

      Delete
    6. R. Rowley wrote: "Boy, for a person who's been on the Internet a long time, you seem not to understand the simplest thing: it's a Hall of Mirrors.

      But let me return the compliment:
      "You're just believing what you want to believe."


      No, I'm looking at what the FACTS say. I have lots of FACTS which say that Marshall Smith is using his real name. I just haven't had any reason to lay them out in order. I'll do that in a new comment at the bottom of this thread.

      But, I assume that FACTS won't mean anything to you, and that you'll just continue to believe what you want to believe.

      So, I'll just be doing it "for the record."

      Ed

      Delete
    7. But let me return the compliment:
      "You're just believing what you want to believe."

      No, I'm looking at what the FACTS say. I have lots of FACTS which say that Marshall Smith is using his real name.
      ----------------------------------------------------
      All you've done is post links to this or that 'Marshall Smith' piece. I KNOW (knew several years ago)that the guy likes to write. That does NOT establish what (if anything)
      he truly believes in what he wrote, nor what his real name is. But it is almost certainly not "Marshall Smith".

      Delete
    8. R. Rowley wrote: "That does NOT establish what (if anything) he truly believes in what he wrote, nor what his real name is. But it is almost certainly not "Marshall Smith"."

      Read the last three posts currently on this thread. If they do not prove that his real name is Marshall Douglas Smith, please explain after the last message why they do not convince you.

      Ed

      Delete
  17. More links:

    http://www.columbiassacrifice.com/techdocs/haarp/THE%20UNAUTHORIZED%20HISTORY%20OF%20HAARP.pdf

    Marshall D. Smith, Engineering Consultant
    BA Physics, BA Mech & BA Electr Engr
    San Jose, CA
    Source: http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?p=1059502951

    http://www.thelivingmoon.com/45jack_files/03files/HAARP_What_the_HAARP_Signal_Looks_Like.html

    http://www.oocities.org/teddyspeaks/

    http://www.geocities.ws/jdpinson2001/KinderkenArticles/3-2.html

    http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/haarp/esp_haarp_16.htm

    http://www.public-action.com/911/psyopnews/Extra/5/%20%20%20Brother%20Jonathan%20Gazett.html

    http://businessprofiles.com/details/teddy-speaks-foundation-inc/DE-2404819

    http://www.geocentricity.com/ba1/098.pdf

    Marshall Smith
    Ex-NASA engineer/scientist
    Editor, BroJon Gazette
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AtlantisAmerica/message/7279

    It's looking more and more like the guy's dead or disabled.

    He's definitely not parodying anything.

    I'll do more research tomorrow.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  18. Mr. Rowley,

    Some more information about Marshall Smith. Here's his opinion about NASA:

    I spent many years as a consultant at NASA but never was a direct employee. The reason for that was that all the NASA workers are government employees.

    In general most government employees are from the lower ranks of their graduating class and don't have the smarts to make it in industry where the pay is usually twice what a government worker earns. That does not mean that government workers are not dedicated hard working employees.

    But would you hire the Post Office to build a spaceship? I was usually paid three times or more what the equivalent experienced NASA scientist earned.

    That is why even today, two-thirds of all the people who work on NASA projects are non-government employees working for contractors and sub-contractors such as Boeing, GE, United Technologies, Morton-Thiokol, etc.


    Source: http://dbs2000ad.com/brojon.org/HOW%20NASA%20COULD%20GET%20AWAY%20WITH%20FAKING%20VIDEOS.htm

    I haven't been able to find any obituary for Smith. He could still be alive, but he's definitely not as active as he was prior to 2007 or 2008.

    I found a long letter he wrote in January 2007 giving his opinion that depleted uranium (DU) does NOT cause cancer: http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/archive.cgi/noframes/read/97832

    He seems to shoot down some conspiracy theories while promoting the conspiracy theories he believed in.

    There's another letter he wrote in 2008 about how America will end if Hillary Clinton is elected President: http://disc.yourwebapps.com/discussion.cgi?id=192635;article=26042;show_parent=1

    "It is my sad duty to inform you that the “UnitedStatesofAmerica” is about to expire. This will be shown to the public when the the upcoming Democratic Convention in a few days announces that the Democrat nominee for president is NOT Barack Obama but instead is Hillary Clinton. How could such a thing happen? It was preordained many years ago. I even announced it at the end of “The Brother Jonathan Story” (available from the front page of the BroJon Gazette) which I wrote in 2001, so this is NOT new news."

    and

    "Senator John McCain is NOT a natural born citizen. McCain was born in Panama while his famous father. a noted Admiral, was on Navy duty in Panama. While the 14th Amendment states that John McCain is a citizen of the US born, of two American citizens, McCain's birth certificate shows he is NOT a natural born American citizen and thus not qualified for the job as President. Likewise Obama's birth certificate shows he was born in Kenya, just like the rest of his brothers and family. Obama's mother flew to Hawaii and recorded his birth in Hawaii. But that was days or weeks after birth and, a birth record is NOT the same as a birth certificate. Thus for the last year you have been tricked, fooled and entertained by the Troika controlled news media.

    I don't think these conspiracy theories are any more "parodies" than his theory that the anthrax letters were hoaxes to cover-up a massive radiation contamination event resulting from 9/11.

    His "Teddy Speaks Foundation" seems to be defunct. His web site is defunct, and the domain name seems to be for sale.

    He doesn't seem to have finished the book "Black Gold Hot Gold" he was writing. (It's about a conspiracy by the oil companies to take over the world.) There are at least 4 chapters on-line, but no copy of the entire book available anywhere I can find

    Maybe someone who reads this blog knows Smith's current status, but I've lost interest.

    I'm only interested in the FACTS he observed about the handwriting. I don't care about his conspiracy theories.

    So, I think I'm done with my research.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  19. I thought I was done, but then I had some time on my hands, so I did some more research. I found this from Oct. 8, 1996:

    Marshall Douglas Smith is precisely the kind of person Santa Clara County authorities say they had in mind when they persuaded the Board of Supervisors on Tuesday to beef up criminal prosecutions of deadbeat parents.

    An intelligent man with a degree in electrical and mechanical engineering, according to officials, the San Jose man racked up about $12,000 in unpaid child support to his two children in his first marriage, which he somehow persuaded his second wife to pay.

    And when his second marriage crumbled, the officials say, he failed to pay more than $100,000 in support to his three children in that family.


    Source: http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-18743890.html

    It seems to be the same guy.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  20. I don't think these conspiracy theories are any more "parodies" than his theory that the anthrax letters were hoaxes to cover-up a massive radiation contamination event resulting from 9/11.
    ---------------------------------------------
    ---------------------------------------------
    But that's just it: I think the claimed belief in a massive radiation contamination event is feigned too. Naturally, the devil is in the details.

    What struck me back in 2006 was: his penchant for making blanket statements, his lack of any SOURCE for anything he was saying:
    no links, no books*, no articles, no nothing. And lots of stuff he
    wrote---------and I concentrated almost exclusively on that Amerithrax page that's preserved here:
    http://web.archive.org/web/20070619230139/http://www.brojon.org/frontpage/bj110201.html -----------was SELF-contradictory.

    For example, he wrote this:

    "Shortly after the letters were received, the FBI did numerous tests on the letters to confirm the powdered contents were in fact anthrax,[...]"

    Not 'the FBI allegedly did tests' etc. but "the FBI did numerous tests". So, where would he even get the notion that not anthrax was involved but a 'massive radiation contamination event'? Makes no sense! (One of the things to look for in a parody).

    The "dashes" versus "slashes" reasoning doesn't make much sense either: an average 6 or 7 year old doesn't know the names of the months. So first dates are given in terms of: November 7th, 2013. That would be concurrent with efforts to teach the child(ren) the
    months in chronological order, for without that "11/13/13" means nothing. Both dashed AND slashed versions of dates are accretions to the original: MONTH (fully written out, then perhaps abbreviated), DATE (with or without -st/-d/-th), YEAR (again fully written out: a kid has to get to know what century he's in; a part of that comes from the first two digits).

    But the BIGGEST problem is: Marshall Smith (and to some extent Mister Lake in turn) can't seem to make up his mind whether the 6/7 year old is merely COPYING (where he would have no choice whatsoever between dashes and slashes) or 'editing' the text of the Anthrax Killer. Smith wants to take some from column A and some from column B. Sorry, life doesn't work that way. Unless you are writing a parody.

    More blanket statements:

    " In most foreign countries, children are usually taught to make a numeral "one" with only the top flag to distinguish from the capital "I," but with no horizontal line at the bottom."
    -----------

    Oh yeah? Of the 190-plus countries on this earth, how many has 'Marshall Smith' lived in? And on what OTHER basis could he even have an opinion on that subject?
    --------------------
    "Could this style of writing be "hoaxed" by an adult attempting to appear to be a youngster? Possibly, but most adults would either write in the full block letter uncial style with all the letters the same size, or[...]"
    ------------------------------------
    Again, I see no basis for Marshall Smith or anyone else to claim what "most adults" would do or not do graphically. He has certainly provided no basis. MOST adults wouldn't send anthrax through the mail even if they had the chance. So what?

    I'm going to leave off here, but from what I've seen Brother Jonathan/Marshall Smith is likely an Internet 'persona' only. And a parodic one at that.


    *There's a whole field called 'curriculum development' and hundreds, if not thousands, of books have been written on early education curricula. THAT would be a basis for saying what first grader learn, when they learn it, and how FAST they learn it. Entirely missing in action on this subject.

    ReplyDelete
  21. R. Rowley wrote: "So, where would he even get the notion that not anthrax was involved but a 'massive radiation contamination event'? Makes no sense!"

    He says his father worked in the nuclear power business. A radiation event has probably been a fear for all his life.

    He claimed that the anthrax letters were hoaxes sent by the government to cover up the radiation event. Finding anthrax in the letters (from numerous tests) would be PART of the hoax.

    It's no different from your theories. You start with a belief and distort everything to make it fit your belief.

    R. Rowley wrote: "The "dashes" versus "slashes" reasoning doesn't make much sense either: an average 6 or 7 year old doesn't know the names of the months. So first dates are given in terms of: November 7th, 2013. "

    Instead of just stating your beliefs, why not do research. I found that writing dates as "09-01-01" is the typical way children are TAUGHT to write dates in first grader and/or in kindergarten.

    R. Rowley also wrote: "But the BIGGEST problem is: Marshall Smith (and to some extent Mister Lake in turn) can't seem to make up his mind whether the 6/7 year old is merely COPYING (where he would have no choice whatsoever between dashes and slashes) or 'editing' the text of the Anthrax Killer. Smith wants to take some from column A and some from column B. Sorry, life doesn't work that way. Unless you are writing a parody."

    Another belief. Life DOES work that way, if you are a conspiracy theorist. You do that all the time in your claims that totally different writings are somehow from one person - or maybe from a group.

    Smith's belief about "In most foreign countries, children are usually taught to make a numeral "one" with only the top flag to distinguish from the capital "I," but with no horizontal line at the bottom." is BOGUS. I state that on my web site.

    It is most likely the way HIS CHILDREN did things, and like all conspiracy theorists, he believes that what is normal for him is what MOST PEOPLE do.

    R. Rowley also wrote: "from what I've seen Brother Jonathan/Marshall Smith is likely an Internet 'persona' only. And a parodic one at that."

    That is another one of your FALSE BELIEFS. How does a "internet persona" get into newspapers as a deadbeat dad? http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-18743890.html

    Marshall Douglas Smith is a REAL person who lives (or lived) in San Jose, CA. He graduated from Santa Clara University, has multiple BA degrees, and worked as a NASA consultant. He writes at length on his specialty - radio wave technology - and debunks conspiracy theories when he is an expert on a subject.

    Marshall Douglas Smith made his biggest mistakes when he made PREDICTIONS. He predicted that Hilary Clinton would become President via a conspiracy. He PREDICTED that the anthrax letters would turn out to be a hoax to cover up a massive radiation event.

    His predictions are the result of a massive ego. He felt that he knew more than anyone else. But, he ended up being wrong again and again. That may be another reason he's not on the Internet any more.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  22. R. Rowley wrote: "So, where would he even get the notion that not anthrax was involved but a 'massive radiation contamination event'? Makes no sense!"

    He says his father worked in the nuclear power business. A radiation event has probably been a fear for all his life.
    =====================================================
    I'm sorry but:

    1) being afraid of radiation isn't a basis for making "diagnoses",
    especially when you aren't a medical doctor and haven't seen the 'patient'.

    2) nuclear engineers aren't primarily concerned with spotting signs of radiation-induced illness. (Heck, even most MDs probably
    have never dealt with patients with radiation sickness etc)

    3)what he wrote about his father and Chernobyl is sheer nonsense:
    despite the slogan/policy of "glasnost'" (openness) then regnant in the Soviet Union, the Chernobyl disaster was a good example of the xenophobic/insular attitudes of the old USSR. They didn't admit that there WAS a disaster until countries in Scandinavia started to detect radioactive particles borne by prevailing winds originating in Western Russia/Ukraine/Belorussia. They did NOT invite outside experts (ie Americans or other Westerners) as consultants. It (the containment/building of the sarcophagus etc)
    was a classic circle-the-wagons operation. So, no father of 'Marshall Smith' was involved.

    ReplyDelete
  23. R. Rowley wrote: "I'm sorry but:

    1) being afraid of radiation isn't a basis for making "diagnoses", especially when you aren't a medical doctor and haven't seen the 'patient'."


    This is not about how YOU think. It's about how Marshall Douglas Smith thinks.

    There's a nuclear power plant in San Diego County, California, just north of Del Mar, where Marshall Smith went to high school. That's probably where his father worked.

    Living near a nuclear power plant causes people to think a LOT about the dangers of nuclear power plants.

    So, just because a radiation disaster wouldn't be the first thing on YOUR mind, that doesn't mean it wouldn't be the first thing on Marshall Smith's mind. NOR would his views be identical to your views.

    You are arguing that if you do not believe something, NO ONE else can believe it -- unless they are playing games. That explains how you can have such preposterous ideas about the anthrax letters that NO ONE else believes. But, it says NOTHING about how Marshall Smith thinks.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Mister Lake wrote:
      -----------
      You are arguing that if you do not believe something, NO ONE else can believe it -- unless they are playing games.
      =============================================
      No, I take all your statements at face value: I have no doubt that were I to go up to Wisconsin (Racine?) I would find you (sooner or later!*), looking like your pics and as you look on the videos, AND that your name is indeed Ed Lake and you do adhere to the beliefs expressed on this site.


      *Just a theoretical! I'm not a stalker!

      Delete
  24. 1) being afraid of radiation isn't a basis for making "diagnoses", especially when you aren't a medical doctor and haven't seen the 'patient'."

    This is not about how YOU think. It's about how Marshall Douglas Smith thinks.
    -----------------------------------------------------
    And I'm suggesting: he thinks like a troll. And I've adduced reasons on this thread for so thinking. You, by contrast, seem to think that by producing copious links to FURTHER writings by the troll in question, you can establish that he's sincere.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. R. Rowley wrote: "You, by contrast, seem to think that by producing copious links to FURTHER writings by the troll in question, you can establish that he's sincere."

      You think he's a troll. His writing say he's not a troll. He's someone with very strong opinions who likes to make the whole world aware of his opinions and theories.

      Your "troll" is my "ego driven conspiracy theorist."

      You have NO valid reason to believe he is not sincere. Acting like a "troll" is NOT sufficient reason to believe he's insincere. All the articles he writes show that he is VERY SINCERE, but also a bit NUTS.

      His beliefs appear to be sincere but often irrational.

      Ed

      Delete
    2. Acting like a "troll" is NOT sufficient reason to believe he's insincere.
      ----------------------------------
      Huh?

      Delete
    3. R. Rowley wrote that I wrote: "Acting like a "troll" is NOT sufficient reason to believe he's insincere.

      And he responded: "Huh?"


      Marshall Smith was doing nothing that other conspiracy theorists haven't been doing.

      Look at how "DXer" (a.k.a. "Anonymous") posts his beliefs all over the Internet. He posts countless messages to Lew Weinstein's blog. He posts his beliefs to this blog. He has posted his beliefs to other blogs. He creates web pages elsewhere using his real name and stating his beliefs. He has written at least one "book" about his beliefs.

      Does that make "DXer" a "troll"? If not, what is "DXer" doing that is different from what Marshall Smith did? The only difference I can see is that "DXer" doesn't have his own blog-type web site because he's evidently not competent in that technical area.

      I can name a couple scientists who were equally prolific with their conspiracy theories. For years, Barbara Hatch Rosenberg was preaching her gospel about Steven Hatfill to any news reporter who would listen. And she was posting her theories on-line on the Federation of American Scientists' web site. Did that make her a "troll"?

      The same with the scientist who usually posts as "anonymous" to Lew Weinstein's blog. He's written articles about his belief that the anthrax spores were "weaponized" with silicon, and he used to post those beliefs all over the net, altering his beliefs every time a specific claim was proved wrong. Did that make him a "troll"?

      Consider Professor James Tracy. He argued on his blog and elsewhere that the Sandy Hook school shootings were staged by the U.S. Government, and then he argued that the Boston Marathon bombing was a U.S. Government plot. He'll argue his beliefs to anyone who will listen. Does that make him a "troll"? Do you think he's not sincere?

      It's the NATURE of conspiracy theorists and True Believers to post their beliefs everywhere they can find an audience.

      Ed

      Delete
    4. R. Rowley wrote that I wrote: "Acting like a "troll" is NOT sufficient reason to believe he's insincere.

      And he responded: "Huh?"

      Marshall Smith was doing nothing that other conspiracy theorists haven't been doing.

      Look at how "DXer" (a.k.a. "Anonymous") posts his beliefs all over the Internet. He posts countless messages to Lew Weinstein's blog. He posts his beliefs to this blog. He has posted his beliefs to other blogs. He creates web pages elsewhere using his real name and stating his beliefs. He has written at least one "book" about his beliefs.

      Does that make "DXer" a "troll"?[...]
      ===============================================
      Uh oh, I feel a quibble coming on, one that will prompt Mister Lake to accuse me of "playing word games" as he has done in the past.

      Okay, in MY BOOK, though definitions of 'troll' will vary
      from person to person, the sine qua non is: insincerity.
      That is fairly effectively captured at a number of sites
      including this one:
      http://www.teamtechnology.co.uk/troll.htm
      ===============================================
      So, as to DXer: he certainly likes to write. But that, in and of itself, isn't trollish. It would be if he were writing exclusively, or at least PRIMARILY, to irritate or annoy other persons. But if he's doing that, I'm unaware of it.

      He and I have different notions about who did Amerithrax.
      He and I know that we have these differences. There's a line I try never to cross: to try to 'convert' someone on this (or for that matter any other) subject. So far, on Amerithrax, I've been very effective in avoiding crossing that line.

      I understand that you and DXer have a history. That's for you two to work out/not work out, not something for me to become involved in.

      Another thing to look for is: internal inconsistencies. They are there galore in the stuff by Marshall Smith I have read. Now MAYBE that's just a product of him writing
      very quickly the first thing that comes into his head.
      Let's hope so...

      But with DXer I don't know that he's been very inconsistent (none of us can avoid inconsistency 100% of the time) on his hypothesis: which is that a Muslim group,
      possibly with Washington insider connections, did Amerithrax.

      Naturally, since both he and I see the Task Force/DoJ in error and in denial about the holes in the case against Ivins, we are going to overlap a lot in opinion in that area.

      All for now!

      Delete
  25. WAY upthread:
    -----------------
    R. Rowley wrote: "Was there a reason in November of 2001 to think:

    a)that the Brokaw letter was written AFTER the Daschle letter?
    (since it was mailed three weeks before the Daschle letter)"

    I'm not sure. The Daschle letter was the FIRST letter to be confirmed to contain anthrax. The Brokaw letter was analyzed shortly afterwards. It may have seemed at the time that all the letters were mailed at the same time.
    ================================================
    But the first person to be diagnosed with anthrax was Stevens on October 4th. And that's when the announcement was made (the 4th or 5th), so how could 'Marshall Smith' have thought that there wasn't a 4th letter (since Steven couldn't have been sickened by the Daschle, NY POST, or Brokaw letters)? Once again, I see some
    curious 'reasoning' which doesn't comport with the chronology of the Amerithrax crimes as they were revealed to the US public in October of 2001. (Remember 'Marshall Smith' is writing in very early November 2001).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. R. Rowley wrote: "But the first person to be diagnosed with anthrax was Stevens on October 4th. And that's when the announcement was made (the 4th or 5th), so how could 'Marshall Smith' have thought that there wasn't a 4th letter (since Steven couldn't have been sickened by the Daschle, NY POST, or Brokaw letters)?"

      I can only speculate about Smith's thinking. The papers were saying that the 9/11 hijackers stayed in Florida before going to New York and New Jersey. So, if Marshall Smith was doing as conspiracy theorists always do, he would rationalize that Stevens could have been exposed in Florida by the plutonium that the terrorists were carrying.

      Or, he may simply have forgotten to put that piece into the puzzle he was putting together.

      Ed

      Delete
  26. R. Rowley wrote: "Mister Lake, "Smith" is easily one of the most common surnames in the US and the English-speaking world. Even if you COMBINE it with the rarer "Marshall" you are STILL going to get hundreds, if not thousands, of such persons in the USA. That California, our most populous state, has Marshall Smiths in the dozens to hundreds I have no doubt.
    That does not establish that ANY link you find with that name is evidence that that person wrote anything in Bro-Jonathan's Gazette.
    (And----- this slipped by me-----does he use "Douglas" as a middle name in BroJonathan's Gazette? If so, I didn't see it.)"


    Okay. This may run into multiple parts, since I can only write 4,096 characters in one post.

    First: Where did I get his middle name?

    You indicate you have read Marshall Smith's November 2, 2001 page about the handwriting on the anthrax letters.

    LINK: http://web.archive.org/web/20070619230139/http://www.brojon.org/frontpage/bj110201.html

    Note that at the bottom of the page he talks about writing a book called "Black Gold Hot Gold."

    When you do a search for that book, you will find that it is written by "Marshall Douglas Smith."

    BLACK GOLD HOT GOLD
    The Rise of Fascism in the American Energy Business
    by Marshall Douglas Smith
    May 7th, 2001

    The Hidden History of the International Corporations which Created and Controlled the Events of the 20th Century. As We Enter the 21st Century "... The new Empire of Energy was just scant years away from complete world domination." Price rises and world oil wars were the payoff.


    http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/black_gold_2.htm

    http://third-world-news.blogspot.com/2007/10/black-gold-hot-gold-by-marshall-douglas.html

    The first four chapters were apparently on brojon.org at one time but where removed.

    That says that Marshall Douglas Smith is Marshal Smith's full name.

    Also, when I take off the "bj110201.html" part of the link to the handwriting article and do another look-up via the WayBAck machine, I get a directory of all the BroJon.org pages saved by the WayBack machine:

    LINK: http://web.archive.org/web/20100812065936/http://www.brojon.org/frontpage/

    That directory provides links to many pages and article showing Smith's various beliefs. The first one is a link to a 2-part article titled "Where Dr. Einstein Went Wrong." The article is VERY technical, which shows that Smith is indeed a physicist. But, the article also contains details about his early life:

    "One hundred years ago, in 1905, Dr. Albert Einstein published his Special Theory of Relativity.

    It has become the basis for much of modern physics. In 1959 I read his paper and found that it contained a simple arithmetic error, therefore the theory must be false.

    Years later as a college physics student
    I told my professors about my discovery of the math error. They didn't believe me, even when I showed them a much simpler way to solve advanced physics problems.


    That gives us an idea of Smith's age. He's probably in his late 60's now.

    And:

    "As a student at Del Mar High School, I told my chemistry and physics teachers what I had found. Within days, I became widely known around campus as "The kid who proved Einstein wrong." I was unanimously elected president of the Special Science Group for advanced students."

    Del Mar is between L.A. and San Diego, CA.

    And:

    "I should add that I have a degree in physics from the University of Santa Clara. For years, I confounded my professors by working out complex problems in relativistic mechanics in my head."

    So, he went to Santa Clara University, in Santa Clara, CA, which a few miles northwest of San Jose.

    END OF PART 1

    ReplyDelete
  27. Part 2:

    I found the article by Marshall Smith where he explains his belief that the anthrax letters were a hoax to cover up a radiation event here: http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/salting_america.htm

    Note that that article refers to brojon.org, is signed by Marshall Smith, and it appears to have been at one time ON brojon.org, but it's now only on theforbiddenknowledge.com.

    Note that the article he talks about consulting with his father, who is "a senior nuclear engineer and international expert on radiation and nuclear reactors."

    And then there's the 1996 newspaper story about him being a deadbeat dad:

    Marshall Douglas Smith is precisely the kind of person Santa Clara County authorities say they had in mind when they persuaded the Board of Supervisors on Tuesday to beef up criminal prosecutions of deadbeat parents.

    An intelligent man with a degree in electrical and mechanical engineering, according to officials, the San Jose man racked up about $12,000 in unpaid child support to his two children in his first marriage, which he somehow persuaded his second wife to pay.

    And when his second marriage crumbled, the officials say, he failed to pay more than $100,000 in support to his three children in that family.

    So, he had two children from his first marriage and three from his second. And in the handwriting article he said, "I have five children." 2+3=5

    So, how many people can there be in the San Jose area who are named "Marshall Douglas Smith" and have degrees in engineering and physics and have five children?

    You may argue that it could be hundreds, but the facts say there is only one - the man who ran brojon.org.

    The book he wrote and the numerous web pages about HAARP show that Marshall Douglas Smith is a REAL scientist with IMPRESSIVE credentials, who is also a conspiracy theorist of the first order. There is absolutely NO REASON to believe he's writing "parodies" when he writes about his theories.

    Doing searches for Marshall Douglas Smith will find no one else by that name in that area.

    I can find a woman, Vicki Marshall Douglas-Smith, on Facebook.

    I can find a Marshall Douglas Smith who is a realtor in Monroe, Ohio.

    I can find an R. Marshall Smith who currently works for NASA, but he's far younger than the brojon.org Smith: http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/constellation/ares/flighttests/aresIx/rm_smith_bio.html

    And I can find a Reverend Marshall L. Smith in Manhattan.

    There's a British author named Michael Marshall Smith.

    And so on, and so on.

    You may believe whatever you want to believe, but the FACTS say that Marshall Douglas Smith is a conspiracy theorist who does NOT write parodies.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  28. Note this link: http://www2.ae911truth.org/downloads/AE911Truth-Petition&Names-TO-PRINT.pdf

    It's a petition titled:
    1,000 ARCHITECTS & ENGINEERS
    CALL FOR NEW INVESTIGATION OF
    DESTRUCTION OF THE 3
    WORLD TRADE
    CENTER SKYSCRAPERS ON 9/11/01

    And one of the 1,000 is:

    Marshall D. Smith
    Engineering Consultant
    BA Physics, BA Mech & BA
    Electrical Engineer
    San Jose, CA


    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  29. Mister Lake wrote:
    -------------
    The book he wrote and the numerous web pages about HAARP show that Marshall Douglas Smith is a REAL scientist with IMPRESSIVE credentials, who is also a conspiracy theorist of the first order. There is absolutely NO REASON to believe he's writing "parodies" when he writes about his theories.
    -----------------------------------------
    What other reason could there be besides the INTERNAL contradictions I have already adduced? You seem to think that people are going to write "oh, heck, it was all for fun, I don't believe ANY of this stuff". But I've NEVER seen that on the Internet, and I've been on it about 12 years. Does that mean that 100% of the persons participating on the Internet believe 100% of what they write?!?!?! Since that isn't even true in the 'real world' (ie the non-Internet world), there's no chance of that happening on the Internet. The only question is: who is doing it (spoofing, prevaricating, confabulating)?
    When? Where? How much? etc.

    You have me half-convinced that Marshall Smith/Bro Jonathan=
    a Marshall Smith who lives in the San Jose area. But I don't know that that establishes that he believes everything (or even MOST of everything) he writes. Some people just like to write.
    -------------------------------------------------------
    This wouldn't matter to me AT ALL except that the guy criticizing
    his child-printed-it hypothesis via a 'letter to the editor' seems to be: MY Amerithrax mastermind. And I think unlikely in the extreme the ACCIDENTAL convergence that he was interested in Amerithrax so much and so early, and somehow, I, four to five years later, began to suspect him of doing Amerithrax. The interest in the subject matter just wasn't THAT widespread. (And for what it's worth I agree with his evaluation of Marshall Smith's analysis).

    (And notice how he 'defends' the printing (by my lights HIS printing) as "controlled and mature".

    ReplyDelete
  30. R. Rowley wrote: "You have me half-convinced that Marshall Smith/Bro Jonathan = a Marshall Smith who lives in the San Jose area. But I don't know that that establishes that he believes everything (or even MOST of everything) he writes."

    The reasoning has been explained to you in response to your beliefs about the Assaad letter:

    Scientists, investigators and researchers take things at face value UNLESS they have reason to do otherwise.

    There is NO REASON to believe that Marshall Smith was insincere in his writings. He may be totally wrong, he may be contradicting himself at times, and he may be putting things together in lunatic ways, but that does NOT automatically mean he's insincere.

    R. Rowley wrote: "This wouldn't matter to me AT ALL except that the guy criticizing his child-printed-it hypothesis via a 'letter to the editor' seems to be: MY Amerithrax mastermind. And I think unlikely in the extreme the ACCIDENTAL convergence that he was interested in Amerithrax so much and so early, and somehow, I, four to five years later, began to suspect him of doing Amerithrax."

    And, from my point of view, you are doing just as Marshall Douglas Smith did: You are seeing what you want to see. And, you are putting 2 and 2 together and getting 7,397.

    The writer of the letter to the editor is merely expressing his beliefs based upon his personal observations. His experience is that a 6-year-old doesn't write that neatly. I've had MANY people say the same thing to me.

    The answer is simple: THIS PARTICULAR 6-YEAR-OLD DOES WRITE NEATLY. There is no rule for how well a 6-year-old writes. EVERY child writes differently.

    Besides, there is evidence that one or more of the child's parents was a school teacher. So, the child may have gotten a lot of writing experience at home before he ever went to school

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  31. R. Rowley wrote: "This wouldn't matter to me AT ALL except that the guy criticizing his child-printed-it hypothesis via a 'letter to the editor' seems to be: MY Amerithrax mastermind. And I think unlikely in the extreme the ACCIDENTAL convergence that he was interested in Amerithrax so much and so early, and somehow, I, four to five years later, began to suspect him of doing Amerithrax."

    And, from my point of view, you are doing just as Marshall Douglas Smith did: You are seeing what you want to see.
    ===================================================
    Coming from someone who championed Smith's child-printed-it hypothesis FOR YEARS, that's rich in irony.

    I use linguistic analysis, that's fairly absent from anyone else's evaluation, save what Prof. Foster wrote in that VANITY FAIR piece.

    But I see you want to drag me back to the child-printed-it hypothesis. If the Task Force/ DoJ had supported it, I would be attacking it here, hammer and tongs. But since it's (now) your baby exclusively I don't see the point.

    ReplyDelete
  32. R. Rowley wrote: "Coming from someone who championed Smith's child-printed-it hypothesis FOR YEARS, that's rich in irony."

    I didn't champion Smith's theory. I thought PARTS OF IT made an interesting theory, and I explored those parts. When I did so, I could find no flaws in it. Moreover, I soon found a lot of additional evidence to support his theory, things Smith never noticed. Those items are now the MAIN ELEMENTS in my hypothesis:

    1. The child wrote certain characters of the alphabet INCORRECTLY in the Brokaw letter that he wrote CORRECTLY in later writings. But, you can see he still has a tendency to almost do things the incorrect way. Learning the correct way to draw characters is one of the things you learn in the first weeks of first grade. Marshall never noticed that. He thought the Daschle letter was done first.

    2. The child wrote smaller for the second mailing than for the first mailing. Writing smaller is one of the things they teach a child in the first weeks of first grade. Marshall never noticed that.

    3. The child used punctuation in the second letter written in October, but not in the first letter probably written in August. Punctuation is one of the things they teach children in the first weeks of first grade. Marshall never noticed that.

    If I didn't mention getting the idea from Marshall Smith (or Brother Jonathan) I'd be claiming that I came up with the idea on my own. I didn't. I just found it to be a GOOD idea worth investigating further. Am I suppose to ignore all ideas that aren't my own? Is that what you do?

    Recently, I found two other handwriting experts who initially believed that a child wrote the letters. They never explained what changed their minds. But, now they don't agree with each other. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2001/oct/19/20011019-030140-9681r/

    R. Rowley wrote: "But I see you want to drag me back to the child-printed-it hypothesis."

    Totally wrong. All I was saying was that you read something that you can argue was written by your "mastermind," so you do so, without any regard to logic or making sense. And that was what Marshall Smith also did.

    The idea that the letter to the editor was written by your mastermind is, to me, another example of how you can create a fantasy from thin air without any real evidence.

    You see a letter about Assaad, and you manufacture reasoning to make it fit your suspect.

    You see a letter sent to Goldman Sachs and you manufacture reasoning to make it fit your suspect.

    You hear about a hoax letter sent in Texas and you manufacture reasoning to make it fit your suspect.

    You hear about ricin letters, and you assume that your suspect sent them -- until proved otherwise.

    That is what I was arguing. That is INVALID reasoning. With that kind of reasoning you can put almost any two objects together and make them fit your theory.

    That's not the way scientists, analysts and investigators of all types are supposed to do things. They are supposed to assume NOTHING until they see good evidence proving a connection.

    You assume a connection and then figure out a way to argue it. If the writing is different, maybe a co-conspirator did it. If the letter was sent from Texas while your suspect was elsewhere, maybe a co-conspirator did it. If the Assaad letter was typed but other letters were handwritten, maybe a co-conspirator did it. Yada yada yada.

    It's rationalizing. It's distorting the facts to make them fit a belief. And you ignore all facts which do not fit your beliefs.

    And that is what Marshall Smith apparently did, too.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. R. Rowley wrote: "But I see you want to drag me back to the child-printed-it hypothesis."

      Totally wrong. All I was saying was that you read something that you can argue was written by your "mastermind," so you do so, without any regard to logic or making sense. And that was what Marshall Smith also did.
      ================================================
      No, I see nothing linguistic* in ANY of Smith's treatment of
      the Amerithrax letters. I see no influence of familarity with the school system/what is taught in first grade (see my remarks elsewhere about his claims that first graders are taught to write dates with HYPHENS (!!!)), etc. What he did in early November, 2001 (ie before Amerithax was 1 month old as a criminal case) was: bloviate, write the very first thing(s) that entered his mind, just a few weeks into the case. As an artifact of that era, it's interesting. As a key to the case, not so much.
      ---------------
      By contrast:

      1)I was largely oblivious to Amerithrax from Oct 2001 to Oct 2005.

      2)someone ELSE asked my linguistic opinion on it in late 2005.

      3)I wrote up a linguistic document (very cautious, very middle-of-the-road).

      4)But I was hooked. I wanted to see what more I could develop. That took YEARS.

      So, Smith was someone who was intensely interested early, and either was insincerely confabulating, OR quickly burned out on the topic (since his BroJonathan Gazette has no follow up articles dealing with the subject matter).

      I, a Johnny-Come-Lately, who eventually warmed to the topic.

      I sincerely don't know HOW we could be more different. Psychologically or otherwise.


      *But naturally Smith, if that's who he is, doesn't seem to have any background in/orientation toward linguistics/curriculum development etc. On this topic an intellectual bull-in-a-china-shop.

      Delete
    2. You see a letter about Assaad, and you manufacture reasoning to make it fit your suspect.
      ----------------------------------------------
      If that were the case, I would have made the claim in 2006 (ie my first full calendar year devoted to Amerithrax). I did not.

      I had no idea whatsoever about the authorship of the Town of Quantico letter. In 2005, in 2006, in 2007, in 2008. But then the TEXT was made public (I think in late 2008) and I got around to analyzing it in 2009. It, the text, featured 16 points of correspondence with the Amerithrax texts proper.

      I hardly think that this chronology matches Marshall Smith's interest in the GENERAL subject matter (a quick burnout) or his methodology (tough to classify, but certainly linguistic-deficient).

      Delete
    3. Mister Lake posted:
      -------------
      The idea that the letter to the editor was written by your mastermind is, to me, another example of how you can create a fantasy from thin air without any real evidence.
      ----------------------------------------
      Since you have no idea on what basis I made that determination, that's just doing the old (VERY old) Ed Lake
      mind-reading game again.
      Back to Mister Lake:
      -------------
      You see a letter about Assaad, and you manufacture reasoning to make it fit your suspect.
      ----------------------------
      I became aware of the Town of Quantico letter in late 2005/early 2006 and formed no opinion. Until it, the text, was made public, and I had a chance to do linguistic analysis in 2009. I'm very slow and cautious.
      ----------------------------------------------------
      You see a letter sent to Goldman Sachs and you manufacture reasoning to make it fit your suspect.
      ------------------------------------------------
      It's partly psychology: threatening letters (no white powder, no toxic agent) are easier to send. The Amerithrax perp has been doing this stuff since AT LEAST April of 1997 (the B'nai Brith anthrax hoax mailing). Why would he stop when he enjoys it so much?
      Plus there's the close proximity (Goldman Sachs mailings in
      NYC, Amerithrax in Princeton. Same mailer).
      Plus there's the linguistic analysis, which I won't get into on the Internet.
      ---------------------------------------------------
      You hear about a hoax letter sent in Texas and you manufacture reasoning to make it fit your suspect.
      -------------------------------------------------
      Actually, I don't think you ever asked me my reasoning on
      that one!
      --------------------------------------------------
      You hear about ricin letters, and you assume that your suspect sent them -- until proved otherwise.
      -------------------------------------------------
      I look for patterns: patterns in geography, patterns in
      targeting (media targets, Washington pols are his favorites); patterns in linguistics. If the authorities
      nailed someone else for some of these crimes, I would likely recant on some of them, but they simply don't.

      Delete
    4. R. Rowley wrote: "I sincerely don't know HOW we could be more different. Psychologically or otherwise."

      Thank you for admitting you know nothing about reasoning or logic.

      R. Rowley wrote: "I hardly think that this chronology matches Marshall Smith's interest in the GENERAL subject matter (a quick burnout) or his methodology (tough to classify, but certainly linguistic-deficient)."

      Once again, thank you for admitting you know nothing about reasoning or logic. The idea that everyone has to have the same idea at the same time is simply NOT LOGICAL.

      R. Rowley also wrote: "If the authorities nailed someone else for some of these crimes, I would likely recant on some of them, but they simply don't."

      How gracious of you to change your opinion if you are proved wrong by an arrest and trial. Too bad you can't do the same by simply viewing facts. You seem to require an "authority" to change your mind. That says you cannot change you mind by looking at facts, because reasoning and logic mean nothing to you.

      I don't know what point you are trying to make by repeatedly saying you didn't get interested in the Amerithrax investigation until 2005 or 2006. Who cares WHEN you came to your conclusions? The only matter of interest is why facts mean nothing to you and you are just going to believe whatever you want to believe.

      Ed

      Delete
    5. R. Rowley wrote: "I sincerely don't know HOW we could be more different. Psychologically or otherwise."

      Thank you for admitting you know nothing about reasoning or logic
      -----------------------------------------------
      Cheap shot. And really beneath you.
      ------------------------------------------------
      R. Rowley wrote: "I hardly think that this chronology matches Marshall Smith's interest in the GENERAL subject matter (a quick burnout) or his methodology (tough to classify, but certainly linguistic-deficient)."

      Once again, thank you for admitting you know nothing about reasoning or logic. The idea that everyone has to have the same idea at the same time is simply NOT LOGICAL.
      ==============================================
      You misread what I wrote: I didn't say ANYONE had to have
      "the same thought at the same time", I merely observed that Smith was writing about the first thing that came into his head (about the Amerithrax letters), and I was
      doing years of study/analysis before I commented, even timidly, on Amerithrax on the Internet (don't remember posting anything until December of 2008, ie five or so months after the Task Force/DoJ fingered Ivins).
      ---------------------------------------------
      R. Rowley also wrote: "If the authorities nailed someone else for some of these crimes, I would likely recant on some of them, but they simply don't."

      How gracious of you to change your opinion if you are proved wrong by an arrest and trial.
      -------------------------------------------
      Do I detect sarcasm? If so, it is wasted on me. And probably won't endear you to any readers we may have!
      =========================================
      Too bad you can't do the same by simply viewing facts. You seem to require an "authority" to change your mind.
      --------------------------------------
      What "authority"? It is the Amerithrax sceptics who are questioning the authorities (FBI, DoJ). Mister Lake is
      just citing those authorities mindlessly (ie without the slightest bit of scepticism/detachment, a cheerleader, par excellence).

      =======================================
      I don't know what point you are trying to make by repeatedly saying you didn't get interested in the Amerithrax investigation until 2005 or 2006. Who cares WHEN you came to your conclusions?
      ------------------------------------------
      You've managed to conflate two different things in the above sentences: when I STARTED studying Amerithrax, when I reached 'certain conclusions'. I find you a hopeless case in that regard.

      Delete
    6. Part II (of two parter)
      -------------------------------------------
      The only matter of interest is why facts mean nothing to you and you are just going to believe whatever you want to believe.
      ----------------------------------------
      The "facts" that count with me are these:

      To commit even the bare-boned Amerithrax crimes
      (the media letters and the Senators Daschle and Leahy ones)
      the perp(s) would have had to do the following :

      1)grow wet anthrax (ie get spores and culture them).

      2) dry them to a powder and purify to one degree or another.

      3) write (ie print) the originals of the two Amerithrax texts (media text and politician text). Print outside of envelope.

      4) photocopy each original text (likely done some days or weeks apart: first the media letters, then the politician letters).

      5) insert finished powder in fold of letters.
      go to Princeton, New Jersey some hours before the mail pickup at the mailbox just off campus.

      6) return home/to work from that mailbox in Princeton without anyone being the wiser.

      So, how many of the above tasks do we KNOW
      (from the government’s case against him)
      that Ivins actually did in September and October of 2001?

      One and only one …
      1)grow wet anthrax (ie get spores and culture them).
      We know that because THAT WAS (part of) HIS JOB!
      And had been his job for 2 solid decades before Amerithrax.
      ===============================================
      The big mystery of the situation is why Mister Ed Lake, the chief chronicler of the Amerithrax crimes/investigation, has NOTHING interesting to say about the above facts.

      Delete
    7. R. Rowley wrote: "So, how many of the above tasks do we KNOW (from the government’s case against him) that Ivins actually did in September and October of 2001?"

      We KNOW he had the ABILITY to do them all, he had REASON to do them all, and he COULD have done them all. We also know he tried to MISLEAD the investigation, he tried to DESTROY evidence, and we know the coded message in the media letter was derived from one of his favorite books - the evidence of which he tried to destroy.

      R. Rowley also wrote: "The big mystery of the situation is why Mister Ed Lake, the chief chronicler of the Amerithrax crimes/investigation, has NOTHING interesting to say about the above facts."

      "Above facts"? What facts? Yes, it is a "fact" that the mailer would have had to drive to Princeton to mail the letters, but so what?

      The only FACTS of interest are FACTS that can be used as EVIDENCE of guilt or innocence.

      You seem to be once again arguing that if the government cannot produce evidence that meets your personal requirements, then they have no case. So, I'll just have to repeat: You do not determine what is valid as evidence in court and what isn't. The rules of evidence determine that.

      1. You agree that Ivins knew how to grow "wet anthrax," although that is NOT what Ivins did in this case. All you are doing is showing that you do not understand the facts OR the evidence.

      2. Ivins had the ability to dry and purify anthrax. Purifying anthrax was part of his job.

      3. Ivins either used a child to write the letters or disguised his handwriting to make it appear a child wrote the letters.

      4. Photocopiers are available in many places. It would not have been a problem for Ivins to make copies of the letters.

      5. Ivins had a biosafety cabinet available to him, so putting the dry powders in the envelopes would not have been a problem.

      6. Ivins often drove long distances at night without his family knowing about it, so he would have had no problem driving to Princeton to mail the letters.

      This has been explained to you many times. It's a big part of the evidence against Ivins. If you cannot see it, that doesn't change anything. The FACTS still say that Bruce Ivins was the anthrax killer.

      Ed

      Delete
    8. The above post by Mister Lake gives away what he's really about: He substitutes 'potentialities' and such for proof, or even indirect evidence that the defendant did the crimes in question. Some of it is just ludicrous:

      "Photocopiers are available in many places."

      That would be a basis for a prosecutor's case against me, Ed Lake, Gunga Din. For ANY CRIME that involved a photocopier. Having lowered the threshhold of proof to this absurdly low level, Mister Lake just can't relate to persons who have higher standards.

      Delete
    9. R. Rowley wrote: "He substitutes 'potentialities' and such for proof, or even indirect evidence that the defendant did the crimes in question."

      Again you argue like a troll.

      I use NO copy machine as evidence.

      The FBI evidently didn't find which copy machine was used to make the copies. So, there is NO evidence in the case about any specific copy machine.

      Conspiracy theorists and True Believers have some kind of screwball theory that this means something. Some seem to absurdly believe that because the copy machine in the library at USAMRIID couldn't be shown to be the machine that Ivins used, that is somehow "exculpatory evidence." That is an idiotic belief that has nothing to do with reality.

      THAT is an example of "lowering the threshold" for evidence that conspiracy theorists and True Believers (and trolls) use. It has nothing to do with me or with any professional investigators like the FBI.

      All I said was that Ivins could have used a photocopier anywhere. That is a FACT which can be explained to a jury. And they would have produced AS EVIDENCE testimony from Ivins co-workers that they saw him making photocopies on many occasions. Thus, the prosecutor would PROVE that Ivins knew HOW to use a copy machine, even if the FBI couldn't determine exactly WHICH copy machine he used.

      You may have a personal "standard" that says if the FBI cannot prove exactly which photocopier Ivins used, then that is evidence that Ivins did NOT use any photocopier to make the letters. That, of course, would be TOTAL RIDICULOUS NONSENSE.

      Ed

      Delete
  33. I wrote: "And that is what Marshall Smith apparently did, too."

    Marshall Smith saw that the writing seemed to be like what his own children did in the first weeks of first grade. That was the basis for his idea about the handwriting.

    But, then he started distorting facts to make them fit his own experiences.

    He argued that the Daschle letter must have been written first because it was LONGER, and because from his experience it's difficult to get a child to write a long letter, the mailer made a shorter letter (the Brokaw letter) for the child to write as his second letter. And then, because the child didn't want to do any more writing, the mailer made a photocopy of the Brokaw letter to create the New York Post letter.

    He was making things fit his beliefs and his own experiences. Everyone does that. The problem was: he started doing that before FACTS made it clear that the Brokaw letter was written first.

    And then, when new facts showed him to be wrong about which letter was written first, he never changed his theory.

    We don't know why. But, it doesn't look like he ever changed any theory when it was proved wrong. He may have just deleted it and pretended it never existed. But, it was archived and we have the archives to study. Or maybe he just waited for MORE facts to show up that would prove he was correct in what he originally wrote. And, when no new facts showed up after a few years, THEN he deleted his theory.

    That would seem to fit with Marshall Smith's personality. He would be one who would rather pull out his fingernails than admit to making a mistake.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  34. R. Rowley wrote: "Coming from someone who championed Smith's child-printed-it hypothesis FOR YEARS, that's rich in irony."

    I didn't champion Smith's theory. I thought PARTS OF IT made an interesting theory, and I explored those parts. When I did so, I could find no flaws in it.
    ==========================================================
    You didn't champion Smith's theory!?!?!? His theory was that:
    a child copied* the original Amerithrax texts (to include the addresses on the outside of envelopes).

    Your theory was/is:
    a child copied* the original Amerithrax texts (to include the addresses on the outside of envelopes).

    I don't see any difference in that overall hypothesis. Could you point it out?
    ---------------------------------------------------------
    Back to Mister Lake:
    -----------
    That would seem to fit with Marshall Smith's personality. He would be one who would rather pull out his fingernails than admit to making a mistake.
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    Actually, I admitted in this very thread that:
    "You have me half-convinced that Marshall Smith/Bro Jonathan=
    a Marshall Smith who lives in the San Jose area.", so I would count that at least 'quasi-admitting' a mistake.

    Ask yourself: did you admit recently that I (and DXer and Lew Weinstein et alia) was (were) right about the probability (which we cited FOR YEARS on the Internet)that the Task Force/FBI had likely done/had had done professional graphological
    analysis comparing Ivins' printing to that of the Amerithrax perp, that that analysis found a non-match, and that the Task Force/FBI/DoJ promptly buried that evidence, substituting instead
    in the Amerithrax Investigative Summary the opinions of two unnamed "witnesses" (ie amateur informants)so as to make Ivins
    look guilty? No, you did not. Despite the fact that you were the very person who went through all those documents in the 'document dump' and uncovered the document that indicated that such an analysis WAS done (ie that we WERE right). So who can't admit a mistake?




    *except when it comes down to the DETAILS. THEN Smith wants to claim the child substituted his own HYPHENS in supplying the date:
    "09-11-01."** Mister Lake in turn wants to claim that the child "skipped" the punctuation in the text of the first mailing because 'he hadn't had it yet in class' (!!!!), only copied the punctuation in the Daschle text original because his class 'covered' punctuation in the intervening 3 weeks. EITHER subhypothesis is actually claiming the child was 'editing' the Amerithrax mailer's original texts, NOT 'copying' them in any literal sense.


    **As I noted above this is utter nonsense: homeschooling parents may teach otherwise, but schools with a set curriculum/methodology teach first the ENTIRE DATE written out: e.g. 'November 7th, 2013', so that, eventually, the child will know what the numbers between the dashes or slashes stand for. This is one of a number of blunders made in the analysis.

    ReplyDelete
  35. R. Rowley wrote: "You didn't champion Smith's theory!?!?!?"

    It's been pointed out to you that Smith's theory was FULL OF HOLES - such as believing the Daschle letter was written first. You even argue that, because of those gaping holes, he couldn't have been serious.

    I didn't "champion" Smith's theory. I took parts of it that made sense to me and created my own hypothesis. I just credit Smith for giving me the idea. When I fail to do so, "DXer" accuses me of stealing the idea.

    R. Rowley also wrote: "Actually, I admitted in this very thread that:
    "You have me half-convinced that Marshall Smith/Bro Jonathan=
    a Marshall Smith who lives in the San Jose area.", so I would count that at least 'quasi-admitting' a mistake.


    Being "half convinced" is the same as being NOT convinced. "Quasi-admitting" is the name as NOT admitting.

    Your blather about the handwriting is too voluminous to quote. But, you argue that the FBI "buried evidence." NO THEY DIDN'T BURY EVIDENCE. It has been clearly and repeatedly stated by the FBI and the DOJ that the handwriting evidence is INCONCLUSIVE. The fact that the USPIS expert says the handwriting didn't match Ivins' NORMAL handwriting doesn't mean that there weren't other experts who believed it was Ivins "disguised" handwriting. The USPIS report says nothing about disguised handwriting. The Summary Report mentions disguised handwriting. You are arguing apples versus oranges, demonstrating once again that you do not understand logic and reasoning.

    Your point about the punctuation is a good one. If the child was copying from a letter Ivins had printed out, but knew nothing about punctuation, would the child copy periods? I would think not. He wouldn't know what the dots were. On the senate letter there's a question mark. He would have been TOLD to copy that, too, even if he didn't know what it was. The way he drew it indicates he never drew a question mark before. That writing step could have caused IVINS to explain to him that there is supposed to be periods after the other sentences.

    The same is true with the dashes in the date. My examination of children's handwriting on the Internet indicates the dashes are NORMAL. Slashes and spelling out the month come later.

    But, I've always argued that IVINS wrote the date on the media letter. And, if Ivins did that, then he would have made certain the child wrote the date the same way on the senate letter. He wouldn't want the date written in two different ways.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. R. Rowley also wrote: "Actually, I admitted in this very thread that:
      "You have me half-convinced that Marshall Smith/Bro Jonathan=
      a Marshall Smith who lives in the San Jose area.", so I would count that at least 'quasi-admitting' a mistake.

      Being "half convinced" is the same as being NOT convinced. "Quasi-admitting" is the name as NOT admitting.
      -----------------------------------------------------
      Gee, I hope you were never a cop on the beat, since for you apparently being 'half dressed' is the same as being 'not dressed at all'! Indecent exposure city!
      ----------------------------------------------------
      The fact that the USPIS expert says the handwriting didn't match Ivins' NORMAL handwriting doesn't mean that there weren't other experts who believed it was Ivins "disguised" handwriting. The USPIS report says nothing about disguised handwriting. The Summary Report mentions disguised handwriting. You are arguing apples versus oranges, demonstrating once again that you do not understand logic and reasoning.
      ------------------------------------------
      You aren't getting the overall pattern: exculpatory evidence is swept under the carpet, evidence that indicates guilt overstated (see the American Academy of Sciences review of the science involved), or distorted.
      ---------------------------------------------------------
      Your blather about the handwriting is too voluminous to quote. But, you argue that the FBI "buried evidence." NO THEY DIDN'T BURY EVIDENCE.
      -----------------------------------------------
      What's your euphemism for what they did? It (the non-match done by their own in-house experts) was a side-by-side comparison, one that would have had more relevance for a trial than the unnamed 'witnesses' (who did no side-by-side comparison) they cited. A terrible misrepresentation to the public. But I don't think you would
      ever admit it.
      ------------------------------------------------

      --------------------------------------------


      But, I've always argued that IVINS wrote the date on the media letter.
      ----------------------------------------------
      Since you didn't know who Ivins was from Oct 2001 to late July 2008, would you like to rephrase?
      ------------------------------------------------
      And, if Ivins did that, then he would have made certain the child wrote the date the same way on the senate letter. He wouldn't want the date written in two different ways.
      -----------------------------------------------
      I feel that, through you, I'm almost communicating with
      Marshall Smith, a weird experience!

      Delete
  36. R. Rowley wrote: "... being 'half dressed' is the same as being 'not dressed at all'!"

    You're distorting things again. I thought you were supposed to be an expert in linguistics.

    Being half-dressed is NOT being dressed.

    I didn't say being half convinced is not being convinced AT ALL. It is NOT convinced.

    I didn't say quasi-admitting was not admitting AT ALL. It is NOT admitting.

    R. Rowley wrote: "You aren't getting the overall pattern: exculpatory evidence is swept under the carpet,"

    Nonsense. You just do not understand evidence. You've proved that again and again and again. There is NO EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE. Evidence with other "possible" explanations is NOT - REPEAT NOT exculpatory. The NAS report mentions other "possible" (but EXTREMELY improbable) ways things could have happened. That is NOT exculpatory.

    I wrote: "I've always argued that IVINS wrote the date on the media letter."

    I should have written: "I've always argued that the anthrax mailer wrote the date on the media letter."

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  37. WAY up thread:
    ------------------
    The letter says Assaad "expressed his excitement at every terrorist attack in Israel." Assaad was from Jordan. Do you believe Jordan and Israel are buddy-buddies? Have you forgotten the "Six Day War" fought between Jordan and Israel?
    ==============================
    Assaad was from Egypt. And anyway Jordan 1)warned Israel about
    the plans for the 1973 Yom Kippur War (somehow, King Hussein's warning wasn't taken seriously, see:

    http://www.radioislam.org/historia/zionism/meir_hussein_AP.html

    2)came to peaceful terms with Israel in 1994

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel%E2%80%93Jordan_Treaty_of_Peace

    I hardly see how you can go from THOSE general points to the idea that Assaad harbored such ideas. You might was well say that Ken Alibek is suspect because he was born and raised and trained in the Soviet Union!

    It's really amazing to me how you can make excuses for the author of the Town of Quantico letter.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. R. Rowley wrote: "Assaad was from Egypt."

      Oops. My bad.

      But, an Egyptian born person could be even more antagonistic toward Israel. The point is: The letter writer didn't say anything about Assaad being MUSLIM.

      R. Rowley also wrote: "It's really amazing to me how you can make excuses for the author of the Town of Quantico letter."

      You make false arguments. I expose your false arguments, and then you claim I'm "making excuses" for the author of the Assaad letter? You are arguing like a troll.

      As I recall, the Assaad letter was sent before anyone knew anything about any anthrax letters. It said that Assaad was a "potential terrorist." The FBI was required to check him out.

      You inexplicable BELIEVE that YOUR suspect wrote the Assaad letter.

      Taken at face value, the letter is just a letter from someone who didn't like Assaad providing a "tip" to the FBI about Assaad being a "potential terrorist."

      You have NOTHING to show it is anything other than that. I'm not make any excuses for the writer. There's nothing to make any excuses about. It's just another letter to the FBI providing a "tip," and probably not very different from THOUSANDS of other "tip" letters after 9/11.

      Ed

      Delete
    2. You inexplicable BELIEVE that YOUR suspect wrote the Assaad letter.
      ----------------------------------------------
      And what did I write above on this very thread?

      In my post of August 25th 12:41 I wrote (partial):
      (Mister Lake first)
      You see a letter about Assaad, and you manufacture reasoning to make it fit your suspect.
      ----------------------------------------------
      If that were the case, I would have made the claim in 2006 (ie my first full calendar year devoted to Amerithrax). I did not.

      I had no idea whatsoever about the authorship of the Town of Quantico letter. In 2005, in 2006, in 2007, in 2008. But then the TEXT was made public (I think in late 2008) and I got around to analyzing it in 2009. It, the text, featured 16 points of correspondence with the Amerithrax texts proper.
      -----------------------------------------
      In case that went by you, that means 16 points of LINGUISTIC correspondence. Some 'inexplicably'!

      Delete
    3. R. Rowley wrote: "It, the text, featured 16 points of correspondence with the Amerithrax texts proper."

      So you say and (evidently) believe.

      However, it remains inexplicable to me, since, as far as I know, you haven't presented these 16 points anywhere for evaluation and comment. (If you posted them somewhere years ago and expect me to remember, that would show how far removed from reality your thought processes are.)

      Your talk about "linguistics similarities" is all just talk to me. From what I see of the "linguistics," there is absolutely NO similarity between the Assaad letter and the anthrax letters. The writer of the Assaad letter didn't even spell "Isreal" correctly.

      You CLAIM to be an expert in "linguistics," but you've never presented any evidence that would suggest that anyone else considers you to be such an expert. From what I've seen, you have almost no comprehension of "linguistics" whatsoever.

      It appears that all the "linguistic similarities" you see are just in your mind. There's no reason to believe they exist in reality. If they did, you could present them for challenge, and most people would see the similarities and agree. Unless, of course, in your mind "linguistics" is something that only people of your unique and lofty intelligence can comprehend.

      Ed

      Delete
    4. You CLAIM to be an expert in "linguistics," but you've never presented any evidence that would suggest that anyone else considers you to be such an expert. From what I've seen, you have almost no comprehension of "linguistics" whatsoever.
      ===================================================
      Well, let me return THAT compliment:

      Since you ALSO claim that Professor Foster (who has a PhD in English--------what's your highest degree in a linguistics-related field, Mister Lake?_)------was all wet on Amerithrax, isn't an expert on Shakespeare etc., I'll just take your criticism for what it is: part of your penchant for switching to ad hominem attacks ESPECIALLY when your arguments are failing.

      Delete
    5. R. Rowley also wrote: "It's really amazing to me how you can make excuses for the author of the Town of Quantico letter."

      You make false arguments. I expose your false arguments, and then you claim I'm "making excuses" for the author of the Assaad letter? You are arguing like a troll.
      =============================================
      I have on this point (the reliability of anonymous letters of denunciation) provided here and in previous threads about a half-dozen links/copy-n-pastes SHOWING the historical record of such letters: that record is everywhere judged poor. You have failed to provide even a single reference/link attesting to a GOOD record of such letters.

      The troll: blathers on based on his own "reasoning" (like
      Marshall Smith did), without reference to any document, resource, etc.

      The non-troll: does try to find such resources.

      Let the reader decide who is "trolling" on this question.

      Delete
    6. R. Rowley wrote: "Since you ALSO claim that Professor Foster (who has a PhD in English--------what's your highest degree in a linguistics-related field, Mister Lake?_)------was all wet on Amerithrax, isn't an expert on Shakespeare etc.,"

      Foster was PROVEN wrong in his analysis of the anthrax "linguistics." He was SUED, and so were the magazines that printed his gibberish. The magazines appear to have paid Hatfill millions, because they had no defense for printing Foster's nonsense. People were posting all over the net how Foster was somewhat of a joke. I summarized their opinions - while at the same time pointing out some of his dumber mistakes, like claiming Hatfill wrote hoax letters that the police had already proved were written by someone else and had arrested the man.

      As I recall, there are also postings all over the net about mistakes Foster made in his analysis of Shakespeare's writings. NONE of those postings were from me. But I may have quoted from them. This is all ancient history to me.

      R. Rowley also wrote: "I have on this point (the reliability of anonymous letters of denunciation) provided here and in previous threads about a half-dozen links/copy-n-pastes SHOWING the historical record of such letters: that record is everywhere judged poor. You have failed to provide even a single reference/link attesting to a GOOD record of such letters."

      CAN'T YOU UNDERSTAND ANYTHING? I ALSO said that they were unreliable. Here's a quote: "As it is, it's [the Assaad letter is] just one of probably thousands of worthless tips the FBI received after 9/11.

      Some anonymous tip letters DO lead to finding real culprits, but they are few and far between. The Assaad letter was a "worthless" tip.

      If you would stick to one subject, instead of changing the subject every time you are shown to be wrong, some of these things might become more clear to you.

      Ed

      Delete
  38. R. Rowley wrote: "... being 'half dressed' is the same as being 'not dressed at all'!"

    You're distorting things again. I thought you were supposed to be an expert in linguistics.

    Being half-dressed is NOT being dressed.
    --------------------------------------
    It is on the beach!

    So when ARE you going to admit that I was right that the Task Force had done side-by-side handwriting comparisons, the results were negative, so they never made it into the Amerithrax Investigative Summary? (I'm not holding my breath!)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. R. Rowley wrote: "So when ARE you going to admit that I was right that the Task Force had done side-by-side handwriting comparisons, the results were negative, so they never made it into the Amerithrax Investigative Summary? (I'm not holding my breath!)"

      There was never a question about whether or not the FBI did handwriting comparisons to Ivins' handwriting. They checked the handwriting of HUNDREDS of people. Ivins would certainly have been one of them.

      There's also no question that the handwriting doesn't match Ivins' NORMAL handwriting.

      But, that doesn't mean it couldn't be Ivins' DISGUISED handwriting. Many of the people I know who believe Ivins was the anthrax mailer believe that he DISGUISED his own handwriting when he wrote the letters and addressed the envelopes.

      So, the handwriting is inconclusive. The Amerithrax Investigative Summary says that some witnesses believe the handwriting resembled Ivins' DISGUISED handwriting.

      You may think that the Summary should explain that the handwriting doesn't match Ivins NORMAL handwriting, but that can be deduced from the fact that it looked like Ivins' DISGUISED handwriting.

      All you are doing is once again complaining that the FBI and DOJ don't do things the way you want them done. Tsk tsk. Too bad.

      Ed

      Delete
    2. You may think that the Summary should explain that the handwriting doesn't match Ivins NORMAL handwriting, but that can be deduced from the fact that it looked like Ivins' DISGUISED handwriting.

      All you are doing is once again complaining that the FBI and DOJ don't do things the way you want them done. Tsk tsk. Too bad.
      ----------------------------------------------
      No, that would be a STANDARD way of doing things.

      Forget for the moment we are talking about Amerithrax.
      Pretend it's some other case.

      The case centers on mailings of unknown origin (save for the postmark dates). The investigators use IN_HOUSE document examiners to compare the handwriting of a chief suspect to the perp's handwriting. Those document examiners do side-by-side comparisons, the criminal justice STANDARD. They rule that the suspect "probably"
      did not do the printing. The suspect subsequently dies.

      In trying to convince the public that they 'had their man' the investigators/prosecutors hold news conferences, they issue a detailed 92-page document/summary. NOWHERE in that do they admit what their own document examiners found. INSTEAD they substitute what two unnamed informants told them (allegedly) under unknown circumstances (since they could have been asking those informants leading questions regarding the handwriting, such as 'Do you think it even possible that Dr X printed this?' or 'Do you see any resemblances WHATSOEVER between these exemplars and what you REMEMBER of Dr X's printing?'). The informants do no side-by-side comparisons whatsoever. And thus evade the legal standard.

      The investigators/prosecutors never let on what their own
      experts found, and instead a few years later release the document that gives it away via a huge (thousand of documents)'document dump'; see:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Document_dump

      No one would say that this is a reasonable procedure. No one would say that this enhances the probity or honesty of the investigators/prosecutors in question.

      Delete
    3. R. Rowley wrote: "No one would say that this is a reasonable procedure."

      Yes, they can. The Summary is a summary of the case AGAINST Ivins. I don't think it would be "reasonable" for the DOJ to waste time in a summary by explaining all the false leads they checked out or all the tests they did that didn't prove anything, or even to explain all sides of the handwriting issue. When they produced the summary, they also released the 2,720 pages of details that people could examine if they felt so inclined.

      That's a VERY reasonable way to do things.

      R. Rowley also wrote: "No one would say that this enhances the probity or honesty of the investigators/prosecutors in question."

      I don't think the Amerithrax Investigative Summary was intended to "enhance the probity or honesty of the investigators/prosecutors in question."

      It was intended only as a summary of the evidence showing that Dr. Bruce Edwards Ivins was the anthrax killer.

      You want the DOJ to do things your way (which you mistakenly BELIEVE is the "standard" way), and when they don't, you imply they're being dishonest.

      It's clear YOU have a problem that doesn't apply to anyone else.

      Ed

      Delete
    4. R. Rowley wrote: "No one would say that this is a reasonable procedure."

      Yes, they can. The Summary is a summary of the case AGAINST Ivins.
      ==============================================
      Well, you FINALLY (3 1/2 years in) admitted what I've been
      saying all along: NO attempt was made to be balanced.
      So the AMERITHRAX INVESTIGATIVE SUMMARY should be called
      THE CASE AGAINST BRUCE IVINS.

      Delete
    5. R. Rowley wrote: "NO attempt was made to be balanced."

      Why would the DOJ write a "balanced" report of their investigation? Who would determine if the report is "balanced" or not? You? Conspiracy theorists who think Dick Cheney sent the anthrax letters? People who think al Qaeda did it? People who think Jews did it? People who think Right Wingers did it? People who think their next door neighbors did it?

      I think it is totally ABSURD to fantasize that the DOJ should write a report about the results of their investigation that also includes all the screwball things that people like you think should have been in the report. Leads that went nowhere. Investigating innocent people to see if they are innocent or not. Giving equal time to the 1 when there's a 1 in 10,000 chance that a scientific finding could be wrong.

      I doubt that any report written by the DOJ about the Amerithrax investigation would be accepted as "balanced" by people who do not think Ivins did it. I find it laughable that you think the DOJ should have written the report to meet YOUR standards.

      Ed

      Delete
  39. And on the subject of anonymous letters to the police:

    ------------------------------------------------
    Alleged strangler 'wrote anonymous letter to police'

    A convicted rapist strangled a woman to death but was not arrested for 12 years after sending police an anonymous letter claiming two black men had been spotted at the scene, a court heard yesterday.
    -----
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8823207/Alleged-strangler-wrote-anonymous-letter-to-police.html

    In the above (British) example we aren't talking about a letter that merely wasted the time of the police but one that probably
    set them off in a wrong direction in the investigation (see rest of story via the link).
    -------------------------
    And the old question and (best) answer at Yahoo:


    Resolved QuestionShow me another »
    Can I send an anonymous letter to the police to report someone?
    In the letter I plan to write everything I know and some personal info about that person. Can and will they trace the letter back to me?
    6 years ago Report Abuse

    psdiver
    Best Answer - Chosen by Asker

    An anonymous letter doesn't carry much weight I'm afraid, even if you send in "incriminating" evidence such as photos. There has been so many incidents of "false reporting" by ex-wives, ex-girlfriends, ex-boyfriends,and ex-husbands, plus an assortment of everyday "wackos", that most Depts. just toss them aside, it has been felt by quite a few lawyers and prosecutors that I have spoken with that it wouldn't be worth the time,money, and officer hours to do a follow up due to the current thinking of some individuals that, "Payback's a *****.".
    If it is something that you feel strongly should be investigated make an appointment with your local PD under the conditions of anonimity, and the inclusion of the provision of not being called to testify, and lay your evidence down in black and white. The officers involved can then make an informed choice to persue the matter or not.
    Source(s):
    Me: Officer for 22 + years and a S/Sgt. for the past 7, and counting down to retirement!! YeeHaw!!!
    6 years ago
    http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080321105041AAQzQ0P
    =====================================================
    From Wikianswers:

    Is there any case law that allows anonymous letters into evidence?
    In: Criminal Law, US Constitution [Edit categories]

    Answer:
    No. The source and reliability of anonymous letters is impossible to know and their truthfulness can never be known. Therefore, they are worthless.
    http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_there_any_case_law_that_allows_anonymous_letters_into_evidence
    =====================================================
    And here's a category I wasn't even sure existed:
    http://www.dredmundforster.info/eugen-okilitz-letter-of-denunciation

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Mr. Rowley,

      I was very tempted to delete your entire post, since it is just endless meaningless and irrelevant blather before you get to your point:

      "The source and reliability of anonymous letters is impossible to know and their truthfulness can never be known. Therefore, they are worthless."

      The statement may be technically true, but your interpretation is TOTAL CRAP.

      Anonymous letters are used as good leads in criminal investigations EVERY DAY.

      They can't be used in court as "evidence," because the letter itself doesn't help prove guilt or innocence. But if the information in the letter is CONFIRMED by actual evidence, the actual evidence would certainly be used in court.

      And, if it's important for the jury to know how a suspect became a suspect, the letter can be mentioned.

      If it had turned out that Ayaad Assaad was a terrorist and/or had sent the anthrax letters, it would be ridiculous to say the letter was worthless. It would have been a CRITICAL lead that led to evidence of guilt.

      As it is, it's just one of probably thousands of worthless tips the FBI received after 9/11.

      Only conspiracy theorists believe it is something more.

      Ed

      Delete
    2. The statement may be technically true, but your interpretation is TOTAL CRAP.

      Anonymous letters are used as good leads in criminal investigations EVERY DAY.
      ==============================================
      My 'interpretation' of the Town of Quantico letter is:
      it (along with the St Pete letters) is the Rosetta Stone of Amerithrax. However, to exploit it, one can't take what is there at face value. Just as you cannot take the Hebrew elements of the Amerithrax mailings proper as proof that an Israeli printed the letters. You need to see HOW the person is dissembling to ascertain something about the writer. Tossing the letters aside is tossing the case away. So I value that T of Quantico letter VASTLY higher than you do, Mister Lake.

      Delete
    3. R. Rowley wrote: "I value that T of Quantico letter VASTLY higher than you do, Mister Lake."

      Obviously. But, you seem either incapable or unwilling to present your evidence for the world to see and evaluate. Thus, taking your claims at face value, they are worthless. They are unsupported and appear unsupportable.

      If you are saving all your evidence for some book you're going to ask someone else to write, or for some future time when you can make accusations without fear of being sued, then you should save your unsupported claims until that time, too.

      Ed

      Delete
    4. R. Rowley wrote: "I value that T of Quantico letter VASTLY higher than you do, Mister Lake."

      Obviously. But, you seem either incapable or unwilling to present your evidence for the world to see and evaluate. Thus, taking your claims at face value, they are worthless. They are unsupported and appear unsupportable.

      If you are saving all your evidence for some book you're going to ask someone else to write, or for some future time when you can make accusations without fear of being sued, then you should save your unsupported claims until that time, too.
      ================================================
      Boy, what an AMNESIAC you are! You, only a year or two ago were castigating me for criticizing the findings of the Task Force WITHOUT (let me repeat that: WITHOUT) stating any hypothesis of my own. You tried: baiting me (it didn't work). Pleading with me. Eventually, I relented and in a limited way gave you my general hypothesis: that it's a DOMESTIC (non-Muslim) terrorist group.

      Yet, forgetting in that very thread your own importunings, you in a matter of a day or two, announced (as you just did) that I was making "claims". I made no "claims", I merely gave you my hypothesis AS YOU REQUESTED. But I know that, in a day or two (at most!), you will ONCE AGAIN forget all that, announce that I am making "claims".

      And, by the way, I understand in the early years of the case (2001-5), you had your own suspect(s) but mentioned no one by name on the Internet/your own website. Why not, if you are so eager to see me risk a lawsuit? What's good for the goose should be good for the gander! (And your books ALSO risked nothing, as they apparently consisted of
      recapitulating the investigation (first book), and piling on the deceased Ivins (second book), so again you risked nothing).

      Delete
    5. R. Rowley wrote: "I understand in the early years of the case (2001-5), you had your own suspect(s) but mentioned no one by name on the Internet/your own website. Why not, if you are so eager to see me risk a lawsuit? What's good for the goose should be good for the gander!"

      I was writing about what the FACTS said, and I acknowledged that I had very few FACTS, therefore I could be totally wrong.

      I wasn't worried about being sued. I was worried about BEING TOTALLY WRONG. I didn't want to name someone and be TOTALLY WRONG.

      Chapter 22 of my 2005 book is titled "A WORKING HYPOTHESIS." And the hypothesis is summed up on page 206 this way:

      "All the pieces fit. But, I also know that I probably do not have all the relevant information. Some solid piece of evidence that I’ve failed to find or properly evaluate could easily change things. That’s what a
      “working hypothesis” is all about: to present it for others to tear apart with new facts which the hypothesis cannot explain."


      That's VERY different from what you are doing.

      I was looking for someone to show me where my facts were wrong.

      You are NOT putting all your facts out for review and criticism. You are claiming you have evidence, but you are not showing anyone your evidence and asking for your facts to be proved wrong.

      You are arguing that there are "16 points of correspondence" between the anthrax letters and the Assaad letter, yet you won't list them. WHY NOT? If I had such "evidence," I'd certainly list them. I repeatedly list evidence showing that a child wrote the anthrax letters. There's no risk of being sued. The facts are facts. Stating facts is not something you can be sued for.

      If you're worried about being sued, then maybe your "16 points" are NOT facts but just nonsense. How would a linguistic comparison between the anthrax letters and the Assaad letter identify your suspect? That make no sense.

      You are just making excuses for not explaining your facts - or for having NO FACTS. If I have facts, I explain them. Our methodologies are as different as night and day.

      Ed

      Delete
  40. In Mister Lake's comment:

    It's probably easier for a child to learn that it's the 11th month of the year than to remember how to spell "November."
    -------------------------------------------------------------
    Your experience in schools MUST have been very different from mine. I wasn't using either dashes OR slashes for the dates until high school. If they don't teach the months by name/chronology in first grade, when ARE the children going to learn them? I think in many first grade classes the full written-out date is written by the teacher on the blackboard each day, so it isn't a matter of the child having to ALREADY know the spelling of 'November'.
    It's right there in front of him.

    In the case of the letters you provided I was unable to get to the overall website(s) introducing the letters to ascertain the level or the circumstances under which they were written, but certainly first graders don't know the parts of a letter (heading; salutation; body; closing; signature), so all those items----minus only the contents of the body-----are being provided the child via a model. And if the letters were part of a homework assignment, many of the items were supplied by Mom and/or Dad and/or an older sibling.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. R. Rowley wrote: "Your experience in schools MUST have been very different from mine. I wasn't using either dashes OR slashes for the dates until high school. If they don't teach the months by name/chronology in first grade, when ARE the children going to learn them?"

      I have absolutely NO memory of such things from the first weeks of first grade - or later.

      What I tried to do is FIND EVIDENCE on the Internet. Unfortunately, the letters I found don't specifically say how old the child was. I did a Google search for "kindergarten handwriting" and viewed the results.

      Most letters didn't HAVE dates. But, most that did have dates seemed to use the dash method: 09-01-01. It's a totally unscientific evaluation, but I don't currently have any better method to use.

      I did it and wrote about it as part of a plea for someone somewhere to provide some solid evidence of how children write during their first week of first grade, and how they write during their fifth or sixth week of first grade.

      You can't look at one sample - or even ten samples - and draw conclusions. But, I'm willing and anxious to have my hypothesis tested by anyone who can provide a good and scientific evaluation of handwriting by children just starting first grade with the understanding that not all teachers and schools teach exactly the same way.

      Ed

      Delete
  41. Notice how in Mister Lake's comments today on what children know/when they know it, he has moved the goal posts from:

    1)a 6/7 year old in the first two months of FIRST GRADE (the premise of the child-printed-it hypothesis)

    2) to the links he provides of how "young children", a vastly more amorphous group in both chronological directions (ie a pre-schooler is a 'young child', and arguably so is someone in the 8 to 10 year old range)write a given bunch of letters under circumstances we can only guess at.

    So, for that first link, the site for a letter to/about "Maya's Hope" I found:

    About

    We help disadvantaged children living in extreme need by sending aid (food, medicine, books, school supplies, diapers, clothing, etc) to orphanages throughout the world; initially focusing on the Philippines and Ukraine and responding to international emergencies as they arise. We strive to give hope and love to each child, to nurture a strong foundation for a brighter future.
    -----------------------------------------------------------
    Nothing about age. So the letter-writer could be MUCH older than what is being posited in the hypothesis. And, again, there may well be adult giving a model and/or doing the editing for even the letter shown.

    In fact, if you look at the rest of the website, (like here:
    http://mayashope.org/meet-the-children-2/
    you find that Maya's Hope seems to specialize in aid to FOREIGN children, with Ukraine, Phillipines the only nations mentioned.

    The premise of the child-printed-it hypothesis is that this was an American* child living in the greater Maryland area in 2001. A Ukrainian or Filipino child's date conventions don't necessarily
    match up to those of an American kid.

    The SECOND link Mister Lake provides is ALSO to Maya's Hope, (ie
    also from a Filipino or Ukrainian kid, in all likelihood):
    http://mayashope.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/JonelLetter.png


    *in the generic sense of a kid living in America, whatever his/her
    citizenship

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. R. Rowley wrote: "Nothing about age. So the letter-writer could be MUCH older than what is being posited in the hypothesis."

      Agreed. But, how do we go about finding a good set of handwriting examples that illustrate how children from a variety of schools write when they are in the first week of first grade and during their 5th or 6th week of first grade?

      I'm working with the evidence I can find - which I admit is far from ideal. But, it's far better than working with only beliefs and memories.

      Ed

      Delete
  42. The third link proved by Mister Lake in his comment of today is to
    a letter by an Emma to (the Chicago?) Field Museum. By vocabulary, syntax etc. it is clearly from an older child.
    http://fieldmuseum.org/sites/default/files/kid-letter-scans-1-cropped%20and%20name%20removed.JPG

    The FOURTH link provided, from a certain Amy M. has a lot more errors than the above, is likely (in the body)a product of the child only. But the date in the right hand corner seems clearly to be in another (adult) hand (among other thing, the date shows clear rightward slant, which Amy doesn't exhibit in the body of the letter).

    The FIFTH link provided, from a certain Lee is (mostly) in cursive, not printed, and is clearly not from a child in the first semester of the first grade, regardless of the month.
    In fact the second sentence begins with the words "I'm in third grade...." (a curious citation to prove that FIRST GRADERS are taught to use either hyphens or slashes)>

    Strangely, the heading WRITES OUT the word "MONTH" before the slashed date "3/30/89", though this one appears to be in Lee's own hand.

    The sixth exemplar, from a certain Amanda Salas(sp?) is merely on this website, so no determination could be made about Amanda's grade level/age etc. My GUESS would be: it's part of a school project since individual children in early grammar school would be unlikely to spontaneously write to 'Friends of the Sea Otter'.
    If so, then the format (including heading) might have been modeled on the blackboard.

    http://sarafurlong.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/picture-2.png

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This morning, I did a Google image search for "kindergarten handwriting," and I couldn't find ANY of the examples I used. Couldn't find them with "children's handwriting" or "first grade handwriting," either.

      But, the "first grade handwriting" search found a different letter: http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2506/4190043319_5659438e8f.jpg

      And here's the web site it came from: http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2506/4190043319_5659438e8f.jpg

      Note that the letter has the date as "12-19-93" at the top and then "December 19, 1993" as the first line of the text, above "Dear Santa."

      There's nothing in the web page to explain how old the child was.

      When I get some time, I'll try to find the web pages for the other examples, but I doubt that any of them will say exactly how old the child was when the letter was written.

      And, even if it does, it wouldn't prove anything by itself.

      The problem is to find some solid evidence that CAN be evaluated and argued either way.

      Ed

      Delete
  43. And I really should have noted (long ago) that if the child in question* HAD skipped punctuation marks, he would have skipped the
    dashes/hyphens too as dashes and hyphens are punctuation marks:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuation


    *Let the reader understand, I'm just going with the flow, I don't
    think there was any child-copier whatsoever.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. R. Rowley wrote: "I don't think there was any child-copier whatsoever."

      Yes, I think you've made it very clear that you do not care what the facts say, you're going to believe what you want to believe.

      Ed

      Delete
  44. Since Mister Lake brought up on this thread several of the OTHER
    mailing threats I attribute to the Anthrax mastermind, I did some
    searching this morning and apparently his activities, based on his
    Texas relay, have continued this year, and have produced a lot of
    threatening letters sent to Boston schools:
    http://www1.whdh.com/news/articles/local/boston/10010824252713/threatening-letters-mention-fbi-cia-and-al-qaeda/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Mr. Rowley,

      So, can we assume that whenever you learn about a new threatening letter that hasn't been traced back to a sender, you are going to ASSUME (or use "linguistics" to "prove") that it came from your mastermind.

      Don't you see how ABSURD that is? It's not only absurd, I would find it incredible if you could find any one else who agrees with you.

      More links: http://bostonherald.com/news_opinion/local_coverage/2013/06/police_investigating_suspicious_letters_mailed_to_boston_schools

      http://www.wcvb.com/news/local/metro/police-no-credible-threat-after-suspicious-letters-sent-to-boston-schools/-/11971628/20453416/-/g4uqaiz/-/index.html

      http://www.wcvb.com/news/local/metro/24-letters-with-threatening-and-disturbing-content-sent-to-boston-schools/-/11971628/20469972/-/4q3lui/-/index.html

      I'd like to see more of the letters. I have an idea of who might have sent them. The letters seem to fit the pattern of previous letters mailed from Texas. And, there's a nut case in Texas who seems a perfect suspect. (He's NOT a scientist. He's a businessman. His rantings are all over the Internet.) I wonder how he was eliminated as a suspect -- or if they simply can't find evidence they can take to court.

      Ed

      Delete
    2. So, can we assume that whenever you learn about a new threatening letter that[...]
      =================================================
      We aren't talking about "a letter", we are talking about HUNDREDS of letters, all originating in the Dallas/North Texas area (with the most recent letters sent to Boston area schools totaling 24).

      http://bostonherald.com/news_opinion/local_coverage/2013/0
      6/threatening_letters_were_sent_to_24_boston_schools

      http://www.wcvb.com/news/local/metro/24-letters-with-threatening-and-disturbing-content-sent-to-boston-schools/-/11971628/20469972/-/4q3lui/-/index.html

      Delete
    3. R. Rowley wrote: "We aren't talking about "a letter", we are talking about HUNDREDS of letters, all originating in the Dallas/North Texas area (with the most recent letters sent to Boston area schools totaling 24)."

      Right. That seems to be ONE case. But YOU are including that case with the Goldman Sachs hoax letter case, with the St. Petersburg hoax letter case, with the Assaad letter, with other hoax letter cases, and with the anonymous letter sent to Marshall Douglas Smith. THAT is where your theory becomes unsupported and seemingly preposterous.

      Ed

      Delete
  45. I just found a link that shows three letters written by children in first grade. Interestingly, two of the letters have dates written in the anthrax-letter style and one spells out the month:
    http://old.dentonisd.org/pecancreek/lattaya/cat.htm

    Plus, the letters are all dated February 18, so the children would have been in first grade for around six months. The problem is to find letters written in the first few weeks of first grade.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  46. I just found another link to a Michigan KINDERGARTEN class where ALL the kids seem to use dates that are all numbers:
    http://www.onekama.k12.mi.us/e2003/kdgb/Journal/halloween.htm

    The only unusual thing is that, instead of dashes, one child puts little dots (actually tiny little circles) between month and day and year.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete