Monday, October 7, 2013

Subject: Illogical Logic (Part 2)

In a post to another blog (click HERE), an Anthrax Truther argued that there were "Hebrew elements" in the text of the anthrax letter sent to Tom Brokaw and The New York Post.  I challenged his "illogical logic" in the previous thread on this blog.  That thread with my arguments can be found by clicking HERE.

In a response posted in that thread, the Anthrax Truther provided a new and revised explanation of his beliefs in a lengthy comment that can be read by clicking HERE.

Significantly, in his new post he tentatively dropped the idea that the question mark in the senate letter was deliberately drawn to resemble the Hebrew character "Kaf."  Here's the illustration I used in the previous thread to illustrate his claim:


He evidently dropped this claim because it conflicts with his argument that all the Hebrew elements that he sees in the media letter were dropped from all other anthrax documents.  Here is what he wrote about a "document" he is writing that explains his theory:
However, though that will make the document shorter, it will make it stronger: it will emphasize all the more that the printer abruptly dropped all Hebrew elements from his printing after writing the Brokaw letter: he didn't even retain those features when printing the outsides of the envelopes which contained the Brokaw/NY POST text.

He still claims that the G in "GREAT" in the media letter closely resembles the Hebrew character "Tet," although he acknowledges that it is "the most questionable Hebrew element left in the analysis."   Here's the comparison illustration for that:


And, he still claims significance to his belief that the characters "IC" in "AMERICA" in the media letter were written somewhat closer together than the way those same two characters were written in the same word in the senate letter and in "AVENUE OF THE AMERICAS" on The New York Post envelope.  In reality, however, it seems that the "I" was drawn farther from the "R" and the C" farther from the "A," since, when all the writings are made approximately the same size, the "IC" in the media letter appears to be no closer together than the "IC" in the Senate letter and less close than the "IC" on the New York Post envelope.  Here's a comparison illustration for that:

And, when viewed in their actual sizes, the I and C in the media letter are actually farther apart than in both of the other documents:

 So, the Anthrax Truther's claim makes no sense.  It isn't true.  It's just the way he views the two characters - as being close together - when, in reality, they are just farther from the adjacent characters.  And he sees no meaning to that, or he would have mentioned how far apart the A and T are in the word "GREAT" in the media letter.  Or compare the C and I in "PENACILIN."  Or the S and R in "ISRAEL."  Below is an image of the media letter sent to Tom Brokaw (click on it to view a much larger version):

The Anthrax Truther is finding "similarities" where no real similarities exist.  All that exists are normal variations in human handwriting.  He just wants to see things that confirm his beliefs.  He wants the I and C to be close together and resemble the Hebrew character Aleph instead of merely being further than "normal" from the adjacent characters R and A.

And this desire to see things that aren't really there is most clear in the two main points of his theory:
'T's in Brokaw text: 8/8=100% Hebrewized
All other KNOWN texts from same printer: 0/23=0% Hebrewized.
In the media letter, he sees all the T's as being "Hebrewized," although not all in the same way.  Six are "Hebrewized" by tracing over the horizontal bar in the T.  Two others are "Hebrewized" by the fact that the vertical line in the T's are not perfectly centered, they are offset slightly to the right.  NONE show BOTH "Hebrewized" characteristics.  And, in no other anthrax document does he see any of the T's as being "Hebrewized" in either fashion.  This lack of a pattern he inexplicably sees as a "pattern."  (Click HERE.)

In a post HERE, he also sees the T in the second spelling of "DEATH" in the Brokaw letter as a "perfect" Dalet.  But, what is a "perfect" Dalet (or Daleth)? Many exhibits on the Internet seem to be done by one pen stroke, which is definitely not the case with the T, but all the Dalets show a darkened or heavy horizontal bar across the top, which is NOT shown in the T in example he claims is a "perfect" Dalet.  (The red mark above the T in the illustration below is the cursive version of the Hebrew Dalet):
Furthermore, while the five Dalets in the illustration above are somewhat different from one another, they all have one thing in common: They all have a point or mark at the left top of the crossbar, which the T in "DEATH" (and every Ashuri Dalet I've ever seen) definitely does not have.  Thus, by no stretch of the imagination can the T in DEATH be called a "perfect" Dalet.

The Anthrax Truther also totally ignores the fact that some of the A's in the media letters are traced over in the same way as the T's.  The A's do not fit with his theory.  He ignores things which do not fit with his theory.  And he simply does not believe any theory where both the highlighted A's and T's fit perfectly.

Initially, his argument was:
So the too-far-to-the-left 'T' crossbar of the word 'DEATH' of line 4, AND the too-far-but-not-quite-so-far-as-that-of-line-4 'T' crossbar of the word 'DEATH' of line 3 are simply not credible as 'accidents' (vagaries or chance variants) of the printing      
When  I showed him examples from the Internet where people were commonly drawing the vertical lines on T's off-center, he changed his theory.  Now it's mostly a numbers game.  If eight T's in the media letter are all "Hebrewized" (in two different ways) and no T in any other document is "Hebrewized," then that is proof of his theory.  And, he writes:
And if one looks ever-so-closely at those 'T's on the outside of the envelopes, one will find that that slight imperfection seen in the distribution of the crossbar is OPPOSITE that of the Hebrewized forms of the Brokaw text: he, the printer, has a slight propensity to favor the RIGHT side of the crossbar, not the left which gives it a Daleth or otherwise Hebrewized cast, when taken to an extreme.
Deciphering that claim, he seems to be saying: The two T's with the off-center vertical line on the media letter are both off-center to the right.  On all other documents, if the vertical line is off-center, it is off-center to the left.  He simply ignores (or fails to see) that there are T's in the media letter that are also off-center to the left.  The T in "NEXT" is the best example:
The T in "TO" in "DEATH TO ISRAEL" is a less clear example.  Meanwhile, the T in "GREAT" in the senate letter is ever so slightly off-center to the right:
So, the Anthrax Truther is seeing what he wants to see, he's ignoring everything that doesn't fit his beliefs, and an abrupt change from mostly "Hebrewized" T's to mostly "NOT-Hebrewized" T's is somehow proof to him that someone deliberately tried to add Hebrew elements into the media anthrax letter to point at Mossad agents as being behind the attacks:
The ‘mistakes’ (ie interpolations of Hebrew forms) however are NOT likely to have been made accidently. Rather they seem to be embedded in the text(s) to produce a red herring for investigators: the possibility that a Mossad agent or other native Israeli wrote the Amerithrax letters.
In other words, his belief appears to be that the "mastermind" he believes was responsible for sending the anthrax letters (and lots of hoax letters) wrote "ALLAH IS GREAT" in the anthrax letters to be a "red herring" to make investigators (and everyone else) think that Muslim terrorists sent the anthrax letters, while at the same time including "Hebrewized" characters in the media letters to be another "red herring," this time to make investigators think that "a Mosaad agent or other native Israeli wrote the anthrax letters."

Of all the illogical logic in the Anthrax Truther's theory, I thought that the idea that someone would put TWO "red herrings" in the letters (one that everyone can see and one that only he can see) to mislead investigators in opposite directions was the most illogical.  But, in a post to the other thread (click HERE), he explained:
The Amerithrax mastermind does what he does (B'nai Brith, Amerithrax, ricin of 2003, Syracuse mailings, north Texas white powder mailings, jihad boom postcards etc.) for fun primarily. He gets bored easily. So he changed motifs, red herrings etc.
In other words, there is no rhyme nor reason to "the Anthrax mastermind's" crimes. And thus, the lack of any meaningful evidence to point to the "mastermind" is the Anthrax Truther's PROOF that his "mastermind" did it. And all the SOLID evidence pointing to Bruce Ivins is meaningless, because it is evidence, it is not a lack of evidence. And the Anthrax Truther's belief is that a lack of evidence is the best evidence, because a lack of evidence is what points to his suspect.

That is another perfect example of "illogical logic."

Ed  


112 comments:

  1. Mister Lake posted:
    -----------------------------
    The Amerithrax mastermind does what he does (B'nai Brith, Amerithrax, ricin of 2003, Syracuse mailings, north Texas white powder mailings, jihad boom postcards etc.) for fun primarily. He gets bored easily. So he changed motifs, red herrings etc.
    In other words, there is no rhyme nor reason to "the Anthrax mastermind's" crimes.
    ================================================
    To your way of thinking, I suppose that's true. But not to mine: we went over this before. And in going over it before I explained how rare such perpetrators as the Anthrax Killer are. The thread is here:
    http://anthraxdebate.blogspot.com/2012/05/may-13-to-may-19-2012-discussions.html
    (Mid-May of 2012).

    In the thread I tried without success to explain to Mister Lake that most terrorists use terrorism as an instrument but that there are exceptions: (me, responding to Mister Lake):

    Okay, you've effectively categorically eliminated a label. But without addressing what I was using the label for: MOST individual terrorists/terrorist groups have a larger motive/purpose/goal ("the revolution", "jihad", "stopping abortion", "elevating the proletariat to be the ruling class", "driving the Brits out of Ireland", "stopping the War in Vietnam" etc. etc.). I call them "instrumental terrorists".

    Nevertheless, there are individuals (and probably some groups) who don't have such broader goals: they enjoy terroristic acts for their own sake. Matuska is one such (clear-cut) case. It doesn't matter to me if you don't want to call these non-instrumental terrorist "pure terrorists" and/or you want to call them something else. They exist.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    But evidently for Mister Lake this is inconceivable, in the most literal sense of that word. Therefore he has to say about my Anthrax Killer "there is no rhyme nor reason to "the Anthrax mastermind's" crimes.

    I, more comfortable with the phenomenon of his motivation, would say that there IS a rhyme or reason and that rhyme/reason is the pleasure he takes in what he does, in the reaction he gets from society at large, as registered in media accounts of the Amerithrax letters and his less famous crimes.
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    If there were NO 'rhyme or reason' to his actions, I would hardly be able to ascertain which crimes he did: this is one very large country with thousands of major crimes committed each year.

    ReplyDelete
  2. R. Rowley wrote: "If there were NO 'rhyme or reason' to his actions, I would hardly be able to ascertain which crimes he did"

    Once again, we are in agreement.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  3. More from Mister Lake:
    =--------------------------
    Initially, his argument was:
    So the too-far-to-the-left 'T' crossbar of the word 'DEATH' of line 4, AND the too-far-but-not-quite-so-far-as-that-of-line-4 'T' crossbar of the word 'DEATH' of line 3 are simply not credible as 'accidents' (vagaries or chance variants) of the printing
    When I showed him examples from the Internet where people were commonly drawing the vertical lines on T's off-center, he changed his theory.
    ==========================================
    I didn't "change my theory", I merely showed with statistics the breakdown of
    T's that were Hebrewized in the Brokaw text (8/8= 100%) vs T's in the other Amerithrax texts proper (Leahy text plus envelopes): 0/23= 0%. Since I had looked into that many months ago and had the stats on hand, I merely copy and pasted that info into a post here. A theory or document elucidating same has to be fairly brief so that it's comprehensible. Overall, the briefer the better. But the devil is in the details, and the details are about stats, especially when you have other exemplars of the printing on hand. Those details show a total and abrupt cessation of Daleth and Daleth-hybrid, and Daleth-looking letters (via crossbar thickening) after the Brokaw text. Not compatible with mere vagaries producing those effects in the Brokaw text.
    ================================================
    Back to that statement by Mister Lake:

    "[...]When I showed him examples from the Internet where people were commonly drawing the vertical lines on T's off-center[...]"
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The question ISN'T whether some people sometimes draw vertical lines off center (I knew that they did that 1/2 century ago when I was a schoolboy), it's whether you
    as an innocent printer, with no such PLANS, would SPONTANEOUSLY get that all such off-center crossbars in one text, such that you produced 1 perfect Dalet(h), 6 extra-heavy/redone crossbars to suggest Hebrew Ashuri lettering, and one hybrid: midway between a Dalet(h) and a capital 'T'.

    None of the links provided by Mister Lake supplied even a single example of a perfect Dalet(h).

    ReplyDelete
  4. R. Rowley wrote: "If there were NO 'rhyme or reason' to his actions, I would hardly be able to ascertain which crimes he did"

    Once again, we are in agreement.
    ====================================================
    There's an irony in your response that you are almost certainly unaware of:
    you yourself, with no prompting from me, have, over the years actually 'covered' most of the other (non-Amerithrax) cases I attribute to the Amerithrax Gang right here on your website(s). This is tacit (but likely subconscious) admission on your part that they have something in common with Amerithrax:

    http://www.anthraxinvestigation.com/GS-thoughts.html
    http://anthraxdebate.blogspot.com/2012_09_01_archive.html
    http://www.anthraxinvestigation.com/ricin.html

    The only exception that I'm aware of is: the "jihad boom" postcards.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Mr. Rowley,

    Your logic is illogical in both of your comments, and your phrasing is nearly impossible to decrypt.

    You wrote: "The question ISN'T whether some people sometimes draw vertical lines off center (I knew that they did that 1/2 century ago when I was a schoolboy), it's whether you as an innocent printer, with no such PLANS, would SPONTANEOUSLY get that all such off-center crossbars in one text, such that you produced 1 perfect Dalet(h), 6 extra-heavy/redone crossbars to suggest Hebrew Ashuri lettering, and one hybrid: midway between a Dalet(h) and a capital 'T'."

    None of the links provided by Mister Lake supplied even a single example of a perfect Dalet(h).


    You just totally ignore the FBI's evidence that the author of the letters encoded a secret message in the media letter. But he didn't do it in the senate letter. Therefore, the author HAD PLANS for the highlighting. It was NOT SPONTANEOUS. Plus, the "perfect Dalet(h)" you see is definitely NOT "perfect." It has no heavy cross bar. So, it is only "perfect" in your fantasies. You found NO "perfect Daleths" and neither did I. Why should we? There are no "Hebrewized" characters in the writing, only the elements of a coded message and normal handwriting variations.

    I won't even attempt to decrypt your second post. My point was only that there is no rhyme nor reason to your logic, therefore you did not "ascertain" any crimes by anyone. You just believe you did. A belief shared by no one.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You just totally ignore the FBI's evidence that the author of the letters encoded a secret message in the media letter.
      ------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Ignoring something and laughing at it are two different things!

      Delete
  6. None of the links provided by Mister Lake supplied even a single example of a perfect Dalet(h).

    You just totally ignore the FBI's evidence that the author of the letters encoded a secret message in the media letter. But he didn't do it in the senate letter. Therefore, the author HAD PLANS for the highlighting. It was NOT SPONTANEOUS
    =========================================
    Oh, so now AND FOR GOOD you've abandoned your child-printed-it hypothesis?
    Cause the child's doodling is the very thing that the non-spontaneous highlighting is said to be under that hypothesis: spontaneous doodling.

    ======================================================
    I won't even attempt to decrypt your second post. My point was only that there is no rhyme nor reason to your logic, therefore you did not "ascertain" any crimes by anyone
    ------------------------------------------------------------
    Give me a BREAK, the illogical things YOU believe about this case could fill Madison Square Garden!
    Just the most salient features:

    1) mailer didn't mean to hurt anyone*. (Huh?)

    2) white-powder-containing J-Lo letter had nothing to do with Stephens' infection/death.*

    3) amino-acid code message not intended for any recipient but a sort of diary or
    record book kept in code like some drug dealers do.* (Huh? A 'diary' consisting of 3 characters?!?!?!?!? Why? So he wouldn't forget the woman he was obsessed with was named Pat?!?!?!?
    Or so he wouldn't forget that he disliked New York/New Yorkers!?!?!?!?!?
    Makes even LESS sense than the gov't's vague-as-all-get-out non-purpose 'code'!

    [Consider the Diary of Anne Frank if Anne could only use 3 characters:
    Dea* *****......]#.

    Talk about illogical logic! And you've so self-hypnotized yourself that you don't see ANY of the logical problems here (with the 'diary', with the 'mailbox', with hiding for years the questioned document examiner's findings etc.)

    4) Most of the items under THE CASE AGAINST DR. IVINS.

    #[Above was truncation of "Dear Kitty" down to 3 letters but which letters those were in Dutch, I don't know]


    *All in opposition to the authorities' findings. But let's just say Mister Lake doesn't HARP on that.

    ReplyDelete
  7. R. Rowley wrote: "Oh, so now AND FOR GOOD you've abandoned your child-printed-it hypothesis?"

    Of course not. That's just another inexplicable fantasy of yours. The FACTS say a child did the writing on the anthrax documents. I've been saying that for nearly 12 years.

    "Cause the child's doodling is the very thing that the non-spontaneous highlighting is said to be under that hypothesis: spontaneous doodling."

    Yes, but my 2002 hypothesis that the highlighting was merely a child's doodling was proved WRONG. In 2008, the FBI proved that the highlighting was done because the AUTHOR of the text (Bruce Ivins) used the highlighted A's and T's as a coded message he put in the letter. That changed nothing about who did the actual writing. It only change WHY the A's and T's were traced over. My doodling hypothesis was replaced by a MUCH BETTER hypothesis.

    R. Rowley also wrote: "All in opposition to the authorities' findings. But let's just say Mister Lake doesn't HARP on that."

    There is NOTHING in my analysis that is in opposition to "the authorities' findings."

    1) There is NOTHING in Amerithrax Investigation Summary that says Ivins was out to kill anyone. NONE of the people he killed were addressees of the letters. ALL were innocent bystanders. He included MEDICAL ADVICE in the media letter in an attempt to make certain no one was injured. The second letters stated that the powder was anthrax, so that immediate medical attention could be obtained. Anthrax does not kill instantly, so when warned people can easily protect themselves from harm.

    2) The "authorities" have NOT concluded that the J-Lo letter contained anthrax. The CDC merely says that it was "the most likely" cause of Stevens' death. The FACTS say the letter opened by Stephanie Dailey was the only letter that contained anthrax. I have the facts listed on my web site at this link: http://www.anthraxinvestigation.com/J-LoLetter.html Since you keep bringing it up, I'm tempted to send in an FOIA request for the FBI's official findings on which letter contained anthrax.

    3) Your description of why Ivins put the secret code in the media letter is total nonsense. The FACTS say the code is there. The FACTS say that Ivins devised the coded message and was the "author" of the letter (but not the writer). His exact reasoning died with him, but it appears he put the code in the letter so that he could prove that he sent the letters - if and when that proved necessary for him.

    The case against Ivins was made by the FBI and the Department of Justice, NOT BY ME. All I did was fill in some blanks. The case against Ivins was a case for the courts, which means it's about FACTS. And WHY things were done are often not determinable by FACTS alone. Plus, Ivins committed suicide before he could be brought to trial, so the full case against Ivins was never fully laid out.

    You may not care what the FACTS say, but making stuff up -- like suggesting the code was "a sort of diary" -- just shows that you have no logical argument.

    By ANY measure, the case against Ivins is infinitely better than the case you attempt to make against your "suspect." You've explained enough to show that your case is based entirely on things in your imagination. It's a fantasy. People can argue that the case against Ivins wouldn't have proved his guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt," people can have whatever opinion they want, but only wildly IGNORANT people argue that the DOJ had NO evidence showing Ivins was the anthrax mailer.

    You have shown NO EVIDENCE against your "suspect" that would hold up in court. It's all made up fantasies from your imagination, and most of it can be easily disproved.

    The DOJ had a SOLID cases against Ivins.
    You have NO CASE against your suspect.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 2) The "authorities" have NOT concluded that the J-Lo letter contained anthrax. The CDC merely says that it was "the most likely" cause of Stevens' death.
      ============================================
      Well, just like the document examiners comparing Ivins' printing to that of the Amerithrax texts who ruled that he "probably" did not write the latter: "most likely" is about all you can expect in matters of epidemiology.. Especially since:

      1) the entire J-Lo package (letter and powder + the other stuff in it) was
      never recovered, the letter and powder it contained presumably incinerated as per usual practice in the AMI building.

      2) the ENQUIRER letter was ALSO not recovered. It was presumed burned, along with its contents, again as standard practice in the AMI.

      In light of 1) and 2), what would any scientist be looking at?
      As far as I can see, they could only look at the distribution of the contamination, itself affected by the weeks (at least September 19th to October 4th 2001) of quotidian use of the building: people moving to and fro
      as they needed to and thereby creating secondary (tertiary etc,) aerosolizations of the spores.

      The county and federal (CDC) officials had ALREADY determined in October of 2001 that there was too MUCH of the contamination (and it was too widespread) to have been caused by a single letter.

      No subsequent investigation could possibly find LESS contamination,
      only MORE contamination which had been missed the first time.
      Therefore I think your expectation that there's some document out there
      saying that ONLY the ENQUIRER letter contained anthrax is groundless and opposed to reason.

      Delete
  8. Mister Lake's comment (partial):
    --------------
    The problem is: Anthrax Truthers still endlessly argue that the "J-Lo letter" was the letter that contained the anthrax, and they point to a CDC report as their evidence. The CDC report says the J-Lo letter "most likely" contained the anthrax. But the CDC's "evidence" was based upon unreliable witness interviews, not any actual evidence resulting from a scientific sampling.
    ==================================================
    Wrong. Yes, there were eyewitnesses (question why are Bob Stevens, Bobby Bender et alia any more 'unreliable' than the one 'witness' to the Enquirer letter,
    Stephanie Dailey?), but all they could 'witness' to was what they saw of the J-Lo
    package/letter. They certainly could NOT say that they knew (had known) that the
    whitish powder therein was anthrax (if they HAD known, they would have taken Cipro and told Stephens to take Cipro and would have saved the letter for authorities). The eyewitness statements merely established that:

    1) Stephens was handed the letter by Bender.

    2) Stephens took it to his desk and put it down/examined it closely.

    Since at least one spore was found weeks later (likely after having been trapped within Stephens' keyboard and thus having remained even when the desk was given routine cleanings from Sept 19th to Oct 4th), the eyewitness observations IN COMBINATION with the finding of the spore(s) are what led County, federal (?and state?) officials to conclude that the J-Lo letter is what infected Stephens.

    No subsequent examination of the premises (ie the whole AMI building) could possibly have 'subtracted' the spore(s) found on Stephens' desk. No subsequent examination of the building could possibly have established that there were FEWER spores in the building, since they would merely be finding spores IN ADDITION TO the ones found in October of 2001. The surprising number of spores and the distribution to all three floors are what convinced officials in October of 2001 that more than one letter was involved. NOT 'eyewitness accounts' on their lonesome.

    See documents here:
    http://www.ph.ucla.edu/epi/bioter/detect/antdetect_case5.html

    ReplyDelete
  9. R. Rowley wrote: "No subsequent investigation could possibly find LESS contamination, only MORE contamination which had been missed the first time.
    Therefore I think your expectation that there's some document out there
    saying that ONLY the ENQUIRER letter contained anthrax is groundless and opposed to reason."


    No one is saying there was some document out there that would prove anything. That's just a screwball argument of yours that shows your total ignorance of CRIME SCENE ANALYSIS and FORENSICS.

    The CDC investigators were NOT crime scene analysts. They were epidemiologists. All they did was try to determine the source of the anthrax infections to see how the cases were related to other cases around the country. They determined the anthrax came via the mails. That was all that interested them. Whether it was in one letter or two was of no interest. Which letter contained the anthrax was of no interest.

    But, in a CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION that is NOT enough. The FBI would want to know which letter contained the anthrax - OR if it was in both. It would be important to the case as it would be presented in court. That's why they went back in: to get FORENSIC DATA to show in court (1) how Stevens was killed, (2) how Blanco was infected, and (3) how the building was contaminated.

    A FORENSIC investigation would involve understanding such things as air currents from air vents, common traffic patterns as people walked through the building to do their work, how Blanco handled and delivered the mail, how the mail was handled in the mail room, how and when the janitorial staff did their work, who used which vacuum cleaner and where they used it, and the resulting distribution of spores within the building.

    They'd also use eye witness testimony, although they would know that eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable. People just saw powders, they had no way to know whether the particular powder they saw was harmless or lethal. That is where the FORENSIC INVESTIGATION comes in. It compares crime scene data to eyewitness testimony to find what the FACTS say.

    R. Rowley wrote: "The surprising number of spores and the distribution to all three floors are what convinced officials in October of 2001 that more than one letter was involved. NOT 'eyewitness accounts' on their lonesome."

    Yes, but the FACTS quickly showed that those "convinced officials" were almost certainly wrong. That's why the FBI and other agencies went back into the building in August and September 2002. Whether or not there was a second letter would be important to the CRIMINAL CASE. As I understand it from talking with FBI people, that FORENSIC investigation conclusively showed (beyond any reasonable doubt) that there was only one anthrax letter - the letter opened by Stephanie Dailey.

    BTW, a case can be made that Bruce Ivins may also have sent the J-Lo letter, even though it didn't contain anthrax.

    1. The envelope reportedly contained a laundry detergent. Ivins had sent a letter containing laundry detergent to one of his co-workers.

    2. The envelope contained items that would need explanation or "decoding": an empty cigar tube, a Star of David, etc. Ivins enjoyed sending women mysterious packages containing items that needed to be "decoded."

    3. Ivins had obsessions with people on TV. He had an obsession with a woman on the TV series "The Mole." He could easily have had an obsession with Jennifer Lopez.

    4. Jennifer Lopez played a psychiatrist in a movie called "The Cell," which came out on DVD around that time. Ivins was OBSESSED with finding an attractive woman who could understand him and his emotional problems.

    So, even if the J-Lo letter did not contain anthrax, it could still have been from Ivins. But, it would mean nothing in the criminal case, so I don't think the FBI ever pursued that angle.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. R. Rowley wrote: "No subsequent investigation could possibly find LESS contamination, only MORE contamination which had been missed the first time.
      Therefore I think your expectation that there's some document out there
      saying that ONLY the ENQUIRER letter contained anthrax is groundless and opposed to reason."

      No one is saying there was some document out there that would prove anything. That's just a screwball argument of yours that shows your total ignorance of CRIME SCENE ANALYSIS and FORENSICS.
      ==========================================
      Oh, so all the government DOCUMENTS say that the J-Lo letter "probably" infected Stephens. You dissent. That makes you......a dissenter from the government line. Some people call such dissenters "Truthers".
      Maybe you've heard the term?

      Delete
    2. 3. Ivins had obsessions with people on TV. He had an obsession with a woman on the TV series "The Mole." He could easily have had an obsession with Jennifer Lopez.

      4. Jennifer Lopez played a psychiatrist in a movie called "The Cell," which came out on DVD around that time. Ivins was OBSESSED with finding an attractive woman who could understand him and his emotional problems.
      ===========================================
      Ed Lake playing the psychiatrist.

      Delete
    3. Partial from Mister Lake:
      ----------
      They'd also use eye witness testimony, although they would know that eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.
      ==============================
      You didn't answer my question from above: how come the (multiple) witnesses to the J-Lo letter prompt you (repeatedly now) to say "eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable" but you never write that in regard to Stephanie Dailey who was/is the only 'eyewitness' to the Enquirer white powder letter?

      Delete
    4. The CDC investigators were NOT crime scene analysts. They were epidemiologists. All they did was try to determine the source of the anthrax infections to see how the cases were related to other cases around the country. They determined the anthrax came via the mails. That was all that interested them. Whether it was in one letter or two was of no interest. Which letter contained the anthrax was of no interest.
      ==========================================
      Don't think that's true: the documents indicate otherwise.

      Delete
    5. Yes, but the FACTS quickly showed that those "convinced officials" were almost certainly wrong. That's why the FBI and other agencies went back into the building in August and September 2002. Whether or not there was a second letter would be important to the CRIMINAL CASE. As I understand it from talking with FBI people, that FORENSIC investigation conclusively showed (beyond any reasonable doubt) that there was only one anthrax letter - the letter opened by Stephanie Dailey.
      ==========================================
      You'll find that "forensic investigations", particularly ones that produce NEW FINDINGS (ie findings in opposition to previous ones) leave a paper trail: documents.

      Delete
    6. R. Rowley wrote: "Oh, so now AND FOR GOOD you've abandoned your child-printed-it hypothesis?"

      Of course not.[...]
      =========================================
      That means you are a dissenter on the identity of who printed the letters:
      the gov't says it was Ivins doing the printing. They even have "witnesses" (wink, wink) who say his disguised printing of years prior had some resemblance to the printing of Amerithrax. Mister Lake says this "eyewitness" evidence is admissible in a notional trial of Ivins.

      Did you know that a dissenter is sometimes called a "Truther"?

      Delete
    7. 3) Your description of why Ivins put the secret code in the media letter is total nonsense. The FACTS say the code is there. The FACTS say that Ivins devised the coded message and was the "author" of the letter (but not the writer). His exact reasoning died with him, but it appears he put the code in the letter so that he could prove that he sent the letters - if and when that proved necessary for him.

      The case against Ivins was made by the FBI and the Department of Justice, NOT BY ME. All I did was fill in some blanks.[...]
      -------------------------------------------------------
      And there are so many to fill. Because their whole case is full of contradiction.

      Delete
  10. R. Rowley wrote: "That makes you......a dissenter from the government line. Some people call such dissenters "Truthers".

    The CDC report is NOT the "government line." It's just a report from the CDC's point of view - as epidemiologists.

    Dissenters are NOT the same things as Truthers. Generally speaking, Truthers claim to KNOW the truth and argue their beliefs against the FACTS. Dissenters can disagree because the FACTS disagree.

    R. Rowley wrote: :Ed Lake playing the psychiatrist."

    Nope. It's just Ed Lake looking at the facts. Ed Lake doesn't BELIEVE that Ivins sent the J-Lo letter. He just says there are FACTS which indicate so. MORE FACTS would be needed to make a good case - like an email which shows that Ivins watched "The Cell" in August 2001.

    R. Rowley wrote: "how come the (multiple) witnesses to the J-Lo letter prompt you (repeatedly now) to say "eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable" but you never write that in regard to Stephanie Dailey who was/is the only 'eyewitness' to the Enquirer white powder letter?"

    Because it's not about Dailey's testimony. It's about what the FACTS say. I keep trying to get you to understand that. The FACTS support Dailey's testimony and refute the testimony about the J-Lo letter. The FACTS rule.

    R. Rowley wrote: "Don't think that's true: the documents indicate otherwise."

    The CDC report says the J-Lo letter "most likely" contained the anthrax. That's good enough for their purposes. It wouldn't have made any difference to them which letter contained anthrax - or if BOTH contained anthrax. That "most likely" comment was someone's opinion BASED UPON IGNORANCE OF ALL THE FACTS.

    R. Rowley wrote: "You'll find that "forensic investigations", particularly ones that produce NEW FINDINGS (ie findings in opposition to previous ones) leave a paper trail: documents."

    There are documents. The problem is that one was created for publication and was never published. So, it may be a personal document. The other - the official findings of the FBI's investigation of the AMI crime scene - don't appear to have ever been released. I've sent in an FOIA request, but it's probably going to be delayed by the shutdown. There were inaccurate reports in the media that show they found that the contamination originated in the mail room, but the media got the details wrong. The media said the FBI found it was from people going to the mail room to get copy paper for the copy machines. The FBI denied that. So, there are results around, but no one has evidently ever asked to see them.

    R. Rowley also wrote: "the gov't says it was Ivins doing the printing."

    NO THEY DIDN'T. They have witnesses (which are "notoriously unreliable, remember?) who say the handwriting resembled Ivins' handwriting when he was trying to disguise his handwriting.

    That is testimonial evidence that CAN be used in court. Mine is an hypothesis that CANNOT be used in court.

    "Did you know that a dissenter is sometimes called a "Truther"? "

    Only in your fantasies.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  11. "Did you know that a dissenter is sometimes called a "Truther"? "

    Only in your fantasies.
    ======================================
    Okay, what's YOUR definition, and why haven't you given it already?

    ReplyDelete
  12. R. Rowley wrote: "That makes you......a dissenter from the government line. Some people call such dissenters "Truthers".

    The CDC report is NOT the "government line." It's just a report from the CDC's point of view - as epidemiologists.

    Dissenters are NOT the same things as Truthers. Generally speaking, Truthers claim to KNOW the truth and argue their beliefs against the FACTS. Dissenters can disagree because the FACTS disagree.
    =====================================
    Give me a break: you wouldn't recognize a fact if it hit you while steering the Queen Mary.
    "Fact" in Lakespeak merely means "stuff I like to think is true".

    Show me a single government document (ie available on your HUMONGOUS 3 websites, or anywhere else on the Internet) that:

    1) indicates the Task Force ever seriously even CONSIDERED that a child printed those letters.

    2) indicates the Task Force ever seriously even CONSIDERED that the mailer "didn't mean to harm anyone".

    3) indicates that the Task Force concluded that the J-Lo letter did not contain anthrax.

    Those are YOUR positions, NOT the Task Force's/DoJ's.
    (Can you REALLY not distinguish the two?!!?!?)
    That makes you a dissenter (Duh!).
    ============================================
    The CDC report is NOT the "government line." It's just a report from the CDC's point of view - as epidemiologists
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    That's the pertinent field/agency in determining the vector (that word again!) of infection.
    The FBI is NOT the pertinent agency in determining the vector of ANY infection.
    And since the CDC is a government agency, their findings are the government's.

    ReplyDelete
  13. R. Rowley wrote: ""Fact" in Lakespeak merely means "stuff I like to think is true"."

    Nope. A fact is something that can be checked and verified.

    It appears YOU do not understand what a "fact" is, since you ask a question about whether the Task Force ever "considered that a child printed those letters." The Task Force was ONLY interested in facts which can be used as EVIDENCE in court. They evidently had no facts saying that a child wrote the letters that would BE USEABLE IN COURT. Either way, the facts still exist.

    Regarding Mr. Rowley's statement "2) indicates the Task Force ever seriously even CONSIDERED that the mailer "didn't mean to harm anyone".

    This is a quote from Dr. Majidi's new book:

    "I don’t believe that Bruce Ivins started on this path with the intention of killing anyone and I am not alone in this camp"

    and

    "This is a portion of what Kristof hypothesized: “He is an American insider, a man working in the military bio-weapons field. He's a skilled microbiologist who did not aim to kill anybody or even to disrupt the postal system. Rather, he wanted to sow terror. ”

    Kristof was paraphrasing Barbara Hatch Rosenberg.

    R. Rowley asked, "Okay, what's YOUR definition [of a "Truther"], and why haven't you given it already?"

    I've given my definition many times, including in the message to which you responded. In that message, I wrote: "Dissenters are NOT the same thing as Truthers. Generally speaking, Truthers claim to KNOW the truth and argue their beliefs against the FACTS. Dissenters can disagree because the FACTS disagree."

    Anthrax Truthers fall into two general categories: (1) Conspiracy theorists who do not believe the facts and feel that "the truth" is being hidden from everyone by a conspiracy of some kind and only "the Truther" can see what is really going on (a.k.a. "the truth"). (2) True Believers who know "the truth" and believe what they believe regardless of any facts or any counterarguments. They believe it is if they were told "The Truth" by God. Nothing can change their minds, least of all facts.

    A dissenter is just someone who disagrees for some reason - and he MAY have solid facts to support his disagreement.

    R. Rowley also wrote: Those are YOUR positions, NOT the Task Force's/DoJ's.
    (Can you REALLY not distinguish the two?!!?!?)
    That makes you a dissenter (Duh!)."


    Yes, I can distinguish the two. The Task Force was making a MAJOR case to take to court. I'm making a case for certain minor issues based upon what the facts say.

    I'm not disagreeing with the FBI that their witnesses believe that the handwriting resembled Ivins' handwriting when he was trying to disguise his handwriting. That is what the facts say. So, how can I disagree?

    I'm saying that, while what the witnesses say is good testimony, the FACTS ALSO SAY that a child wrote the letters. But that is not part of the government's legal case (as far as we know).

    I'm not dissenting. I'm agreeing that the government's case uses evidence that is valid in court. My hypothesis has NOT been verified, and is NOT useable in court. The important point is: IT IS NOT CRITICAL TO THE LEGAL CASE WHICH ONE IS "THE TRUTH". It's a minor issue, but an interesting one.

    R. Rowley also wrote: "And since the CDC is a government agency, their findings are the government's."

    Nonsense. Only to Anthrax Truthers believe that, because they think of "the government" as a single entity where everyone knows what everyone else knows and everyone believes what everyone else believes. In reality, it's just the opinion of ONE OR MORE PEOPLE in ONE BRANCH of a small part of the government.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  14. R. Rowley also wrote: "And since the CDC is a government agency, their findings are the government's."

    Nonsense.
    ========================================
    Okay, Mister Lake. You've lost ALL credibility in my eyes. The Amerithrax Case WAS a criminal case. But it wasn't a criminal case ALONE. To begin with (ie in September 2001 when people were coming down with cutaneous anthrax and were being misdiagnosed but before the right diagnoses were made, the right vector idented) it was a matter of public health. The pertinent bodies of epidemiology were brought to bear on the situation. They came to findings. Those findings have not been contradicted to this very hour. Except by Mister Lake who has 'arranged things' such that he's the arbiter of which government organizations, documents, officials etc. are .......to be believed. Who are you, Mister Lake, God Himself?!?!?!?
    Back to Mister Lake:
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Only to Anthrax Truthers believe that, because they think of "the government" as a single entity where everyone knows what everyone else knows and everyone believes what everyone else believes.
    =========================================
    Just the reverse: YOU YOURSELF are reducing "the government" to a single entity:
    FBI/Task Force/DoJ. THAT'S why you can't accept the CDC findings: it violates your own monolithic notion of the "government". Plus their findings are wholly incompatible with your own J-Lo theory. And that threatens you, your own self-image.

    The government is composed of hundreds, if not thousands, of organizational components. I have no trouble with that; Mister Lake does.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Mister Lake wrote:
    In reality, it's just the opinion of ONE OR MORE PEOPLE in ONE BRANCH of a small part of the government.
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    It was/is the opinion of:

    1) Jean Malecki*, Director of the Palm Beach County Health Department
    (one level of government: the county level)

    2) FBI agent Judi Orihuela*, who naturally is part of the FBI/DoJ.
    (another level of governmen: the federal level)

    3) the personnel who did this report from the New England Journal of Medicine:
    http://www.ph.ucla.edu/epi/bioter/NEJMoa012948v1.pdf

    LARRY M. BUSH, M.D., BARRY H. ABRAMS, M.D., ANNE BEALL, B.S., M.T.,
    AND CAROLINE C. JOHNSON, M.D.

    4) the CDC*
    (again the federal level of government)

    *Previously cited by me one or more times, so Mister Lake has no excuse for
    not knowing it.

    Some "one or more people in one branch of a small part of the government"!
    It was the PERTINENT people doing the epidemiological investigation at the county and federal level, including, in the person of Judy Orihuela, the FBI.

    ReplyDelete
  15. R. Rowley wrote: The Amerithrax Case WAS a criminal case. But it wasn't a criminal case ALONE. [...] They [epidemiologists] came to findings. Those findings have not been contradicted to this very hour."

    Who cares?! It's only an issue to polemics (or polemicists) like yourself, who just want to argue endlessly and who have no interest in what the facts say.

    The CDC's "findings" have no bearing on the criminal case. As I explained, there's evidence that says Ivins could have sent the J-Lo letter, so what difference does it make if some people BELIEVE the J-Lo letter contained anthrax? It wouldn't have any affect on the criminal case presented against Bruce Ivins in court.

    In court, "the government" is a single entity. The case would be "The United States versus Bruce Edwards Ivins." It would be "the government" against Ivins. And it wouldn't make any difference if Representative Rush Holt still believed al Qaeda was behind the attack or if the CDC (which is a government agency) still believes the J-Lo letter contained the anthrax.

    The Department of Justice represents "the government" when prosecuting a case in federal court. They represent the ENTIRE government, even if some people within the government don't agree with the case. (If my congressman believes the current shutdown is the fault of the Democrats, he represents me and his entire district in Congress even if I totally disagree with him and think he's full of crap.)

    This may not make any sense to you, but it's the way things work in the real world.

    Furthermore, you are arguing MINUTIAE (unimportant details). You appear to be doing so because you cannot argue KEY evidence. You have NO CASE of your own worth arguing. All your "evidence" exists only in your fantasies. So, you try to pick holes in the FBI's case by arguing that it's not clear whether Ivins killed people with an anthrax-filled letter sent to the National Enquirer or with an anthrax-filled letter sent to Jennifer Lopez c/o the Sun. IT'S AN IDIOTIC ARGUMENT. Either way, IVINS DID IT. Same with the debate over how he disguised his handwriting. EITHER WAY, IVINS DID IT.

    Arguing that the fact that some people in the government disagree with "the government's" case against Bruce Ivins is somehow important is just polemics. It's a WASTE OF TIME. It's arguing minutiae because you cannot argue facts.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  16. Arguing that the fact that some people in the government disagree with "the government's" case against Bruce Ivins is somehow important is just polemics. It's a WASTE OF TIME
    ===========================================
    Another non sequitur from Mister Lake: I wrote very little here (almost nothing) about Bruce Ivins. Certainly I didn't make any statement here about "some people in the government disagree with "the government's" case against Bruce Ivins".
    Because, among others things, I'm unaware of such people.

    What I wrote about was the epidemiological FINDINGS of 2001-2 centered on the AMI building in Boca Raton and how Bob Stevens was likely infected. In that timeframe none of the pertinent epidemiological personnel knew who Bruce Ivins was, certainly didn't know that he would become 4 or 5 year later a 'confidential suspect', let alone that he would become the 'fall guy' in 2008. Therefore their CONCLUSIONS were not geared IN ANY WAY to either support or gainsay the 'case' against ANY suspect.

    Sheer (illogical) projection on Mister Lake's part. HE rejects those findings of 2001-2 because they put the kibosh on his 'the J-Lo letter did not contain anthrax' hypothesis, AND the J-Lo letter is tough to connect to Ivins, unless you do the type of mind-reading-cum-pseudopsychiatry that Mister Lake does upthread.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Blah blah blah. Just more of Mr. Rowley's polemics.

      Mr. Rowley argues for his own theory evidently without realizing that means he is arguing against the DOJ's case.

      Mr. Rowley admits that his arguments about the CDC findings have nothing to do with evidence in the case, and therefore it's just more of his polemics.

      And Mr. Rowley demonstrates his total lack of understanding of facts by suggesting that the following facts somehow require "mind reading":

      1. The envelope reportedly contained a laundry detergent. Ivins had sent a letter containing laundry detergent to one of his co-workers.

      2. The envelope contained items that would need explanation or "decoding": an empty cigar tube, a Star of David, etc. Ivins enjoyed sending women mysterious packages containing items that needed to be "decoded."

      3. Ivins had obsessions with people on TV. He had an obsession with a woman on the TV series "The Mole." He could easily have had an obsession with Jennifer Lopez.

      4. Jennifer Lopez played a psychiatrist in a movie called "The Cell," which came out on DVD around that time. Ivins was OBSESSED with finding an attractive woman who could understand him and his emotional problems.


      Those are just FACTS which point to Ivins as POSSIBLY being the sender of the J-Lo letter. No mind reading required. The "mind reading" argument is just more of Mr. Rowley's polemics.

      Ed

      Delete
    2. Blah blah blah. Just more of Mr. Rowley's polemics.
      -------------------------------------------------------
      Gosh, now I regret teaching you the word "polemics". You didn't seem to use it AT ALL in the 2001 to 2012 period, and now you're primed to use it and overuse it!
      ==================================
      3. Ivins had obsessions with people on TV. He had an obsession with a woman on the TV series "The Mole." He could easily have had an obsession with Jennifer Lopez.

      4. Jennifer Lopez played a psychiatrist in a movie called "The Cell," which came out on DVD around that time. Ivins was OBSESSED with finding an attractive woman who could understand him and his emotional problems.
      ----------------------------------------------------
      Those are just FACTS[...]
      ------------------------------------------
      Not at all, 3) and 4) are SPECULATIONS on your parts, as indicated by the very language you use:

      "He could easily have had an obsession with Jennifer Lopez."
      'could....have'
      Speculation.
      =================================
      Ivins was OBSESSED with finding an attractive woman who could understand him and his emotional problems.
      -----------------------------------------------------------------
      How would sending an ANONYMOUS letter, containing a deadly
      bacterium, to a TABLOID (or tabloids) put him in a position to "find" an attractive woman, J-Lo or any other?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

      Makes no sense. I guess that's why it's such an attractive hypothesis for Mister Lake.

      Delete
  17. I thought I would take this opportunity to clarify what I mean by a "subhypothesis".
    It's possible that people misunderstand it (and by 'it' I mean the prefix "sub".
    What it means is: this element is not essential IN ANY WAY in my overarching hypothesis.

    So:

    1) I figured out who the printer/mastermind was in September of 2006.

    2) I figured out who the (main) accomplices were in mid-2007.

    3) only 2 or 3 years later did I realize there were Hebrew features to the writing, and this was made possible by my own efforts in that timeframe to learn the Hebrew alphabet.

    So my hypothesis depends in no way on the Pseudo-Hebrew subhypothesis.
    But is consistent with it.

    ReplyDelete
  18. R. Rowley wrote: "Not at all, 3) and 4) are SPECULATIONS on your parts, as indicated by the very language you use:

    "He could easily have had an obsession with Jennifer Lopez."
    'could....have'
    Speculation."


    It was just bad phrasing. I should have written: FACT: An obsession with Jennifer Lopez would not have been out of character for Ivins.

    All the other sentences in 3) and 4) were statements of facts.

    Mr. Rowley also wrote: "How would sending an ANONYMOUS letter, containing a deadly bacterium, to a TABLOID (or tabloids) put him in a position to "find" an attractive woman, J-Lo or any other?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?"

    When you inject your personal beliefs into someone else's hypothesis, you are showing you cannot argue logically. The facts say the J-Lo letter did NOT contain anthrax. Therefore, sending an anonymous love letter to a to a movie star c/o a tabloid and proposing marriage would be an expression of a fantasy.

    SOMEONE sent the J-Lo letter anonymously. Since the letter did NOT contain anthrax, what was their motive, other than to express a fantasy?

    That sort of thing goes on every day. That's why the J-Lo letter was initially thrown in the trash, before Bobby Bender - a J-Lo fan - dug it out of the trash. Tabloids get such fantasy letters all the time.

    FACT #5: Ivins was a reader of tabloids.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  19. Mr. Rowley also wrote: "How would sending an ANONYMOUS letter, containing a deadly bacterium, to a TABLOID (or tabloids) put him in a position to "find" an attractive woman, J-Lo or any other?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?"

    When you inject your personal beliefs into someone else's hypothesis, you are showing you cannot argue logically.
    ----------------------------------
    I interrupt to say I don't follow*@; back to Mister Lake:
    *how would ANYONE sending an anonymous letter to a tabloid expect it to put him in a position to "find" an attractive woman, anthrax or no anthrax?!?!?
    Makes no sense!
    ------------------------------

    The facts say the J-Lo letter did NOT contain anthrax. Therefore, sending an anonymous love letter to a to a movie star c/o a tabloid and proposing marriage would be an expression of a fantasy.
    -----------------------------------------------
    So, you are saying that Ivins sent the J-Lo letter but it did NOT contain anthrax?!?!?
    ----------------------------------------------
    SOMEONE sent the J-Lo letter anonymously. Since the letter did NOT contain anthrax, what was their motive, other than to express a fantasy?
    ----------------------------------------------
    Their motive turns ENTIRELY on whether it contained anthrax or not.
    ---------------------------------------------
    That sort of thing goes on every day. That's why the J-Lo letter was initially thrown in the trash, before Bobby Bender - a J-Lo fan - dug it out of the trash. Tabloids get such fantasy letters all the time.
    ----------------------------------------------
    That's why Stephens got infected: he thought it was harmless.

    And that's the PRIMARY reason that Jean Malecki back in October 2001 immediately connected it to the book VECTOR: the use of a harmless-looking mail item to surreptitiously infect persons who won't realize it until their infection is well under way.

    @Honestly at this point I don't think even Mister Lake knows what his thesis is, because HE (not r. rowley wrote the following sentences:

    4. Jennifer Lopez played a psychiatrist in a movie called "The Cell," which came out on DVD around that time. Ivins was OBSESSED with finding an attractive woman who could understand him and his emotional problems.
    -------
    Those two sentences suggest to ME (but you decide, dear readers!) that Mister Lake is suggesting that Ivins wrote the J-Lo letter. Why ELSE would you possibly write the two sentences together under the #4!?!?!?!?

    ReplyDelete
  20. SOMEONE sent the J-Lo letter anonymously. Since the letter did NOT contain anthrax[...]
    ===========================================
    Sorry but the CDC, FBI, Palm Beach County Health Department don't agree with you.
    Give it a rest.

    ReplyDelete
  21. R. Rowley wrote: "Those two sentences suggest to ME (but you decide, dear readers!) that Mister Lake is suggesting that Ivins wrote the J-Lo letter. Why ELSE would you possibly write the two sentences together under the #4!?!?!?!?"

    What's the point in responding to your posts if you cannot understand anything?

    TWICE in this thread I listed FOUR FACTS which SUGGEST that Ivins may have written the J-Lo letter. At the bottom of my web page about the J-Lo letter I have a boxed section titled "Did Bruce Ivins send the J-Lo letter?" where I examine the evidence that says he did. On page 57 of my latest book I stated that Ivins MAY have sent the J-Lo letter. And now it surprises you that I might be "suggesting that Ivins wrote the J-Lo letter"?!?!

    You need to start paying attention, otherwise there's no point in responding to your blather. But, one last time:

    The FACTS SAY:

    1. The J-Lo did NOT contain anthrax.
    2. Ivins MAY have sent the J-Lo letter as an expression of a fantasy.


    If you continue to inject your BELIEFS into this, you will NEVER UNDERSTAND.

    I can understand YOUR illogical logic. Is it impossible for you to understand my reasoning without you injecting your BELIEFS into what I'm saying?

    Maybe you don't understand the difference between "beliefs" and an "hypothesis."

    --------
    be·lief biˈlēf/
    noun

    1. an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists.
    something one accepts as true or real; a firmly held opinion or conviction.

    2. trust, faith, or confidence in someone or something.

    -------------
    hy·poth·e·sis hīˈpäTHəsis/
    noun

    1. a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation
    -------------

    BELIEFS do not depend upon reasoning or evidence or even on logic. Beliefs are mostly based upon faith or on an overinflated ego, NOT on facts. But beliefs are accepted as true anyway.

    An HYPOTHESIS is a personal interpretation of the existing facts. The facts are examined and a person makes his best judgement as to what the facts indicate. AND he asks for NEW facts to prove or disprove the hypothesis, OR for a better interpretation of the known facts. He does not necessarily BELIEVE in the hypothesis. Instead, the hypothesis is generally accompanied by a "confidence level."

    The FACTS only say that Ivins MAY have written the J-Lo Letter. It is an HYPOTHESIS with very few FACTS to support that HYPOTHESIS. My "confidence level" is only about 30%. More solid facts would help.

    My confidence level in the HYPOTHESIS that a child wrote the anthrax letters is about 98%. The FACTS are VERY convincing.

    I'm only interested in FACTS, not in opinions or beliefs.

    The CDC "finding" regarding the J-Lo letter seems to be AN OPINION, but it MAY be only an hypothesis. Either way, it is DISPUTED BY THE FACTS.

    You BELIEVE it because it fits with your other BELIEFS.

    I dispute it because the FACTS SAY IT IS WRONG.

    I've sent an FOIA request to the FBI for additional information about the AMI contamination, but with the shutdown still in effect, it may take a long time to get any response. In other words, I am looking for ADDITIONAL FACTS to either confirm or disprove my hypothesis. Currently, my confidence level in the hypothesis that the J-Lo letter did NOT contain anthrax is about 95%.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Mr. Rowley,

      Dr. Majidi's new book contains this in Chapter 5:

      A cursory examination of the four evidence letters revealed that all were postmarked in Trenton, New Jersey. The letters to New York Post and Tom Brokaw were postmarked on September 18th and letters to Senators Daschle and Leahy were postmarked on October 9th; clearly indicating that the letters were mailed in two different batches. While the letter to the AMI building was never recovered, the reconstruction of Mr. Robert Stevens’ infection time-line indicates that the AMI letter was among the September 18th letters mailed by the perpetrator.

      In other words, the anthrax letter that killed Bob Stevens was sent at the same time as the other letters to the media. That rules out the J-Lo package which was opened on September 19, before any letter postmarked in New Jersey on September 18th could possibly have arrived at AMI in Boca Raton, Florida. It also rules out the J-Lo package because the infection timeline doesn't jibe with a package opened on the 19th.

      So, we have the CDC saying that the J-Lo letter "most likely" contained anthrax. And we have a top level scientist who works for the FBI saying that that could not possibly be true.

      When there is a disagreement between the opinions from experts, most people check the FACTS. The FACTS say that the J-Lo letter opened on September 19 did NOT contain anthrax. The FACTS say only the letter opened by Stephanie Dailey on September 24th or 25th contained anthrax.

      Ed

      Delete
  22. In the past week or so I finally added another 'white powder' hoax to credit the Amerithrax Mastermind with.

    On July 9th 2001 an on-line magazine called LA VOZ DE AZTLAN received a letter, postmarked Santa Clarita, July 5th. Along with a note chastising the magazine for anti-Jewish sentiments was a 'yellowish white' powder

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

    The letter is preserved here:
    http://anthraxmuseum.tripod.com/theanthraxmysterymuseumtm/id43.html

    I'll be posting soon (if my health improves!) on why I take it to be a product of the Amerithrax mastermind.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Mr. Rowley,

    Such a post would definitely fit in this thread about illogical logic.

    I would prefer that we discuss how your imagined "evidence" showing "Hebrewized" lettering in the first anthrax letter has been thoroughly debunked. Ignoring the fact that your theory has been thoroughly debunked doesn't help your credibility.

    Changing the subject to another theory about another letter which you fantasize came from the same "Amerithrax mastermind" also doesn't help your credibility. Neither will presenting more illogical logic in support of your new theory.

    Plus, it's beginning to look like you may be about to name your "criminal mastermind" suspect. That won't be allowed here.

    However, I hope your health improves.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  24. Mr. Rowley,

    Such a post would definitely fit in this thread about illogical logic.[...]
    ======================
    As always, you're jumping the gun.

    So, part of what I was referring to is the mastermind's use of what I call a motif or
    trope, in particular here:

    The anti-Semitic/Pro-Semitic trope/motif : (known examples)

    April 1997 mailing to national headquarters of B'nai Brith, a mailing containing
    a cracked and leaking petri dish. It is later learned that the petri dish contains bacillus cereus, an anthrax simulant (and obviously not readily available to persons who don't work in (a) lab environment/s).

    Voz de Aztlan online magazine. Explicit defense of Jewish people in text combined with white powder. Pro-Jewish (Pro-Semitic).

    Fan letter to Jennifer Lopez read September 19th 2001. Combines white powder and ostensibly ordinary fan missive. But also includes Star of David. Here the Star of David cuts in two directions: Pro-Jewish if you take the letter at face value, Anti-Jewish if you take it to be an attempted murder via anthrax. Anti- AND Pro-Semitic.

    The Brokaw text (dealt with extensively in this thread): use of multiple Hebrewized forms, some via the highlighting of letters (mostly partial highlighting). Just a continuation of the Pro-Semitic/Anti-Semitic motif of several years standing.

    To circle back to the very first element, that B'nai Brith mailing of April, 1997,
    note that the 'organization' whose name came with the mailing, the Counter-Holocaust Lobbyists of Hillel is incongruously named: the "Counter-Holocaust" part
    suggests a Holocaust-denier (usually an Anti-Semite), but the 'Hillel' part just doesn't fit in.
    http://www.hillel.org/
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillel_the_Elder

    It's a bit like naming a KKK chapter after David Ben Gurion or Golda Meir. Makes no sense AT ALL.
    And thereby we are warned that for the Amerithrax mastermind Pro-/Anti-Semitism is just a counter to be moved around, he cares not about it at all PER SE. It's a way to mystify: the recipients, investigators, the general public. His knowledge of Hebrew just makes that easier.
    ---------------------------------------
    Back to Mister Lake:
    ----------------------------------------------
    Plus, it's beginning to look like you may be about to name your "criminal mastermind" suspect[...]
    -----------------------
    Nothing could be further from the truth. The people who need to know that stuff, my 'survivors', have known it since 2007. They also know about crimes the Anthrax mastermind has committed that I've never related on the Internet. He didn't start in 1997. And he hasn't stopped.

    ReplyDelete
  25. R. Rowley wrote: "The Brokaw text (dealt with extensively in this thread): use of multiple Hebrewized forms, some via the highlighting of letters (mostly partial highlighting). Just a continuation of the Pro-Semitic/Anti-Semitic motif of several years standing."

    That theory has been totally debunked. Arguing the same nonsense as if it hasn't been debunked says you are simply preaching and not willing to listen. This forum is not for your preachings. It's a discussion forum where beliefs are challenged by facts. Ignoring the facts and arguing as if your theory has not been debunked will eventually lead to some kind of dead end.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  26. R. Rowley wrote: "The Brokaw text (dealt with extensively in this thread): use of multiple Hebrewized forms, some via the highlighting of letters (mostly partial highlighting). Just a continuation of the Pro-Semitic/Anti-Semitic motif of several years standing."

    That theory has been totally debunked.
    ===================================
    No, it hasn't. But I appreciate the BOLD FACE DENIALS. They're SO much more convincing than stuff written in normal face! (yes, boys and girls, that was sarcasm!)

    According to Mister Lake he's "debunked"

    1) the idea that the Jo-Lo letter contained anthrax. (even though that was the judgement of the CDC, the Palm Beach County Health Department and FBI Special Agent Judy Orihuela).
    Gee, Nice "debunking"! (But I'm going to stick in THIS matter with what the authorities found, silly old me!)

    2) the idea that the mailer meant to hurt anyone (You needed to convince your FBI pals of that in 2008: Ivins was facing first degree charges!). (and if you think the mailer was Ivins, you are saying he meant to 'hurt people': it was the most virulent strain they had at USAMRIID).

    3) the idea that an adult wrote the Amerithrax texts(ditto to the max: "Bruce Ivins, acting alone, committed the Amerithrax attacks" Or are we supposed to skip that part????).

    Etc,

    Mister Lake sets himself up as an authority on what he has successfully "debunked". And, Surprise!, he's successfully "debunked" everything he's ever debated on the Internet! Gee, most people would say you are trying to play two quite separate roles: (polemical) opponent and judge/referee/scorekeeper. Don't you see the conflict of interest there?
    Oh, silly old me! I forgot, you saw no conflict of interest in the panel headed by Greg Saathoff, whose members were picked by Greg Saathoff, in evaluating the psychiatric work done by FBI consultant Greg Saathoff. Meaning "conflict of interest" isn't in your vocabulary.
    (See: http://caseclosedbylewweinstein.wordpress.com/2011/07/13/doj-has-successfully-avoided-deposition-of-amerithrax-consultant-who-extensively-and-uncritically-relied-on-the-ivins-accuser-granted-her-psychic-abilities-by-an-alien-from-another-planet/ )

    The curious should examine the very first time Mister Lake 'debunked' the Hebrew and other foreign elements hypothesis. He got the hypothesis wrong 180 degrees!
    But he 'debunked' it! (Shows what wishful thinking will do!)
    http://anthraxdebate.blogspot.com/2012/02/feb-12-feb-18-discussions.html

    ReplyDelete
  27. "That theory has been totally debunked.
    ===================================
    No, it hasn't."


    Mr. Rowley,

    As I've said many times: I have no interest in getting into opinion versus opinion debates. I'm only interested in what the facts say.

    It's clear that no matter what the facts say about your "Hebrewized" lettering hypothesis, you're just going to believe what you want to believe. The same with all the other subjects you argue.

    So, unless you can focus on a single subject and discuss ONLY THE FACTS about that subject until some agreement is reached, I think we've come to the end of our discussions here.

    There is no way to resolve opinion-versus-opinion debates, and only fools (or people with lots of time on their hands) waste time on such things. I've got better things to do.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  28. As I've said many times: I have no interest in getting into opinion versus opinion debates.
    ============================================
    Oh, and whether a 6/7 year child printed the Amerithrax texts isn't a matter of opinion?!?!?!?! Of COURSE it is, if it were a matter of fact, it would be so reflected in the Amerithrax Investigative Summary. It ain't.

    And on a larger point: whether Bruce Ivins did the crimes of Amerithrax isn't a matter of opinion? Of COURSE it is, if it weren't you wouldn't have such persons as
    Senator Leahy; Rush Holt; Glenn Greenwald; Stephen Engelberg, Greg Gordon, McClatchy, Jim Gilmore and Mike Wiser ; Noah Schachtman etc (all the forgoing
    either politicians affected by Amerithrax or journalists who studied it and concluded that the findings of the Task Force were flawed) holding views so critical of the Amerithrax Investigative Summary.

    If Amerithrax isn't a 'matter of opinion' you might as well close up shop: there's no reason to "debate" a subject matter that isn't a "matter of opinion", neither Amerithrax or anything else. And that was true 2 or 3 years ago.

    ReplyDelete
  29. October 27, 2013 (C) - The Anthrax Truther who had been arguing for months on my interactive blog reappeared yesterday, after a nearly two week absence. At first, it appeared he had developed a new theory to support his old theory that the anthrax letters were a sent by a "criminal mastermind" who was also behind a lot of hoax letters.

    However, I quickly learned that the "new" theory evidently isn't really new. Using links he provided, I found the theory was also promoted in a blog titled "Anthrax Museum" and/or "Anthrax City" which doesn't appear to have been updated since 2005, when it was still "under construction."
    ===============================================
    You're mixing up two theories and thereby confusing your Sunday readers (not for the first time).

    My primary Pseudo-Hebrew text subhypothesis has to do with Hebrew graphic elements in the Brokaw text. There is NOTHING (as in 'absolutely nothing'!) in the Anthrax Museum website about such Hebrew graphic elements in that or any other text. It was not linked by me for that reason.

    My secondary hypothesis about Hebrew/Jewishness is that there's a discernible (sub)pattern of the Amerithrax mastermind, since April 1997, in which he occasionally inserts either comments about Jews (the VOZ DE AZTLAN letter) or something like the Star of David (J-Lo letter) in order to give either a pro-Semitic or anti-Semitic cast to the communication. Sometimes that is done via the selection of the 'victim', in April 1997, the B'nai Brith. (Again the incongruous name of "counter-Holocaust Hobbyists of Hillel" indicates a joke rather than a legit anti-Semitic organization).

    So, is this SECOND idea, that there's a pattern of pseudo-anti/pro-Semitism in the mailings of this guy reflected in the Anthrax Museum website? Is it the author's idea? No, it is not. Just reading that section of the website will let the reader know that. But I've read the entire website and there's nothing of the sort in it. So, the hypothesis (#2, just as #1) is mine alone.

    So, why DID I link that website? Because it was the only website I could find that had the TEXT of the white powder letter to VOZ DE AZTLAN. (and it had the outside of the envelope too!)

    Alas, Mister Lake's Sunday readers will never learn this: he had other fish to sell.

    ReplyDelete
  30. R. Rowley wrote: "Oh, and whether a 6/7 year child printed the Amerithrax texts isn't a matter of opinion?!?!?!?! Of COURSE it is, if it were a matter of fact, it would be so reflected in the Amerithrax Investigative Summary. It ain't."

    More of your illogical logic. The FACTS say that a child just starting first grade wrote the anthrax letters. There are NO FACTS in the Investigative Summary which say otherwise, NOR has anyone else provided any FACTS which say otherwise. The only arguments are from people who just do not believe it and people who have other theories which are NOT based on facts. Period.

    R. Rowley wrote: "whether Bruce Ivins did the crimes of Amerithrax isn't a matter of opinion? Of COURSE it is, if it weren't you wouldn't have such persons as
    Senator Leahy; Rush Holt; Glenn Greenwald; Stephen Engelberg, Greg Gordon, McClatchy, Jim Gilmore and Mike Wiser ; Noah Schachtman etc (all the forgoing
    either politicians affected by Amerithrax or journalists who studied it and concluded that the findings of the Task Force were flawed) holding views so critical of the Amerithrax Investigative Summary."


    Nonsense. The FACTS say that Ivins was the anthrax mailer. The people you name simply do not BELIEVE the facts - and MOST are largely IGNORANT of the FACTS. Among other nonsense, most BELIEVE that the spores were weaponized, and therefore Ivins could not have done it. The FACTS says the spores were NOT weaponized. So, their beliefs are just beliefs, not based upon facts.

    Ignorant people ALWAYS argue against the facts. There probably isn't a subject anyone could think of that isn't argued about by someone who is ignorant of the facts.

    R. Rowley also wrote: "So, why DID I link that website? Because it was the only website I could find that had the TEXT of the white powder letter to VOZ DE AZTLAN. (and it had the outside of the envelope too!)"

    I don't have the time or interest in comparing your arguments to the arguments on that "Anthrax Museum" blog. I know your "Hebrewized" lettering hypothesis is not part of that blog, but that blog - and the other blog - look like they were was abandoned in 2005. Presumably, the person who created those two blogs is still around arguing his beliefs somewhere.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  31. I don't have the time or interest in comparing your arguments to the arguments on that "Anthrax Museum" blog. I know your "Hebrewized" lettering hypothesis is not part of that blog,[...]
    --------------------------------------------------
    No, there I was just being comprehensive: my point was that NEITHER idea about
    Hebrew/Jewishness/pro- or anti- Semitism is something I 'borrowed' from the Anthrax Museum website nor any other website. Therefore your second paragraph is a (self-)deception: (the paragraph in full):
    ------------
    However, I quickly learned that the "new" theory evidently isn't really new. Using links he provided, I found the theory was also promoted in a blog titled "Anthrax Museum" and/or "Anthrax City" which doesn't appear to have been updated since 2005, when it was still "under construction."
    ---
    (Said another way, you DID make a comparison, it was just an erroneous one)
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Back to Mister Lake:

    Ignorant people ALWAYS argue against the facts. There probably isn't a subject anyone could think of that isn't argued about by someone who is ignorant of the facts.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Sorry but I'll have to go with:
    Senator Leahy; Rush Holt; Glenn Greenwald; Stephen Engelberg, Greg Gordon, McClatchy, Jim Gilmore and Mike Wiser ; Noah Schachtman etc

    They don't strike me as "ignorant" about Amerithrax. And you've returned to invective in place of argument. Again.

    ReplyDelete
  32. R. Rowley wrote: "my point was that NEITHER idea about Hebrew/Jewishness/pro- or anti- Semitism is something I 'borrowed' from the Anthrax Museum website nor any other website."

    No one said it was. I never used the word "borrowed," which you put in quotes. On my web site I wrote that I THOUGHT it was a NEW theory of yours. Then I checked the link and found it was NOT a new theory. It's just a theory I read years ago and forgot about.

    The web site at the link you provided points to a specific person as being behind the anthrax attacks. That person could be labeled a "criminal mastermind."

    Just like you, that web site appears to connect all kinds of hoax letters and other crimes to that same "criminal mastermind."

    Just like you, the web site uses "linguistics" to argue the case against the "criminal mastermind."

    ""From where I sit, the Linguistic/Behavioral Analysis of Anthrax Letters appears to be etched in granite. "

    The web site says, "WARNING: *He [the "criminal mastermind"] possesses superior computer programming skills and can spoof realistic looking web pages."

    DXer says your "criminal mastermind" is a computer expert.

    Under an image of a collection of letters from the anthrax case and other crimes it says: "Penned by same person despite apparent handwriting differences"

    That is YOUR basic illogical logic argument. You argue that although the handwriting looks different, it's really all from the same "criminal mastermind."

    So, as far as I can tell, there's nothing on that site that you disagree with. Much of it is what you've been arguing here.

    And, if I recall correctly, you've been claiming that you weren't interested in the anthrax attacks from the very beginning, you just got interested in the case somewhere around .... 2005, around the time that web site was created.

    So, a good case could be made that the web site was created by YOU. I'm not saying that it is your web site. I'm just saying that it appears to argue everything you argue. And you don't need to "borrow" from a web site that argues everything you argue. Maybe the web site "borrowed" it all from you.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  33. Ed, I know the person who created the website you cite very well. He's a very nice and earnest fellow and was a frequent participant in discussions, both public and private. The FBI rejected his theory. There was a nub of physical evidence that he acted very responsibly in submitting to the FBI. Beyond that, there was no there there. Correct your claim that it was created by Richard without further delay. You need to do better correcting mistakes when they are pointed out to you. You should have corrected or taken down the post yesterday.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "I don't see what I need to correct."

      That's right, Ed. You never do.

      Delete
    2. "Anonymous" wrote: "Correct your claim that it was created by Richard without further delay."

      Is that another threat?

      All I said was that the web site was PROBABLY created by Mr. Rowley, since it seems to reflect Mr. Rowley's beliefs in all aspects.

      If you are saying Mr. Rowley did NOT create the website, I'll accept it. You have a better knowledge of individual Anthrax Truthers than I do. I changed the comment on my web site.

      Ed

      Delete
    3. I reread the comment I wrote on Sunday for my web site, and I found something that did indeed need correcting based upon the information from "Anonymous." So, I corrected it. And I changed the comment above the only way I can, by deleting the old one and writing a new one. But, "Anonymous" posted his response to my first response before I could make the change. So, his 8:58 AM post appears before my 8:59 AM re-post.

      Ed

      Delete
  34. R. Rowley wrote: "They don't strike me as "ignorant" about Amerithrax. And you've returned to invective in place of argument. Again."

    You need to study your dictionary some more. There's nothing "invective" in saying that someone appears to be ignorant. We are ALL ignorant on many many subjects.

    For over a month I've been writing on my web site about my ignorance of how a Kindle reading device works. I've been blundering through experiments, I've been reading instructions, and I've been conferring with others on blogs, to try to figure out how my Kindle is best used to "take out" library books. In spite of instructions (written by "experts") which say I can (or MUST) use a wi-fi hotspot when I "take out" a library book, the FACTS I learned during my experiments say that it CANNOT BE DONE with my specific device. I cannot download a library book directly into my Kindle via a wi-fi hotspot.

    I fully acknowledge that my ignorance could involve some trick I just don't see, but, for now, I know of no way to "take out" a library e-book for my Kindle except by downloading it into my computer and then copying it from my computer into my Kindle via the USB port.

    In the past 6 weeks, I've become VERY knowledgeable about how my Kindle works. But, I certainly could still be ignorant of some detail I just do not see.

    I'm also experimenting to reduce my ignorance of exactly what happens when I "return" a "borrowed" library e-book. The instructions say (or imply) things which simply do not appear to be true -- for my specific device.

    On my web site, I ASK people to point out errors in what I've written about the Amerithrax investigation if they are able to do so. I'm totally open to FACTS which which say I'm wrong.

    So, there's no "crime" in being ignorant. Saying someone is or appears to be ignorant of the facts is not an insult. A STUPID person might think it's an insult, but an intelligent person would either routinely accept the possibility or would want to pit his knowledge of the facts against the other person's knowledge of the facts to see who is the more ignorant.

    If you look at the statements from Rush Holt and the others you mention, their ignorance is clear. So is the reason for their ignorance. They are all busy people, and NONE of them has any reason to be an EXPERT on the evidence in the case. In Rush Holt's case, it appears he simply does not KNOW that he is ignorant of the facts. Others may not CARE about the facts because they prefer their own opinions to facts.

    The FBI and the DOJ, on the other hand, have SOLID reason to have great expertise about the evidence in the case. And I've been studying the evidence for 12 years, so, I'll pit my knowledge against anyone's.

    When I say that THE FACTS say a child wrote the anthrax letters, all anyone has to do is show me where THE FACTS really say I'm wrong, and if those facts are better than my facts, I'll admit I was wrong and accept the new facts.

    BUT, opinions and beliefs mean nothing to me. So, you can list all the people you want to list who have DIFFERENT OPINIONS OR BELIEFS and it means nothing. Anyone can have an opinion or a belief, even total lunatics or people with IQ's in the single digits. Only FACTS have meaning when the question is: Who has the best case for proving a hypothesis?

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  35. Ed, I see that it doesn't matter to you that no one is persuaded by your theory that a First Grader wrote the letters. You are a "Truther." You think only you know the truth.

    But it nonetheless would be interesting if you conducted a poll. We could see if the counter moves about 0%. As you know, the poll that was done found that a substantial majority felt that Dr. Ivins was innocent. (60%) 20% were not sure. So at least according to that poll, that would be 80% who would have voted for acquittal.

    Hypothesis: < 1% are persuaded that a First Grader wrote the letters. You could set out your argument alongside or below the poll.

    ReplyDelete

  36. If you don't want to, perhaps Mr. Rowley could and you could link it. Such polls only take a minute or less to create. I don't know the website offhand but I'm sure creating such s poll only takes seconds and is readily located upon a google search.


    ReplyDelete
  37. "Anonymous" wrote: "Ed, I see that it doesn't matter to you that no one is persuaded by your theory that a First Grader wrote the letters. You are a "Truther." You think only you know the truth."

    You just demonstrated once again that you have no understanding of science or the scientific method.

    The facts say that a child wrote the anthrax letters.

    If that is what the facts say, there is NOTHING I can do about it. If I were to DENY or IGNORE what the facts say, I would be just like you, going with beliefs instead of facts.

    At one time everyone in the world believed that the earth was flat. That did NOT make it flat. The number of people who believe in something has absolutely NOTHING to do with whether it is true or not.

    Using polls to argue what is "true" or not is just plain silly. It's ridiculous. It's the opposite of any scientific method. It's what analysts generally use to show how IGNORANT the public is.

    As Mark Twain wrote in "Huckleberry Finn": "Hain't we got all the fools in town on our side? And ain't that a big enough majority in any town?"

    I'm open to anyone who can provide FACTS which say a child did NOT write the anthrax letters. If those FACTS are BETTER FACTS than the facts which say a child wrote the letters, I would have absolutely NO problem changing my hypothesis. I'm on a continuous search for new facts, but the only facts I've found in years are facts which SUPPORT the hypothesis that a child wrote the letters.

    As you know, at one time I thought a scientist in New Jersey sent the anthrax letters. That is what the few FACTS I had at the time seemed to say.

    When the FBI provided MORE and BETTER facts that Bruce Ivins sent the letters, I gradually changed my mind (over a period of about a week) as I learned more and more about those facts.

    You, on the other hand, just stuck with your beliefs - regardless of what the facts said. That is how a "Truther" is defined. It's someone who sticks with his BELIEFS regardless of what the facts say, because he BELIEVES HE KNOWS THE TRUTH.

    A person who sticks with the FACTS regardless of what people's beliefs are is called a "scientist" or an "analyst." He makes no claim about knowing the "truth." He only claims that "This is what the facts say until better facts can be found."

    If you can only argue what polls say, obviously there's no way you are going to understand that polls mean absolutely nothing when it comes to determining what is "true" or not.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ed, the poll would not be a measure of the correctness of the theory.
      It would be a measure of whether people find your argument persuasive.
      It's called gathering polling data.

      It appears that you accept the fact that people do not find your argument persuasive. You've made the argument almost daily for the past decade of your life. If you haven't even persuaded the first person, then why do you keep bothering to do the same thing that hasn't worked in the past? Why do you keep doing the same thing over and over when it is not fruitful?


      Delete
    2. "Anonymous" wrote: "It appears that you accept the fact that people do not find your argument persuasive."

      I've never had anyone debate the facts with me. People generally just dismiss it out of hand because the hypothesis doesn't come from some "authority." They're not going to believe (or even listen to) some guy on the Internet.

      There are people who have emailed me to say they believe that a child COULD have written the letters. I've never bothered to count them, but there are probably five or six who have written me.

      I also had a journalist argue why IVINS would NOT have used a child that way. But, I showed him how Ivins WOULD have used a child that way and that his arguments were false. He changed his mind, and I think he accepts that a child most likely did the writing.

      And, as I just wrote in another comment, "There were two [handwriting experts] who considered the idea but then rejected it for some unknown reason and then just couldn't agree on anything after that. Click HERE.

      "Anonymous" also wrote: "You've made the argument almost daily for the past decade of your life."

      Nonsense. I rarely mention it except when YOU mention it as a way of arguing that your theory about who wrote the letter is better. And Rowley has taken to mentioning it frequently, too, for the same reason. So, I mention it in response to his posts.

      Ed

      Delete
  38. We could make a side bet of $1 that even your sister is not persuaded by your argument.

    ReplyDelete
  39. "Anonymous" wrote: "We could make a side bet of $1 that even your sister is not persuaded by your argument."

    My sister voted for Mitt Romney. She thought that he would win by a landslide. She wasn't persuaded by my arguments that Romney was a jerk. So, I wouldn't consider her a supreme judge of facts and evidence.

    I'd be willing to debate the issue with ANY forensic handwriting expert. From what I've seen, almost NONE of them even considered that a child might have done the handwriting. It just never occurred to them. There were two who considered the idea but then rejected it for some unknown reason and then just couldn't agree on anything after that. Click HERE

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ed, I totally understand why you don't want to create a poll that would make plain to you how unpersuasive your argument is. Perhaps Richard could create it and then we could link and distribute it.

      As for your supposed regard for facts, you didn't even know the first day of school and yet had made it an important part of your theory. Then when the correct first day of school was pointed out to you, you didn't correct it in your e-book. You showed no regard for facts at all.


      Delete
    2. "Anonymous" wrote: "Then when the correct first day of school was pointed out to you, you didn't correct it in your e-book. You showed no regard for facts at all."

      It was a minor and insignificant error that affected NOTHING about my handwriting hypothesis, so correcting it in my e-book wasn't worth the cost and effort. It's just something else that you go on and on about because you think it proves your theory is better than the mine.

      Ed

      Delete
  40. "t's just something else that you go on and on about because you think it proves your theory is better than the mine. "

    Nonsense. The first day of school has no bearing on the merits of the Fall 2001 anthrax mailings at all. Not a single person -- out of 300 million in the US -- thinks they do... except you. You asked me to discuss the facts of what you had written -- and I did. When I pointed out your mistaken factual premise, you didn't correct it. That speaks loads to your indifference to facts.

    ReplyDelete
  41. "Anonymous" wrote: "You asked me to discuss the facts of what you had written -- and I did. When I pointed out your mistaken factual premise, you didn't correct it. That speaks loads to your indifference to facts."

    Now you are just being silly. The subject you brought up was HANDWRITING, not minor and insignificant errors in my book.

    The exact date that school started in Frederick is NOT key to any "premise." And it has virtually NOTHING to do with the subject of handwriting.

    Back in November 2012, you pointed out the error to me. I had written on page 54 of my book: "The first day of school was evidently Monday, August 20."

    You pointed out that the first day of school was actually a week later, on August 27.

    And I showed that the August 27 date fits BETTER with something else I wrote on page 54:

    "Then, at some point in time, possibly around August 27, 2001, Ivins seems to have gotten an idea for the perfect way to write the letter as if it was being done by someone just learning English. And there would be no possible match to his own handwriting."

    So, Ivins got the idea to use a child to do the handwriting on the first day of school, August 27, when the child was in his home, probably after school while the child was waiting for his parents to pick him up.

    What earthly difference does it make that I thought school might have started a week earlier?

    You pointed out the date error and I acknowledged that it is an error. But, it's not an error of any more significance than a spelling error. The idea that I should revise my book to fix such a minor error is absurd. It's simply not practical. I'll fix it when and if there is reason to write an updated version. Nearly EVERY BOOK has errors. Humans make mistakes. It's what we do best.

    The FACTS say a child wrote the anthrax letters. Nothing changes if school started on the 27th instead of the 20th. There is no effect on the premise whatsoever. Anyone with any understanding of facts would understand that.

    You are just nitpicking because you have nothing of substance to argue.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  42. "The subject you brought up was HANDWRITING"

    Yes, the FBI expert in a formal handwriting report concluded that Bruce Ivins probably did not write the anthrax letters. That opinion was not disclosed in 2008 when the case was unofficially closed. It was not disclosed in 2009. In the February 2010 Amerithrax Investigation Summary it was not disclosed -- indeed it was mischaracterized.

    Dr. Majidi in his book claimed thata ll forensic reports have been produced when in fact almost NONE of the traditional forensic reports have been produced (to include on the paper, ink and photocopy toner).

    This issue of the FBI's handwriting analysis is an important issue that should be addressed by the GAO.

    ReplyDelete
  43. You are a godsend to keep reminding folks regularly that the handwriting was found to probably NOT be Dr. Bruce E. Ivins and instead that it appears to be the handwriting who had recently learned to write English. Keep up the good work.

    ReplyDelete
  44. "Anonymous" wrote: "Yes, the FBI expert in a formal handwriting report concluded that Bruce Ivins probably did not write the anthrax letters."

    Duh! I'm the one who found that report. Remember? As usual, you are getting the facts wrong.

    It was NOT an "FBI expert" who wrote about the handwriting. It was a United States Postal Inspection Service (USPIS) expert, Robert Muehlberger.

    Second, Muehlberger makes a point of saying he didn't have enough exhibits to make any kind of definitive judgement, nor did he have access to the original documents. He makes no mention of eliminating any possibility that Ivins may have disguised his handwriting to write the letters.

    So, while Muehlberger's report indirectly supports my claim that Ivins used a child to write the letters, I realize it also somewhat supports your claim that someone other than Ivins did the writing. However, anyone can look at the handwriting of the individual Muslim terrorists who you fantasize may have done the writing and easily see it is NOT their handwriting. If there are no official reports to that effect it is probably for the same reason that there are no official reports stating that the handwriting doesn't match Thomas Jefferson's handwriting on the Declaration of Independence. ANYONE can see that they do not match. No expert opinion needed.

    Moreover, it is clear that the handwriting on the anthrax documents is NOT the handwriting of an adult "who had recently learned to write English." While there might be "experts" who say it is, there are undoubtedly also "experts" who would say it is NOT the writing of an adult who just learned English.

    While I'd certainly like to see the GAO address the handwriting issue, I don't see how that is within their purview. They certainly aren't going to be "second guessing" the FBI's investigation, as you fantasize. That would be STUPID. It would be amateur detectives second guessing professional detectives. The GAO's job is presumably just to determine if the money spent on the investigation could have been spent more efficiently, AND if things should be done differently in the future.

    If the issue of the handwriting is going to ever be resolved, it would probably have to be done by a team of experts who review the facts as I've laid them out (and whatever other facts they might feel are relevant) and then write their individual opinions. Then the results would have to be hashed out in debate, since handwriting analysis is basically just "an expert's opinion."

    My hypothesis is: The facts indicate a child wrote the anthrax documents.

    Unless the facts which support that hypothesis are addressed and either disproved or shown to be less conclusive than OTHER FACTS which say an adult wrote the anthrax documents, the issue will remain unresolved and the hypothesis will remain valid.

    And it doesn't make one bit of difference what any poll or survey of bloggers says.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  45. "the FBI expert in a formal handwriting report concluded that Bruce Ivins probably did not write the anthrax letters."

    Ed writes:

    "Duh! I'm the one who found that report. Remember? As usual, you are getting the facts wrong."

    No, Ed. You pretended the opinion did not exist for a couple of years. You instead repeated the characterization in the Amerithrax Investigative Summary rather than the actual report of the FBI's expert.

    "It was NOT an "FBI expert" who wrote about the handwriting. It was a United States Postal Inspection Service (USPIS) expert, Robert Muehlberger."

    That's correct. The FBI's expert was USPIS Lab Director Robert Muehlberger.


    "Second, Muehlberger makes a point of saying he didn't have enough exhibits to make any kind of definitive judgement, nor did he have access to the original documents."

    The FBI of course had the original documents and USPIS consisted of a substantial portion of the Amerithrax Task Force. Muehlberger stands by his report.

    "He makes no mention of eliminating any possibility that Ivins may have disguised his handwriting to write the letters."

    Muehlberger is available to you be email. He stands by his opinion.

    "So, while Muehlberger's report indirectly supports my claim that Ivins used a child to write the letters..."

    No it doesn't. It simply is exculpatory of Dr. Bruce Ivins and was not disclosed by the FBI in 2008 and 2009. Instead, it was withheld and its existence was not disclosed. The report was mischaracterized. Muehlberger thinks there is no basis to your opinion.

    "I realize it also somewhat supports your claim that someone other than Ivins did the writing."

    Yes, it directly supports that conclusion and should have been disclosed by the FBI and DOJ prosecutors.


    "However, anyone can look at the handwriting of the individual Muslim terrorists who you fantasize may have done the writing and easily see it is NOT their handwriting."

    The FBI has not produced a comparison with Atta's handwriting. By failing to produce the opinion, the FBI has not yet complied with FOIA. You say "anyone can see" -- and yet you refuse to do a poll. You are operating in an "evidence free zone" and are just making mere unsupported assertions. I presume to ask that the FBI comply with FOIA -- not to engage in handwriting analysis.

    ReplyDelete
  46. (cont.)

    Ed writes:

    " They certainly aren't going to be "second guessing" the FBI's investigation, as you fantasize. That would be STUPID."

    The GAO can be expected to compare the DOJ's and FBI's characterizations of its evidence on the handwriting to the actual written reports of its experts.

    Ed writes:
    " It would be amateur detectives second guessing professional detectives."

    Ed considers the GAO investigators to be "amateur detectives" who are "second guessing professional detectives."

    The professional detective found that it was probably not Ivins' handwriting. Hopefully those experts will be interviewed and the interviews disclosed. Separately, hopefully the FBI will comply with FOIA with respect to the request for the comparison of Mohammed Atta's handwriting. The issue of the comparison with Adnan El-Shukrijumah's handwriting is somewhat more problematic given that he is not dead and there is a $5 million reward for his capture.

    Ed writes:

    "The GAO's job is presumably just to determine if the money spent on the investigation could have been spent more efficiently, AND if things should be done differently in the future."

    It wouldn't have cost anything to disclose the written opinion of the USPIS Lab Director. Senator Leahy in February 2011 said the matter "is not closed." What do you think he meant by that?

    Ed writes:

    "If the issue of the handwriting is going to ever be resolved, it would probably have to be done by a team of experts who review the facts as I've laid them out (and whatever other facts they might feel are relevant) and then write their individual opinions. Then the results would have to be hashed out in debate..."

    Ed, you should focus on obtaining documents relating to the handwriting opinions discoverable under FOIA. No one is ever going to address your opinion. Not even to take a poll on the issue. (You prudently opted not to have such a poll). No one finds your opinion that a First Grader wrote the letters credible.

    The issue is government accountability as it relates to the obligation to produce and disclose forensic opinions that tend to be exculpatory of the individual accused of murder.

    Ed writes:

    "My hypothesis is: The facts indicate a child wrote the anthrax documents."

    Yes, and not even your sister agrees with you. We know that.

    This is the mantra of what you call an Anthrax Truther. Your lack of self-awareness is amazing. Grown-ups instead focus on obtaining the forensic handwriting analysis done by the FBI's experts (to the extent discoverable) to see how it squares with the characterizations upon closing the case.

    Ed writes:

    "Unless the facts which support that hypothesis are addressed and either disproved or shown to be less conclusive than OTHER FACTS which say an adult wrote the anthrax documents, the issue will remain unresolved and the hypothesis will remain valid."

    You are a Truther. Your use of the ad hominem label to apply to dozens of leading scientists without realizing it applies to you is one reason you have not persuaded even a single solitary person on the planet -- not even your sister. You have an amazing lack of self-awareness.

    Ed writes:

    "And it doesn't make one bit of difference what any poll or survey of bloggers says."

    The poll showing that you have not persuaded anyone was just a means of helping you have a reality check. No one would even bother to respond given that your theory does not pass the "giggle" test.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Ed,

    I appreciate that you do not want to do a poll that would reveal that not even your sister agrees a First Grader wrote the letters.

    Alternatively, you or Richard could do a poll as to whether it is consistent with the handwriting of Mohammed Atta. You could post your discussion along with the poll.

    Otherwise, you should stop using phrases like "it is clear". Archibald Cox once bemusedly said with respect to such usage in advocacy that if it was clear you wouldn't be debating it.

    http://anthraxinvestigation.com/Mohamed-Atta-handwriting-comparison.html

    ReplyDelete
  48. Quote from one opinion of Mohammed Atta's handwriting:

    "It is a matter of considerable difficulty for a person to make the switch From Arabic to English, and that affects the handwriting and complicates the analysis. If we did not know Atta’s background, we might assume from his samples that the writer was not an adult, or that he had developmental difficulties, since this would be the typical explanation for the low skill level of the writing (poor letter formation, irregular spacing, etc.)"

    ReplyDelete
  49. "Anonymous" wrote: yada yada yada.

    There's no point in mindlessly repeating the same arguments over and over and over. I've got better things to do than to argue with someone who thinks that polls can somehow override what the facts say.

    "Anonymous" also wrote: "Senator Leahy in February 2011 said the matter "is not closed." What do you think he meant by that?"

    It's very clear what Senator Leahy meant by that: He AGREES that Bruce Ivins was the anthrax killer, but he doesn't accept the evidence that Ivins acted alone.

    Click HERE to read the full USA Today article which says,

    "Senate leaders on Wednesday expressed serious doubts about the FBI's assertion that Army scientist Bruce Ivins was the lone attacker in the 2001 anthrax assaults that killed five people and injured 17 others.

    A day after FBI Director Robert Mueller said he was confident in its case, Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., one of the two senators targeted in the attacks, said he believes that there are "others who could be charged with murder."

    "I do not believe in any way, shape or manner that he was the only one involved," Leahy told Mueller at a committee hearing.


    How could Senator Leahy be more clear? He thinks Ivins MUST have had help -- either direct help or people at USAMRIID were criminally careless in allowing Ivins do what he did right under their noses.

    In other words, Senator Leahy wants to charge the USAMRIID scientists who support Ivins with ACCESSORY TO MURDER and/or CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE for allowing Ivins to do what he did.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  50. Ha! Check out the new release under FOIA!

    ReplyDelete
  51. Anonymous,

    I don't have the time or interest in playing childish guessing games. Provide the link or go away.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  52. So far the polling is running 100% against your First Grader theory. (I presume you haven't voted yet which would give it one vote).

    ReplyDelete
  53. With that last challenge on nonfiction advocacy not having worked out for you, here's a second challenge.

    Syracuse -- If you think you have a novel in you, accept the challenge. National Novel Writing Month begins Nov. 1. You have until 11:59 p.m. Nov. 30 to finish a 50,000-word novel. If that sounds daunting, you can get a pep talk from some popular authors.

    "NaNoWriMo is an unbeatable way to write the first draft of a novel because it's such a powerful antidote to that horrible foe of creativity: self-doubt," said executive director Grant Faulkner in a press release.

    NaNoWriMo 2013 also has enlisted five established authors to handle its Twitter account as NaNoWriMo Coaches, answering questions and encouraging writers.

    To signup for National Novel Writing Month, go to the website.

    National Novel Writing Month, a nonprofit, was established in 1999. For the 2013 challenge, a half a million writers are expected to participate.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Anonymous,"

      Thanks, but I just started my new novel. I seriously doubt I will even have a first draft done by November 30. And it will almost certainly be a lot more than 50,000 words.

      Besides, looking at the rules, I see that I can't start before November 1. So, I've already broken the rules.

      Ed

      Delete
  54. From Saturday's comment:

    November 9, 2013 - Although it's becoming fairly rare, there still are people voicing their opinions (or ignorance) about the anthrax attacks of 2001. This morning, I noticed that Sherwood Ross has written an opinion piece article for OpEdNews.com titled "America The Beautiful's Germ Warfare Rash."[...]
    [excerpt from piece deleted]


    When Mr. Ross writes that "the perpetrator [of the anthrax attacks of 2001] was never found," is he just ignorant of the facts? Or doesn't he believe the facts? [...]
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    It's a bit more prosaic that that. The article was almost certainly written prior to late July/early August 2008, despite the date given at the top as "General News 11/9/2013 at 01:48:36". There's the constant railing about the Bush Administration, an administration that hasn't existed since January 20th, 2009. There's a passage like this: (beginning of 10th paragraph)

    "As part of its buildup, in January 2005 the Army authorized construction of a new facility at the already sprawling U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases at Fort Detrick, Maryland. According to a July 31, 2006, report in London's Guardian, Fort Detrick's National Biodefense Analysis and Countermeasures Center (NBACC), due to be completed in 2008, "will house heavily guarded[...]"

    wherein the year 2008 is being talked about prospectively (ie at a bare minimum as incomplete). Etc.

    That prompted me to do some clicking around. When I clicked on Sherwood Ross, I found a page dedicated to same which included this:

    (Under name of article) This article first appeared in The Humanist magazine five years ago. It describes USA's germ warfare research, a program that endangers the nation and is a multi-billion dollar waste of taxpayers dollars. It is reprinted here in the hope scholars will update information on this very dangerous, and apparently criminal, program.

    Personally, I think it misleading to not include that info about the date of writing at the top of the article.
    But that's the Internet for you!
    ================================================
    What Ross thinks today about Amerithrax/Ivins, I would hesitate to speculate. You'd have to find a closer-to-contemporaneous article by him.

    ReplyDelete
  55. R. Rowley wrote: "The article was almost certainly written prior to late July/early August 2008, despite the date given at the top as "General News 11/9/2013"

    Interesting. The Humanist Magazine article can be viewed by clicking HERE. It is indeed from 2007.

    I did a Google search for the first part of the article and found it mentioned on a Homeland Security page that can be viewed by clicking HERE. It says the article is from yesterday, and it provides a link to another copy of the article on mwcnews.net.

    But, clearly the article is from 2007 and that is why Ross didn't know about Bruce Ivins.

    Thanks.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  56. Please submit a FOIA request to USAMRIID for the civil depositions of Stephen Little, Gerard Andrews, Jeff Adamovicz, Russell Byrne, Arthur Frieldander, Susan Welkos, and Patricia Worsham. Thanks.

    They are discoverable under FOIA. Only brief excerpts have been uploaded.

    It won't cost you anything -- they are available in electronic form.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And can you also ask for the Peter Jahrling deposition? Thanks.

      Delete
    2. Dr. Gerard Andrews' deposition was 188 pages -- we have seen only 6 pages.

      Dr. Peter Jarhling's deposition was 116 pages -- we have seen only 8 pages.

      Delete
    3. "Anonymous" wrote: "Dr. Peter Jarhling's deposition was 116 pages -- we have seen only 8 pages."

      Jahrling was a virologist, NOT a bacteriologist. He worked in a different division at USAMRIID. What do you fantasize he could say in the sections that were omitted? Wouldn't it be all about what Jahrling did at USAMRIID, how long he knew Ivins, and other IRRELEVANT information that does nothing but establish who Jahrling is and why he is being deposed?

      No one is going to release a complete deposition if it is full of personal information about the person being deposed. That is all IRRELEVANT to the Stevens lawsuit and IT'S PERSONAL and CONFIDENTIAL. They just release the RELEVANT information that is NOT personal and confidential.

      We know from his deposition that he said:

      "But, you know, if you combine the circumstantial evidence and all of that with that flask I think if it had gone to a jury trial he [Ivins] would have been convicted. That's just my speculation.

      That opinion is RELEVANT to the Stevens case, since it says that USAMRIID didn't watch Ivins the way they should have, and via that carelessness they allowed Ivins to make the anthrax that killed Bob Stevens.

      Ed

      Delete
  57. "Anonymous" wrote: "Please submit a FOIA request to USAMRIID ..."

    An FOIA request to USAMRIID? Why? Depositions about what? Why would USAMRIID be the primary source for any depositions? FOIA requests usually have to be submitted to the primary agency, like the FBI, DOJ or DOD.

    If you think that such a request would find something of value, why haven't you submitted such requests? If you have, why not show everyone the results?

    All I can see that such depositions would provide is OPINIONS and BELIEFS about the case. There are already too many OPINIONS and BELIEFS about the case. The only thing that would interest me is some SOLID FACTS that aren't already known.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  58. FBI expert Patricia Worsham shared the B3 suite in Building 1425 with Bruce Ivins. 76 pages out of 83 of this important fact witness are yet to be produced.

    Steve Little worked on the experiment with the 52 rabbits with Bruce Ivins during that Fall 2001 period. 53 pages out of 65 of this important fact witness are yet to be produced.

    You are correct that they believe Bruce Ivins is innocent but that is not a reason to seek to obtain their sworn testimony. It would save you from the numerous basic factual mistakes you make on a regular basis in your discussion of things related to USAMRIID.

    You have a singularly incurious mind. Ironically, you are what you call a Truther. You are content to keep reasserting your beliefs rather than obtain the hundreds of pages available sworn testimony of these and other fact witnesses.

    ReplyDelete
  59. "Anonymous" wrote: "Steve Little worked on the experiment with the 52 rabbits with Bruce Ivins during that Fall 2001 period. 53 pages out of 65 of this important fact witness are yet to be produced."

    And there's no reason to believe that anything in the deposition would help resolve what Ivins was doing during the nighttime and weekend hours Ivins couldn't account for.

    The deposition questions weren't geared toward determining whether or not Ivins COULD have made the anthrax powders during those times. They were only to get OPINIONS and VIEWPOINTS from people who had NO IDEA what the facts said about HOW Ivins made the anthrax powders.

    They were all making FALSE ASSUMPTIONS. They did NOT ADDRESS THE FACTS.

    UNLESS THEY ADDRESS THE FACTS, NOTHING THEY SAY IS OF ANY VALUE.


    They falsely assume that the spores were "weaponized."

    The FACTS say the spores were NOT "weaponized."

    They falsely assume that the spores were grown in flasks.

    THE FACTS SAY the spores were grown on plates.

    They falsely assume that Ivins would have had to make special batches of spores to use in the letters.

    THE FACTS say that Ivins took spores out of the trash and used them in the letters.

    They assume that Ivins would have had to dry the spores in some kind of device like a lyopilizer.

    THE FACTS SAY Ivins simply air-dried the spores inside his biosafety cabinet.

    So, OPINIONS ARE WORTHLESS UNLESS THOSE OPINIONS ADDRESS WHAT THEY FACTS SAY INSTEAD OF BEING ONLY ABOUT FALSE ASSUMPTIONS.

    "Anonymous" also wrote: "You have a singularly incurious mind. Ironically, you are what you call a Truther. You are content to keep reasserting your beliefs rather than obtain the hundreds of pages available sworn testimony of these and other fact witnesses."

    On the contrary. Seeing that it was a matter of OPINIONS VERSUS THE FACTS, I went through all the depositions and thousands of pages of FBI files to look for what the FACTS SAID.

    The FACTS say that Ivins was the anthrax killer, and that he committed the crime right under the noses of his co-workers who had NO CLUE to what he was actually doing. And they continue to argue assumptions and beliefs against the facts.

    The only way to resolve this issue is to ask them questions which they were NOT asked in the depositions: Could Ivins had created the spores the way the FACTS say he created the spores? If not, why not?

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  60. Ed says he "went through all the depositions" -- he suggests he knows what was asked in the depositions -- and yet over 90% of the depositions has not been made available. Ed has no basis to know what they were asked in the depositions in the 90+ pages that not provided.

    Ed argues: "The only way to resolve this issue is to ask them questions they were NOT asked in the deposition." Ed, you don't know the questions that were asked in their depositions because 90% + of their depositions have not yet been provided. That's why you should ask for them. Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  61. "Anonymous" wrote: "Ed argues: "The only way to resolve this issue is to ask them questions they were NOT asked in the deposition." Ed, you don't know the questions that were asked in their depositions because 90% + of their depositions have not yet been provided. That's why you should ask for them. Thanks."

    No, that is why YOU should ask for them. You obviously feel that the missing parts contain information relevant to your personal theory. I feel the missing parts contain IRRELEVANT information about the person being deposed. It makes no sense that Maureen Stevens' lawyers (or government lawyers) would ask RELEVANT questions about the anthrax attacks and then omit them from sections of the depositions provided to the public. Conspiracy theorists might believe that, but I don't.

    Until there is some REASON to believe the the missing parts of the depositions contain NEW information RELEVANT to the anthrax investigation, I've got better things to do than waste my time asking for things I don't expect to get because it is IRRELEVANT PERSONAL INFORMATION about the person being deposed.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  62. By way of another example, the CDC has released 2000 pages under FOIA. You didn't bother to obtain or review the material -- which leads to your confusion on the subject of the CDC's findings.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Anonymous,"

      Am I confused? Why don't you cite the FACTS and show me were I'm confused. I am ALWAYS open to new FACTS.

      You do not seem to understand. The AMERITHRAX INVESTIGATION IS OVER. BRUCE IVINS WAS IDENTIFIED AS THE KILLER.

      I'm only interested in filling in the blanks. I rely on YOU to find any evidence which says the FBI is wrong, and in the FIVE YEARS since Ivins was shown to be the culprit, YOU HAVE FOUND NO FACTS WHICH SAY OTHERWISE.

      Ed

      Delete
    2. Why would anyone bother to correct the confusion of a fellow who has spent 10 years arguing a First Grader wrote the anthrax letters? I only asked you to request copies of the depositions because I knew you wouldn't -- thus revealing that it is you who is not interested in learning the facts. You seem not to understand that the nature of the civil depositions was precisely to explore the factual issues relating to the Fall 2001 anthrax mailings and the FBI's "Ivins Theory." You may think them irrelevant because the DOJ and Stevens counsel and FBI counsel and USAMRIID counsel did not have the same interest in First Graders that you do -- but that's because you are a True Believer.

      Delete
    3. "Anonymous" wrote: "You seem not to understand that the nature of the civil depositions was precisely to explore the factual issues relating to the Fall 2001 anthrax mailings and the FBI's "Ivins Theory."

      NONSENSE. You seem not to understand that they were NOT looking at EVIDENCE in the case against Bruce Ivins. They were NOT looking at the FACTS of the case against Bruce Ivins. They were ONLY looking at whether or not the U.S. Government was responsible for Bob Steven's death.

      They were looking at (1) whether the U.S. Government failed to secure the materials SOMEONE used to kill Bob Stevens.

      They were looking at (2) whether the U.S. Government was responsible for securing the materials used to kill Stevens.

      They were looking to (3) determine if the U.S. Government was liable under the law in the death of Bob Stevens.

      They were looking to (4) determine how much the U.S. Government should pay in damages IF it was shown they were responsible and liable.

      They didn't even care if the anthrax that killed Stevens came from USAMRIID. They didn't even care who sent it. They only needed to show that the U.S. government was "engaging in ultra-hazardous activities," and as a result of failing to control those activities, someone sent anthrax to the AMI building in Florida where it killed Bob Stevens.

      I am always interested in finding new FACTS. But, I am not interested in wild goose chases to dig through IRRELEVANT documents to see if they might somehow provide information to support YOUR theory.

      If after TWELVE YEARS you haven't been able to find ANY real evidence to support your theory, maybe you should start considering the idea that YOUR THEORY COULD BE NONSENSE. Don't ask me to try to help you prove your theory. I work with the FACTS. And the FACTS say your theory is nonsense.

      You may believe the FBI made a mistake and that someone other than Ivins sent the letters, but without PROOF to support your belief, you are just a "True Believer" who believes what he wants to believe, who believe he knows "the TRUTH," and who doesn't care about any facts which say he's wrong.

      Ed

      Delete
  63. "Anonymous,"

    There is a video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xhnw_tUyGGo which says that depositions are mostly about gathering PERSONAL information to see whether you are a credible witness or not.

    There is another video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEzPwuvJM-Q which explains what depositions are all about.

    The person taking the deposition already has the evidence in the case. The deposition is NOT part of the investigation. All they are looking for is to find out whether or not the person being deposed would be a GOOD witness.

    So, the chances are that the bulk of the deposition is just PERSONAL questions to see if the person being deposed would be credible on the stand or not. That is why that kind of information isn't included in the sections they make public.

    You may want to see it anyway because you are on a "fishing expedition" looking for something, anything that would support your beliefs, but it appears to be a total waste of time for me.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  64. Ed asks "Am I confused?" If you had accepted my offer of the 2000 pages CDC produced under FOIA -- or relied upon the CDC reports rather than news articles or internet posts by third parties not involved in the investigation -- you would not be so confused as to what the CDC found.

    For example, part of your confusion stems from you not realizing that the range of incubation periods, according to the CDC, was 5-11.

    The incubation period from the time of exposure to onset of symptoms when known (seven) was 7 days (range: 5--11 days).

    http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5043a1.htm

    ReplyDelete
  65. You might start with Jeanne Guillemin's chronicling of the CDC investigation in American Anthrax. Or Leonard Cole's book on the subject. Both conducted in-person interviews with named sources. The CDC documents explain that the reason they knew there were two letters is because they took different routes through the post offices. It took you years to realize that there were two letters. Two letters, two AMI publications. Then you just proceeded to engage in spreading errors about the JLo letter -- such as your error as to incubation period found by the CDC.

    ReplyDelete
  66. Ed writes:

    One key source of information about these two letters is a report by the CDC dated October 2002 which says this about the so-called "J-Lo letter":

    The index patient’s [Bob Stevens'] infection most likely occurred from inhalation of B. anthracis spores following a primary aerosolization, i.e., spores released into the air after opening a spore-containing letter. This scenario is consistent with co-workers’ recollections that the index patient held a letter containing powder over his computer keyboard, as well as environmental samples showing contamination at his keyboard, an incoming-mail desk near his workspace, and his mailroom mailbox.

    Then rather than citing the CDC that the range of exposure was 5-11 days, he argues:

    "According to the Mayo Clinic, "In most cases, symptoms develop within seven days of exposure to the bacteria." That fits with BOTH anthrax cases at AMI and the opening of the letter by Stephanie Dailey."

    Ed writes: "The onset date for Bob Stevens' symptoms was September 30, ...

    Exposure to the J-Lo letter on September 19 would mean an incubation period of 11 days for Blanco and 12 days for Stevens."

    No, Ed. Your confusion also was due to a basic math error. The difference between September 30 and September 19 is 11, not 12.

    Now do I really also have to tell you that there is zero reason to think a First Grader wrote the letters? We try not to run over squirrels crossing the street but we don't bother to get out of the car and given them traffic safety lessons.

    ReplyDelete
  67. Note that the minimum time for onset was 5 days -- further demonstrating your error.

    If you hadn't misrepresented the CDC finding on the incubation periods observed you could have avoided your confusion.

    ReplyDelete
  68. Update: Investigation of Bioterrorism-Related Anthrax and Interim ...
    www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5043a1.htm‎
    Nov 2, 2001 - Update: Investigation of Bioterrorism-Related Anthrax and Interim .... to onset of symptoms when known (seven) was 7 days (range: 5--11 days).

    ReplyDelete
  69. "Anonymous" wrote: "For example, part of your confusion stems from you not realizing that the range of incubation periods, according to the CDC, was 5-11."

    You are just grasping at straws, trying to create some issue where there is no issue. The Mayo Clinic says that "In most cases, symptoms develop within seven days of exposure to the bacteria." In other words, taking LONGER than 7 days to show symptoms is NOT NORMAL.

    The range of incubation periods for the victims of the attacks just shows that some were within the normal range and some were not. Blanco and Stevens were WITHIN the normal range if they were infected by the Stephanie Dailey letter, they were NOT WITHIN the normal range if they were infected by the J-Lo letter.

    "Anonymous" also wrote: " It took you years to realize that there were two letters."

    Two letters? I'm not sure what you mean. I could have known about the J-Lo letter before I learned about the Stephanie Dailey letter. I don't recall that to be the case. What difference does it make? There was only ONE letter which the FACTS say contained anthrax: the Stephanie Dailey letter. The FACTS say the J-Lo letter did NOT contain anthrax.

    "Anonymous" also wrote: "The difference between September 30 and September 19 is 11, not 12."

    Good point. I'll make the correction to my web page about the J-Lo letter. The time between exposure and the onset of symptoms should have been 11 days for Stevens, 9 days for Blanco.

    I state on the J-Lo Letter page that it is "not impossible" for it to take that long after exposure to show symptoms. The point I was making was that - IF there were two anthrax letters, based upon the length of time between exposure and onset of symptoms, their infections MORE LIKELY resulted from exposure to the Stephanie Dailey letter than exposure to the J-Lo letter.

    11 days is not out of the question, but 5 days would be more "typical."

    The onset dates are just one of SIX facts I use to show that the Stephanie Dailey letter contained the anthrax, NOT the J-Lo letter.

    I'm looking for MORE FACTS which would SETTLE the issue one way or the other. You, as a True Believer, seem to feel that facts do not matter, all that matters is what you BELIEVE. You BELIEVE that the J-Lo letter contained anthrax. And you do not care that the FACTS say that the J-Lo letter did NOT contain anthrax. You ignore FACTS which say you are wrong, and only consider OPINIONS and BELIEFS which say you are right.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ed writes: "In other words, taking LONGER than 7 days to show symptoms is NOT NORMAL."

      Your use of the word "normal" suggests you don't know anything about statistics or the calculation of means, mean or mode. 5 days was the low end of the range. 11 days was on the high end of the range found by the CDC. You could take the incubation periods and identify the mean, median and mode. "Typical" and "normal" has led to your confusion and distortion -- your outright misrepresentation -- of the CDC findings. Now you can disagree with the CDC findings if you like. And we won't hold you to understanding math from the 7th grade. But don't misrepresent the CDC findings.

      And if you disagree with the CDC's conclusion that there were two letters based on the routes through the different post offices, that's fine. Who cares? You don't even seem aware of it. But don't pretend it doesn't exist. Dude, it's not your job to settle anything. It's your job not to misrepresent the CDC's findings.

      Delete
    2. You claimed that Stevens' incubation period was 4 days -- when that is in fact outside the range. On your page on this subject, the letter was opened on the 26th. 30-26 = 4. 4 days is OUTSIDE the range of incubation period found by the CDC. There is no point in trying to explain things to you Ed because basic math eludes you.

      Delete
    3. "Anonymous" wrote; "5 days was the low end of the range. 11 days was on the high end of the range found by the CDC."

      You seem incapable of understanding basic reasoning. According to The Mayo Clinic,"In most cases, symptoms develop within seven days of exposure to the bacteria."

      According to the CDC, in the Amerithrax case, the times between exposure and the onset of symptoms were in the 5 to 11 day range.

      Those are two different kinds of statistics. One is general, the other is about a specific series of cases.

      The Mayo Clinic data is used to define what is "normal." The CDC data shows that some of the Amerithrax cases fell beyond of what would be considered "normal."

      So, the fact that an eleven day incubation period for a MASSIVE exposure is outside of the norm does NOT mean that it is impossible. It just means that there is reason to look for another source for the exposure.

      "Anonymous" also wrote: "Dude, it's not your job to settle anything."

      No, it's not a "job." It's a hobby. It's what I've been trying to do for 12 years: Settle the disputes between BELIEFS and FACTS.

      "Anonymous" also wrote: "You claimed that Stevens' incubation period was 4 days -- when that is in fact outside the range."

      It is NOT outside of any range for the "normal" time between exposure and the onset of symptoms.

      Stephanie Dailey opened the anthrax letter on the 24th or 25th. I used the 26th as a likely exposure date since Stevens worked late on the 26th and could have been exposed to the cleaning crew blowing spores into the air as they vacuumed the rugs. It's just a "likely" scenario. He could have been exposed on the 24th or 25th.

      "Anonymous" also wrote: "It's your job not to misrepresent the CDC's findings."

      Wouldn't that also mean it your job to not misrepresent the FBI's findings? Isn't that what you do every day?

      I see it as my "job" to show the CDC was wrong IF THE FACTS SAY THE CDC WAS WRONG. I would like to see any dispute resolved with solid facts. There's a dispute between what the CDC says "most likely" happened and what the FACTS say "most likely" happened.

      You keep saying, the CDC drew some kind of conclusion that there were two anthrax letters based upon different routes through different post offices. I don't recall where that "conclusion" was documented. If you want me to comment on it, you need to provide a reference. I don't have the time to hunt for it.

      Ed

      Delete
  70. "Anonymous,"

    Think about it. According to your theory, Bob Stevens held the J-Lo letter in front of his face and sniffed it. Yet, it took ELEVEN DAYS for him to show symptoms of anthrax exposure.

    With the MASSIVE exposure you fantasize, he should have been in agony within THREE days.

    Plus, the facts say that the OLDER a person is, the easier it is to become infected with anthrax. Stevens was 63. He should have become infected very quickly. There is NO explanation or logic for why it took ELEVEN days. The FACTS therefore say that the J-Lo letter did NOT contain anthrax. Stevens was infected by the letter Stephanie Dailey opened on the 25th, his exposure was NOT massive, and it took Stevens just FIVE days to show symptoms.

    No matter how you look at the FACTS, the FACTS say that Stevens was infected by the letter opened by Stephanie Dailey.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  71. Ed,

    You have failed to note the medical opinion by the examining doctor who published in the Journal of New England of Journal Medicine.

    On the JLo letter, don't misrepresent the expert conclusions published in the journals. For example, a key expert evidence on this issue of the Jennifer Lopez letter is found in the New England Journal of Medicine in which Stevens’ doctor concludes that the letter, opened 9/19 and resulting in symptoms appearing 9/30, evidenced an incubation period consistent with inhalational anthrax. Mrs. Stevens explained: “They get strange letters sometimes, and the consensus seems to be that if Robert wasn’t wearing his glasses and if it was something funny, he would hold the letters up to his face. They think perhaps that’s how he got it. Just bad luck.”

    If you think a First Grader wrote the anthrax letters based on the "FACTS" as you imagine, you go for it, guy. You approach "FACTS" in a very unique way. It's been 10 years and you haven't persuaded a single person -- good luck on the next 10.

    ReplyDelete
  72. "Anonymous" wrote: "a key expert evidence on this issue of the Jennifer Lopez letter is found in the New England Journal of Medicine in which Stevens’ doctor concludes that the letter, opened 9/19 and resulting in symptoms appearing 9/30, evidenced an incubation period consistent with inhalational anthrax."

    So what? No one said it would be "impossible" for Stevens to have been exposed on the 19th and first show symptoms on the 30th.

    The doctor is NOT any definitive source on WHEN Stevens was exposed.

    All I'm saying is that it is MORE LOGICAL and MORE LIKELY that Stevens was exposed to anthrax after Stephanie Dailey opened the letter that THE FACTS say contained the anthrax.

    You endlessly argue OPINIONS against the FACTS. OPINIONS DO NOT OUTWEIGH THE FACTS. Ten million opinions are not equal to one solid fact.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  73. Ed Lake isn't even aware of the CDC finding that the fact that there two letters was evidence by its extensive sampling of the post offices showing two distinct trails. I offered him the hundreds of pages of documents obtained from FOIA relating to the CDC's published finding -- the documents relating to the actual sampling -- and he declined them. He has a singularly incurious mind and consciously avoids citing the CDC's published findings and the medical expert. Ed, you need to read more -- it would help you avoid wasting time making very basic mistakes.

    ReplyDelete
  74. "Anonymous" wrote: "Ed Lake isn't even aware of the CDC finding that the fact that there two letters was evidence by its extensive sampling of the post offices showing two distinct trails."

    I recall that there was some dispute about that. I thought it was resolved when it was realized that the one and only anthrax letter opened at AMI was addressed to the National Enquirer's FORMER location in Lantana, Florida. It then had to be forwarded to their new address at the AMI building in Boca Raton. That made it appear that there were two letters containing anthrax, but there was really only one.

    "Anonymous" also wrote: " He has a singularly incurious mind and consciously avoids citing the CDC's published findings and the medical expert."

    I'm interested in resolving disputes between OPINIONS and FACTS. If the FACTS say that the CDC or some "expert" is wrong, then they are wrong and will remain wrong until NEW facts can be found which prove otherwise. PERIOD.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Looking at the CDC chart HERE which shows the route the anthrax letters took, the only question would be why the Blue Lake Post Office tested positive for anthrax spores.

      One guess could be a second letter. But a far more likely explanation would be cross contamination. A second letter theory would require some explanation for why 2 letters bound for the same place went different routes between the West Palm Beach Post Office and the Boca Raton Substation. There doesn't seem to be any logical explanation for that. Logic says Blue Lake got exposed due to cross contamination.

      The CDC's chart might show two routes, but they have ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE of two letters leaving behind the spores.

      Ed

      Delete
  75. And yet you don't cite the CDC published finding -- remaining content in your confusion and mistake.

    ReplyDelete
  76. "Anonymous" wrote: "And yet you don't cite the CDC published finding"

    You're the one who is using it as evidence of something. That makes it your chore to provide the link to the source.

    I just provided a link to the CHART HERE which can be interpreted to mean there were two letters. But, such an interpretation would be STUPID, since there is nothing to show any letter moved between the Blue Lake PO and the Boca Substation, only an ASSUMPTION.

    The FACTS suggest that the Blue Lake PO was contaminated by a bag or cross contaminated mail from the ONE anthrax letter that passed through the West Palm Beach Post Office. The are NO FACTS which say any anthrax letter traveled between Blue Lake and the Boca Substation. That would just be an Anthrax Truther assumption and belief.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  77. Review of Fall 2001 Anthrax Bioattacks

    http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/nas/rdrp/appendices/chapter6/a6-45.pdf
    also

    http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/terrorism/anthrax.html

    Boca Raton, Florida: Robert Stevens, 63, a photo editor at the AMI tabloid newspaper Sun, died of inhalation anthrax. He was apparently exposed prior to departing on vacation 26 Sept. 2001 and fell ill 30 Sept. Stephens was brought to JFK Medical Center in Palm Beach at 0230 on 2 Oct.; four hours later he was comatose. Anthrax was suspected the same day by hospital staff and confirmed by the CDC on 4 Oct. Stevens died the afternoon of 5 Oct. Tests found anthrax at AMI offices at 5401 Broken Sound Blvd. in Boca Raton, FL; the building was subsequently quarantined. Unconfirmed reports suggest that the source was a letter received in late Sept. addressed to singer Jennifer Lopez. Two mailroom workers tested positive for exposure to anthrax. One of these workers, E. Blanco, 73, was hospitalized and subsequently diagnosed with inhalational anthrax 15 Oct.; he recovered and left the hospital about 24 Oct. Two hospitalized co-workers turned out to have pneumonia and recovered. On 13 Oct. five more employees were found to have been exposed to anthrax. Traces of anthrax were found in a Boca Raton post office on 15 Oct. and later in two additional post offices (in Boca Raton and Lake Worth). Two suspected terrorists in the 11 Sept. attacks rented an apartment in Delray Beach from the wife of the Sun's editor, although this is believed coincidental.

    ReplyDelete
  78. "Anonymous" inexplicably quoted a CDC "Review of Fall 2001 Anthrax Attacks" which says: "Unconfirmed reports suggest that the source was a letter received in late Sept. addressed to singer Jennifer Lopez.

    And, "Two suspected terrorists in the 11 Sept. attacks rented an apartment in Delray Beach from the wife of the Sun's editor, although this is believed coincidental."

    This document CONFIRMS my contention that "Anonymous" has no facts to support his beliefs about the J-Lo letter.

    Evidently this is just some kind of attempt to throw up a smoke screen to cover over the fact that the CDC never said there was any evidence from post office samplings that there were TWO anthrax letters. All there is is a CDC chart HERE which Anthrax Truthers have ridiculously interpreted as indicating there were two anthrax letters.

    It would greatly help if Anthrax Truthers would EXPLAIN their case instead of simply presenting documents and IMPLYING that the document contains something worthwhile, and that anyone who can't see what is worthwhile just isn't looking hard enough.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. My records show that I read and saved that CDC file on November 21, 2009. It just didn't contain anything of value to make it memorable to me.

      Looking it over again, however, I see that there is a chart at the bottom of page 5 and into page 6 that says the anthrax letter to AMI was mailed on the same day as the other media letters, September 18. It says nothing about any second letter. In fact, it says there was only ONE letter to AMI. And, the facts say a letter or package postmarked on September 18 in Trenton could not have been opened by Bobby Bender in Boca Raton, Florida, the next day, particularly if it traveled by truck and left a trail through post offices.

      Thank you, "Anonymous," for bringing this document which supports my position to my attention. It helps confirm that there was only ONE anthrax letter, that letter was the one opened by Stephanie Dailey, and the CDC never provided any proof of a second letter containing antrhax.

      Ed

      Delete
  79. It may be that the FBI’s confusion related to the difficulty of applying the documents to the floor plan — understanding that the keycard entry was used in entering the suite that included the rooms where the 52 rabbits were kept.

    New developments today:

    1. USAMRIID today has provided me a copy of the animal protocol, B01-11, relating to the 52 rabbits in early October 2001 and that Dr. Ivins was tasked with monitoring for the next 7 days. The 52 rabbits had been moved into the two animal rooms in the hot suite B3 on September 24, 2001. The cages were cleaned in-place given the containment that was required. The protocol will be uploaded to the FOIA Reading Room under “Protocols”.

    2. Separately, JAG has copies of the civil depositions from United States v. Stevens for any requestor who wants them (submit a request to the wonderful Sandra J CIV USARMY MEDCOM USAMRMC (US) Rogers).

    By helping people get on the “same page,” USAMRIID has worked hard to make itself part of the solution rather than part of the problem.

    ReplyDelete
  80. "Anonymous" wrote: "USAMRIID today has provided me a copy of the animal protocol, B01-11, relating to the 52 rabbits in early October 2001 and that Dr. Ivins was tasked with monitoring for the next 7 days ...." yada yada yada.

    So what? Let us know if you find something that proves something. You've been trying to prove something for over TWELVE YEARS without ever accomplishing anything at all. So, there's no reason for anyone to think that you can find anything meaningful now.

    The protocols mean NOTHING unless you can (1) prove the protocols were followed, (2) prove when items on the protocol were done, (3) prove where they were done, and (3) prove who did them. And, even then they wouldn't prove anything if completing the protocol tasks still leaves enough time for Bruce Ivins do what he needed to do to make the anthrax powders.

    You can collect all the documents you want, but unless you can prove they mean something, you are just wasting your time and everyone else's time who reads this forum. You've never been able to prove any document means anything toward proving your theory.

    I'm looking forward to you trying to EXPLAIN something meaningful with all these documents you've now got available to you. But, I'm assuming that you're just going to argue that because you've read them, that makes you more knowledgeable than everyone else, and therefore you are right and everyone else is wrong. I.e., standard Anthrax Truther blather.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete