Sunday, March 9, 2014

Subject: Belief-based arguments

What we seem to really need is to have is one of Dr. Ivins' co-workers try to argue his or her beliefs against the solid facts which show that Ivins was the anthrax killer.  Such a conversation might go something like this:

Believer: The case against Bruce Ivins is full of holes.

Researcher: What makes you say that?  Like what?

Believer: It would have been impossible for Dr. Ivins to have grown all the spores in all the letters in shaking flasks without someone noticing what he was doing.  Even with the shakers running 24-hours a day, it would have taken him about a year!

Researcher: But, the facts say that the spores weren't grown in shaking flasks.  They were grown in autoclave biosafety bags in a corner somewhere - probably in his lab.

Believer: What facts?

Researcher: First of all, the spore powders contained traces of agar.  You use agar when growing spores in plates.  You do not use agar in shaking flasks.  Secondly, there was no sign of the kind of growth media they use in shaking flasks.   Thirdly, the spores showed signs of growing "under stress," which occurs when they grow at less than the ideal temperatures in an incubator.

Believer: Where did you read that?  They didn't say that in the Amerithrax Investigative Summary.

Researcher: It's in the supporting documents.   The University of Maryland assisted with the testing, and they found traces of agar in both the New York Post and the Leahy powders.

Believer: It would still have taken a lot of plates and a lot of time, wouldn't it?  People would have noticed.

Researcher: No, it wouldn't and they wouldn't. Growing spores on plates was part of Ivins' job.  He would inoculate about 180 plates a day when preparing for challenges.  And, according to the National Academy of Sciences, it would only have taken 463 plates to grow all the spores in all the powders.  Ivins used 546 plates for some mice tests shortly before the attacks.  If you leave those plates in autoclave bags for a week or two, you'll have all the spores needed for the letters.  And, if anyone noticed the autoclave bags lying around, they didn't say anything, because Ivins was known to leave such things lying around for weeks.  They'd grown used to it.  So, no one ever said anything.  And, he used flask RMR-1029 as the source for the seed spores, so the spores on those plates would be exact matches to what was in the letters.

Believer:  But Ivins would have had to dry the spores.  Ivins didn't know how to dry spores, and he couldn't possibly have used the lyophilizer that was located in Suite B3.

Researcher: That's just more nonsense.  Every microbiologist knows how to dry spores.  They all know that if they leave a Petri dish inoculated with anthrax alone, in a couple weeks it will be covered with DRY spores.  Like everything else, anthrax spores will dry all by themselves if left exposed to the air.  Ivins could dry all the spores he needed in 2 and a half hours inside the bio-safety cabinet in his lab.  He could speed up the drying process by adding heat.  He certainly didn't need a lyophilizer.  The FBI and DOJ only mentioned the lyophilizer because Ivins lied and claimed he didn't know how to use it.  Plus, they could not prove that Ivins did NOT dry the attack spores using the lyophilizer.  The idea that Ivins wouldn't have known how to clean up after himself is just more nonsense.

Believer:  But, but, but, there are people who claim the spores were weaponized with silica.  Ivins didn't know how to do that.

Researcher: The spores were NOT weaponized with silica.  Silicon from the growth media gets absorbed into spore coats when spores are grown at room temperature.  Ivins grew the spores at room temperature in autoclave bags in a corner of his lab.  It's just crazy to assume that because it is the standard procedure at USAMRIID to grow spores in an incubator at higher temperatures, that a microbiologist like Ivins wouldn't know that spores can also grow at room temperatures.  There's testimony from witnesses who looked at plates Ivins left around inside autoclave bags for weeks, and those plates were covered with dry or nearly dry anthrax spores.  And, any competent microbiologist knows that if you let spores dry in the open air they can aerosolize all by themselves and kill you.  Nature makes them that way.

Believer: There's no proof that Ivins knew that silicon would be absorbed into spore coats from the growth media.

Researcher: So what?  Ivins made the spores in flask RMR-1030, and 6 percent of those spores had the same silicon signature as the attack spores.  So, there IS proof that Ivins could create spores with that silicon signature -- even if he didn't know what he was doing.  It's so easy to do that he could do it unintentionally.

Believer:  Well, I don't care what the facts say, I'm going to believe what I want to believe.

Researcher:  Yes, I know.

Ed

192 comments:

  1. Ed Lake also thinks the facts establish a First Grader wrote the letters. End of story.

    ReplyDelete
  2. "Anonymous" wrote: "Ed Lake also thinks the facts establish a First Grader wrote the letters. End of story."

    Because your mind is closed, for YOU it's the "end of story." For those who are not closed-minded True Believers like you, it's just a very interesting hypothesis in search of additional evidence which will either support or disprove the hypothesis. The evidence will say whether the hypothesis is true or not. Your unshakable, unreasoned BELIEFS will alter nothing.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  3. Adamovicz, Andrews, Little, Worsham, Byrne, Friend, Welkos and Friedlander powerfully explained Dr. Ivins’ innocence. They are microbiologists or laboratory technicians whereas you are not. They are all familiar with the lab and its operation whereas you are not. Your belief a First Grader wrote the letters evidences a lack of common sense.

    If you fancy yourself a "researcher," you would obtain the civil deposition of Reynolds M. Salerno and upload it. He is an expert on biosecurity who with a team of experts conducted field investigation at the USAMRIID whereas you are not. He published the authoritative treatise on biosecurity. You should make it a priority to learn what he has said in his 250 pages of sworn testimony.

    ReplyDelete
  4. "Anonymous" wrote: "They are microbiologists or laboratory technicians whereas you are not. They are all familiar with the lab and its operation whereas you are not."

    You need to learn that IT WAS THE FBI that determined that Bruce Ivins was the anthrax killer. Not me. All I did was compare their evidence from scientists with solid facts against the ridiculous, uninformed beliefs of the scientists you endlessly rely upon.

    Mr. Salerno would have nothing new to add. You just get excited because he says that it's impossible to run a totally secure lab. That allows you to fantasize that Muslim terrorists could somehow have gotten the spores used in the anthrax attacks. Your prefer fantasies to facts. That's been established repeatedly.

    Ivins was the anthrax killer. The FACTS say so. End of story. Nothing is changed by the uninformed beliefs of people who have conjured up other theories, or by co-workers who do not want to admit they had no clue what Ivins was doing.

    There ARE scientists who know Ivins had the ability to make the anthrax powders. They know it because they know how easy it was to do. Some of them were also Ivins' co-workers. The scientists who argue Ivins couldn't have done it are scientists who are simply demonstrating that they are ignorant of how Ivins did it.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  5. Ed, you serve no purpose to me unless you do what I say as I'm not interested in your First Grader theory.

    You will obtain the Peter Jahrling civil deposition and then you will upload it.

    I will obtain the civil deposition by the government's expert, Reynolds M. Salerno, and then you also will upload that. Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  6. "Anonymous" wrote: "Ed, you serve no purpose to me unless you do what I say .."

    I have absolutely NO desire to serve any purpose to you. And, I don't like being ordered to do things.

    "You will obtain the Peter Jahrling civil deposition and then you will upload it."

    If I see a link to it somewhere, I'll look the deposition over and decide if it's worth uploading or not. It might be interesting only because Jahrling famously showed he was ignorant of bacteriology and virtually everything about anthrax.

    "I will obtain the civil deposition by the government's expert, Reynolds M. Salerno, and then you also will upload that."

    I think I'll just pass on that --- only because you ordered me to upload it. Otherwise, even though it has no real value, I probably would have added the link to the docket file without comment.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  7. The evidence indicates that the powder in the J-Lo letter was what everyone originally thought it was: laundry detergent.
    ===============================================
    What "evidence"? Does the report you obtained via FOIA say anything about testing for laundry detergent? (if so, then quote it).

    But if it (the FOIA-obtained document) doesn't say anything about "laundry detergent", then that's just you impermissibly mixing in your own beliefs with the contents of a search report.

    Also, a person with no prior knowledge of the AMI situation wouldn't know from your summary:

    1) there were (at least) two tabloids headquartered at AMI in Sep-Oct 2001: THE SUN and THE NATIONAL ENQUIRER. And these were physically separate in the building.

    2) the fatally-exposed victim, Bob Stevens, NEVER had occasion to handle/open ENQUIRER mail, as he worked for THE SUN. Also he worked on the third floor and the most contaminated floor was the first (ie where the mailroom was) followed by the second. Meaning Stevens worked in the least contaminated floor of the building.

    3) Stevens normally only opened his own mail but on Sept 19th, 2001 he (and a few others?) filled in for the absent correspondence editor. Sixteen days later Stevens died of inhalational anthrax. There was no other day temporally close to his sickness onset in which he filled in for the correspondence editor. There is no OTHER known powder-bearing letter that Stevens handled in the entire month of September.

    THAT'S why people think the powder-containing letter he looked at on Sept 19th
    killed him. No 'search' conducted months later was going to gainsay that, because those were established facts by the end of 2001. Established by the CDC. And the search conducted could only tell where given amounts of anthrax powder were found months later. Of interest but not telling.

    (And, by the way, there's no reason the sender couldn't have mixed anthrax spores in with laundry detergent. The latter would have seemed a familiar, harmless smell and would have made more likely a casual attitude toward the powder).

    Graysmith's book is very good on this:

    http://books.google.com/books?id=fy6dcvs0UvoC&pg=PT15&lpg=PT15&dq=j-lo+letter+amerithrax&source=bl&ots=mQEppM-gq9&sig=QHygDlKQq68eAf1JmljP9SyehNM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=HGEfU8vFE7PCyAHS44CQDQ&ved=0CCQQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=j-lo%20letter%20amerithrax&f=false

    ReplyDelete
  8. R. Rowley wrote: "if it (the FOIA-obtained document) doesn't say anything about "laundry detergent", then that's just you impermissibly mixing in your own beliefs with the contents of a search report."

    You're not paying attention. The FOIA report says NOTHING AT ALL about the J-Lo letter because the J-Lo letter had absolutely NOTHING to do with the anthrax that killed Bob Stevens and contaminated the AMI building.

    I only brought the J-Lo letter up because I sent in the FOIA request to get the FBI report to see if it shows that the J-Lo letter had nothing to do with the case. The report doesn't even mention the J-Lo letter. The J-Lo letter is just a popular subject for Anthrax Truthers who see evidence where there is no evidence, and they ignore the evidence that really exists.

    "What "evidence"?

    All only details we have about the J-Lo letter come from the people who were around when it was opened and who were still alive a month afterward. I provided the link to the article in The National Enquirer where their story was told. Here's the link: http://www.anthraxinvestigation.com/misc2.html#ne011031

    It says: “As he opened it, I saw a metal cigar tube – obviously the cylinder I’;d felt – with a cheap cigar inside.” Said West. “There was also an empty can of chewing tobacco and a small detergent carton" It also says the powder inside the letter was PINK.

    Stevens didn't have to open the anthrax letter to be exposed. Bobby Bender opened the J-Lo letter, and he tested negative for exposure.

    Nor did Stevens have to "handle" the powder. The spores AEROSOLIZED. Stephanie Dailey tested positive for exposure. All Stevens had to do was inhale some spores. Evidently, he was more susceptible to anthrax than others in the building.

    You're setting up preposterous rules for how a person can get anthrax. According to your rules, Kathy Nguyen, Ottilie Lundgren and the infected postal employees must also have OPENED up anthrax letters. That's TOTAL nonsense. They just inhaled a few spores, and they were particularly susceptible to anthrax infection. Others (like Stephanie Dailey and others who worked in the AMI mailroom) probably inhaled far more spores and were unaffected.

    The J-Lo letter had NOTHING to do with the anthrax that killed Bob Stevens.

    Bob Stevens was killed by the anthrax in the letter opened by Stephanie Dailey.

    Bob Stevens died because he was MORE SUSCEPTIBLE to anthrax that the others at AMI who were also exposed.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. R. Rowley wrote: "if it (the FOIA-obtained document) doesn't say anything about "laundry detergent", then that's just you impermissibly mixing in your own beliefs with the contents of a search report."

      You're not paying attention. The FOIA report says NOTHING AT ALL about the J-Lo letter because the J-Lo letter had absolutely NOTHING to do with the anthrax that killed Bob Stevens and contaminated the AMI building
      ==============================================
      The FOIA report says nothing about the J-Lo letter because it's a report about a search. Since Mister Lake loves repetition and capitalization, let me repeat that: a SEARCH, a SEARCH, a SEARCH, a SEARCH, a SEARCH.

      No search is going to examine letters that were incinerated many months before the search began. On account of they no longer exist. It has nothing to do with some (pre-established) notion by the searchers in question as to the source letter or letters. Indeed the search's purpose was to take 'biological samples' and seize 'items of evidence' for further examination. Had the J-Lo letter still been there, had the Stephanie Dailey-infecting letter still been there, both would have been examined/seized for further examination. If only to subsequently rule one or the other out as vectors. But again, they no longer existed.

      Delete
    2. R. Rowley wrote: "No search is going to examine letters that were incinerated many months before the search began."

      The PURPOSE of the search was to find more EVIDENCE to help determine the EXACT source of the contamination.

      The search found NOTHING to support any theory about the J-Lo letter containing anthrax. The search ONLY found evidence which says that there was only ONE anthrax letter opened at AMI, and it was opened by Stephanie Dailey at her desk.

      You just cannot put two and two together to see how evidence can show there was only one letter without actually finding and examining BOTH letters. You need absolute and undeniable proof, or you'll just continue to believe what you want to believe.

      Ed

      Delete
  9. Here's a link to a Newsweek article which says that the J-Lo letter contained what was described as a “soapy, powdery substance”: http://www.nbcnews.com/id/3067576/#.UyC3IM6mUwE

    Plus, this comment from R. Rowley is incorrect: "THAT'S why people think the powder-containing letter he looked at on Sept 19th killed him. No 'search' conducted months later was going to gainsay that, because those were established facts by the end of 2001. Established by the CDC."

    1. The CDC did NOT establish that the J-Lo letter contained anthrax, much less that that powder killed Bob Stevens. The CDC only established that, based PURELY upon testimony from witnesses, there were two KNOWN letters that contained UNKNOWN powders received at AMI. And they established that the building was contaminated with anthrax. PERIOD.

    The AMI building was closed down as soon it was clear that the building was contaminated with anthrax. News reports say it was closed on Monday, October 8, 2001. That seems to be the same day the CDC started collecting their samples inside the AMI building.

    The building remained closed and was still closed nearly a year later when the FBI went into the building to do a separate series of tests, evidently to determine if there was any reason to believe that there was a second source for the contamination. Their tests showed that the contamination seemed to come from the area of Stephanie Dailey's desk, where she was known to have opened a powder-filled letter. There was almost NO contamination on the 3rd floor, establishing solid evidence that the J-Lo letter did NOT contain anthrax. There was NO evidence that a second anthrax letter of any kind was involved.

    R. Rowley also wrote: "(And, by the way, there's no reason the sender couldn't have mixed anthrax spores in with laundry detergent."

    And, there's no reason to believe the sender DID mix anthrax spores with laundry detergent.

    All the known facts indicate that the letter sent to the National Enquirer was no different from the NY Post letter or the Brokaw letter. At the NY Post, they threw their letter away UNOPENED because it was not addressed to any specific person. At AMI, they first OPENED the letter and then threw it away because it was not addressed to any specific person. The letter sent to Tom Brokaw WAS addressed to a specific person, so it was emptied of its power and filed away by Brokaw's secretary.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The CDC only established that, based PURELY upon testimony from witnesses, there were two KNOWN letters that contained UNKNOWN powders received at AMI. And they established that the building was contaminated with anthrax. PERIOD.
      =============================================
      Why are you giving us the usual (inaccurate) Ed Lake summary?
      Why did you not QUOTE the CDC findings?
      Since you won't do that, I'll do that (As I did last October!): (partial)

      http://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/8/10/02-0354_article.htm

      Under Results heading, case investigation subheading ) (partial):
      --------------
      Workplace interviews regarding mail exposure showed that the index patient rarely handled or opened workplace mail, but co-workers recalled that he had examined a piece of stationery containing a fine, white, talc-like powder on September 19. The patient was observed holding the stationery close to his face as he looked at it over his computer keyboard.
      ---------------------------------------------------------
      Is the above paragraph in ANY WAY touched upon by Mister Lake's 3 sentence summary? No.
      ------------------------------------------------------
      B. anthracis was identified in 2 of 12 specimens obtained on October 5: from the index patient’s computer keyboard and his mailbox in the company mailroom.
      -----------------------------------------------------
      Is this reflected in Mister Lake's summary? No.
      And under Results heading, environmental investigation subheading: (partial):

      No mail containing B. anthracis spores was recovered. Because workplace refuse is incinerated and waste receptacles did not show contamination, no environmental specimens were obtained from waste sites.
      -----------------------------------------------------
      Is this reflected in Mister Lake's 3 sentences summary? No.
      But it highlights why the 'search' conducted months later (Sept-Aug 2002) was derivative and unlikely in the extreme to point to a letter or letters: they were long gone in October of 2001.

      And from the Discussion heading (partial):
      --------------------------------------------------
      The index patient’s infection most likely occurred from inhalation of B. anthracis spores following a primary aerosolization, i.e., spores released into the air after opening a spore-containing letter. This scenario is consistent with co-workers’ recollections that the index patient held a letter containing powder over his computer keyboard, as well as environmental samples showing contamination at his keyboard, an incoming-mail desk near his workspace, and his mailroom mailbox.
      --------------------------------------------------------------------
      Is the above reflected in Mister Lake's summary? No.
      The report doesn't use the words "J-Lo letter" but the reference to "co-workers’ recollections that the index patient held a letter containing powder over his computer keyboard," is an obvious reference to the so-called J-Lo letter as co-workers recalled one and only one letter like that being looked at by the 'index patient' (ie Stevens).

      "Most likely", as I mentioned before, is probably the most you can hope for in such a situation: the investigators (epidemiologists) have to infer how the infection occurred.

      Delete
    2. R. Rowley wrote: "Is the above paragraph in ANY WAY touched upon by Mister Lake's 3 sentence summary? No."

      Nonsense. I talked about witness testimony and the paragraph you cite is about "workplace interviews." Do the words have to exactly the same before you'll understand?

      "B. anthracis was identified in 2 of 12 specimens obtained on October 5: from the index patient’s computer keyboard and his mailbox in the company mailroom."

      The CDC didn't find ANY spores on Stevens' keyboard on the first try. They had to go back and search again. Then they found ONE spore. If they had followed that process anywhere in the building, they might have gotten the same result. The CDC was NOT doing things in a way that would be useful in court (or in a scientific study). But, it was good enough for epidemiology purposes.

      ""Most likely", as I mentioned before, is probably the most you can hope for in such a situation: the investigators (epidemiologists) have to infer how the infection occurred."

      For scientists and criminologists, "most likely" just indicates what the CURRENT facts say. NEW facts or ADDITIONAL facts could easily change what is "most likely." The CDC didn't change what was "most likely" even when it was pointed out that their scenarios was VERY UNLIKELY, due to the way the spores were distributed around the AMI building.

      The "most likely" scenario based upon all the known evidence today is that there was only one anthrax letter, and it was opened by Stephanie Dailey at her desk.

      Ed

      Delete
  10. The CDC has provided 2000 pages that it has processed under FOIA on this subject. Here is the CDC's published finding in the scholarly journal. I can't even get you to upload civil depositions in the matter so I don't suppose I can get you to upload the documents relating to the CDC sampling at AMI.

    http://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/8/10/02-0354_article.htm

    First Case of Bioterrorism-Related Inhalational Anthrax in the United States, Palm Beach County, Florida, 2001

    Marc S. Traeger*† , Steven T. Wiersma†, Nancy E. Rosenstein*, Jean M. Malecki‡, Colin W. Shepard*, Pratima L. Raghunathan*, Segaran P. Pillai§, Tanja Popovic*, Conrad P. Quinn*, Richard F. Meyer*, Sharif R. Zaki*, Savita Kumar‡, Sherrie M. Bruce*, James J. Sejvar*, Peter M. Dull*, Bruce C. Tierney*, Joshua D. Jones*, Bradley A. Perkins*, and Florida Investigation Team1
    Author affiliations: *Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, USA; †Florida Department of Health, Tallahassee, Florida, USA; ‡Palm Beach County Department of Public Health, West Palm Beach, Florida, USA; §Florida Department of Health, Miami, Florida, USA;


    B. anthracis was identified in 2 of 12 specimens obtained on October 5: from the index patient’s computer keyboard and his mailbox in the company mailroom.
    Workplace interviews regarding mail exposure showed that the index patient rarely handled or opened workplace mail, but co-workers recalled that he had examined a piece of stationery containing a fine, white, talc-like powder on September 19. The patient was observed holding the stationery close to his face as he looked at it over his computer keyboard.

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

    ReplyDelete
  11. 1. The CDC did NOT establish that the J-Lo letter contained anthrax, much less that that powder killed Bob Stevens
    =========================================
    Of course. NO ONE could. The letter was destroyed weeks earlier. Duh!

    I was the one-----NOT Mister Lake--------who repeatedly on this blog linked the CDC findings. How then can you pretend as though I'm claiming anything different than what the CDC found in 2001-2?!? Makes no sense!

    See my posts here:
    http://anthraxdebate.blogspot.com/2013/10/subject-illogical-logic-part-2.html
    (That is in October of 2013; readers of that thread will see that at no time did I
    separate myself from the CDC findings; Mister Lake's FOIA request on AMI search was based on a wooly-headed belief by him that some search, conducted in mid-2002 could somehow overrule the CDC findings)

    A possible precursor thread is here:
    http://anthraxdebate.blogspot.com/2013/06/subject-claims-arguments-and-evidence_3.html
    I say 'possible' because it showed up when I did a "J-Lo" search, but as the thread is over 200 post long, I can't be bothered to go ahuntin' for the post(s) in quesiton.

    ReplyDelete
  12. "Anonymous" wrote: "I can't even get you to upload civil depositions in the matter so I don't suppose I can get you to upload the documents relating to the CDC sampling at AMI."

    As far as I know, I've already provided links to all the relevant CDC articles. And, I've quoted at length from them. Check my web page about the J-Lo letter: http://www.anthraxinvestigation.com/J-LoLetter.html

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

    "Anonymous" may take this "most likely" scenario as gospel because it fits his beliefs. But, the scenario is disputed by FACTS that are far more reliable than witness testimony:

    1. The distribution of the spores around the AMI building is NOT consistent with the J-Lo letter containing anthrax.

    2. The description of the J-Lo letter is not consistent with what we know about other anthrax letters.

    3. The distribution of spores around the AMI building is consistent with just ONE letter, the one opened by Stephanie Dailey.

    4. The witnesses originally OBSERVED the powder in the J-Lo letter to be detergent (or some other harmless powder). They later changed their minds to fit a different scenario, with no REASON to change their minds other than to make it fit that scenario.

    The CDC's analysis is FATALLY FLAWED. The witnesses changed their observations to make them fit a new scenario. The crime scene evidence does not fit their revised scenario.

    The CDC was WRONG. They were not investigating a crime. They were developing an hypothesis on how Stevens and Blanco contracted anthrax. They should have changed their hypothesis when they were proved wrong by new facts, but they didn't. The hypothesis they developed was sufficient for their purposes, so they stuck with it.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Anonymous" is probably now going to argue that I'm claiming I know more than the CDC. And I have no credentials to argue with the CDC.

      In reality, of course, I'm not arguing with the CDC.

      What the CDC says happened is inconsistent with what the FBI says happened. The FBI and the CDC have different viewpoints regarding what happened at AMI.

      All I'm doing is looking at what the CDC provided as evidence and what the FBI provided as evidence and deciding which provides the more valid argument.

      It's clear beyond any doubt that the FBI's view is more valid.

      Ed

      Delete
  13. R. Rowley quoted me: "1. The CDC did NOT establish that the J-Lo letter contained anthrax, much less that that powder killed Bob Stevens"

    and then he added this comment:

    "Of course. NO ONE could. The letter was destroyed weeks earlier. Duh!"

    You seem to be once again arguing that evidence isn't evidence unless you personally accept it as evidence because it fits your personal theory.

    The EVIDENCE, whether you accept it or not, says that Bob Stevens was killed by the powder that was in the letter opened by Stephanie Dailey. The EVIDENCE says that the J-Lo letter that was opened by Bobby Benton and examined by Bob Stevens did NOT contain anthrax.

    1. The area around Stephanie Dailey's desk was the most contaminated area in the building.

    2. Stephanie Dailey tested positive for exposure to anthrax.

    3. The area where Bobby Benton opened the J-Lo letter was among the LEAST contaminated areas in the building.

    4. Bobby Benton tested NEGATIVE for exposure to anthrax.

    5. The letter opened by Stephanie Dailey was consistent in appearance to the other known letters.

    6. The J-Lo letter was totally inconsistent with the known anthrax letters.

    7. The letter Stephanie Dailey was delivered in a time frame consistent with the other anthrax letters.

    8. The J-Lo letter was delivered in a time frame inconsistent with the other anthrax letters.

    9. The witnesses who saw the J-Lo letter observed it to be filled with detergent. They later changed their minds to make their observations fit a more popular scenario, NOT because they found NEW evidence that it was not a detergent.

    10. There is NO reason to believe Ivins or anyone else sent out a totally different anthrax letter prior to the first mailing on September 18, 2001.

    The J-Lo letter had nothing to do with the anthrax attacks. That's what the facts and evidence say. Opinions won't change that.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Of course. NO ONE could. The letter was destroyed weeks earlier. Duh!"

      You seem to be once again arguing that evidence isn't evidence unless you personally accept it as evidence because it fits your personal theory.
      ==============================================

      WHAT 'personal theory'???????????? (and what evidence?)

      That you cannot tie letter X to powdery substance Y weeks and months after letter X has been destroyed is NOT a 'personal theory', it's a law of the universe. So, unless you, Mister Lake and/or the FBI have invented a TIME MACHINE to go back to Sept 19th 2001 to examine the letter in question, there is no way to make the determination. One doesn't need to bother with FOIA requests to know that: it's elementary logic.

      Delete
    2. R. Rowley wrote: "WHAT 'personal theory'???????????? (and what evidence?)"

      1. Your personal theory that the the J-Lo letter contained anthrax.

      2. The evidence (i.e., the distribution of the spores, and who tested positive for exposure) says the J-Lo letter did NOT contain anthrax.

      You again argue that unless you actually have the letter, NOTHING can be determined. That's NONSENSE.

      Ed

      Delete
    3. 1. Your personal theory that the the J-Lo letter contained anthrax.
      =========================================
      If the CDC found in 2001-2 that Stevens' infection was 'probably' caused by his close reading of a white powder letter at his desk on Sept 19th 2001* (and that WAS their finding), then my signing onto that finding 8 YEARS or so later hardly makes it my 'personal theory'.

      You might just as well tax me with having a 'personal theory' about who killed JFK because I think Oswald, acting alone, killed him. That's NOT my 'personal theory', it's the official finding.

      Once again we see Mister Lake set an expression (here it's "personal theory" ) on its head. And it's done to conceal from himself that he's been dissenting from the CDC finding in the matter for a decade or so.
      The FOIA request was a forlorn and misbegotten effort to extricate himself from that and to give himself some 'official justification' for his OWN (true) 'personal theory'.


      * "white powder letter at his desk on Sept 19th 2001"
      The CDC studiously avoids the LABEL 'J-Lo letter' but that's clearly what they're saying

      Delete
    4. 2. The evidence (i.e., the distribution of the spores, and who tested positive for exposure) says the J-Lo letter did NOT contain anthrax.
      ==============================================
      Au contraire! The distribution of the spores was (one of) the very thing(s) that convinced the CDC and the county health agency that one letter which remained on the first floor could not explain the contamination. So, either the J-Lo letter or its peregrinational twin.

      Delete
    5. You again argue that unless you actually have the letter, NOTHING can be determined
      ======================================
      No, I DON'T argue that. I argue that the CDC and the county health commissioner MADE that determination in late 2001. And made it WITHOUT the letter, based on fairly traditional epidemiological methods. You just aren't paying attention.
      (And you want the right to dissent on the question without admitting that you ARE dissenting!)

      Delete
    6. The facts and evidence say that there was only one anthrax letter. It was the letter opened by Stephanie Dailey in the first floor mailroom.

      The CDC used bad science and unreliable witnesses to determine what they considered to be "most likely."

      I'm not going to argue over words or your interpretations of what happened.

      We can agree that we disagree.

      Ed

      Delete
  14. http://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/8/10/pdfs/02-0354.pdf

    First Case of Bioterrorism- Related Inhalational Anthrax in the United States, Palm Beach County, Florida, 2001

    Marc S. Traeger,*† Steven T. Wiersma,† Nancy E. Rosenstein,* Jean M. Malecki‡, Colin W. Shepard,* Pratima L. Raghunathan,* Segaran P. Pillai,§ Tanja Popovic,* Conrad P. Quinn,* Richard F. Meyer,* Sharif R. Zaki,* Savita Kumar,‡ Sherrie M. Bruce,* James J. Sejvar,* Peter M. Dull,* Bruce C. Tierney,* Joshua D. Jones,* Bradley A. Perkins,* and the Florida Investigation Team1

    This report describes the investigation of the first bioter- rorism-related anthrax case identified in the United States. We detected two inhalational anthrax cases (including the index case) among workers of a Florida media company. Anthrax transmission and widespread environmental contamination throughout the workplace and in six local postal facilities ****most likely resulted from two letters containing B. anthracis spores delivered to the workplace.****


    Comment:

    These scientists, in this peer-reviewed publication of the CDC, stated their conclusion that there likely were two letters delivered to AMI. The prosecutors so publicly pursuing Steve Hatfill may have disagreed in August 2002 -- or simply not yet been in the position to read the scientific conclusions first published in October 2002.

    Ed, the fellow who has spent 10 years arguing a First Grader wrote the anthrax letters thinks there was only one letter.

    Ed's disagreement with the formally published conclusion of the CDC can be duly noted. That is, it can be noted that his thinking on the case is in direct conflict with the formally published findings of the highly qualified CDC scientists.

    If as a lay poster on the internet who is not a qualified epidemiologist, Ed wants to explore the science -- resulting from the massive resources applied by the CDC -- he can make himself useful by obtaining the already processed 2000 pages underlying their published findings.

    IMO, given Ed's lack of expertise, he would be most useful if he limits himself to obtaining and uploading the documents. For example, he can upload the remaining civil depositions in Maureen Stevens v. United States.

    ReplyDelete
  15. "Anonymous" wrote: "Ed's disagreement with the formally published conclusion of the CDC can be duly noted."

    I predicted in my post HERE that "Anonymous" would respond this way.

    So, I'll repeat what I posted there:

    In reality, of course, I'm not arguing with the CDC.

    What the CDC says happened is inconsistent with what the FBI says happened. The FBI and the CDC have different viewpoints regarding what happened at AMI.

    All I'm doing is looking at what the CDC provided as evidence and what the FBI provided as evidence and deciding which provides the more valid argument.

    It's clear beyond any doubt that the FBI's view is more valid.


    "Anonymous" doesn't even bother to look at the FBI's findings. He just accepts the CDC's findings as gospel because they fit better with his beliefs.

    It seems he cannot understand that I didn't find Bruce Ivins was the anthrax killer, it was the FBI that determined that Ivins was the anthrax killer. "Anonymous" evidently doesn't want to argue with the FBI, so he twists things to ridiculously argue that I'm the one who found Ivins guilty.

    And now he's ridiculously suggesting that I'm the one who is arguing with the CDC. No, the FBI is arguing with the CDC. All I'm doing is trying to figure out who is right. And, the FACTS AND EVIDENCE make it clear that the FBI is right.

    I'm a member of a jury trying to determine which side is most believable in a court case. I'm not part of the prosecution. Nor am I part of the defense. I'm just evaluating the evidence.

    "Anonymous" doesn't seem to be able to understand that concept. All he can do is argue that I'm not qualified to make a case in court. I'm not making a case in court. I'm evaluating the case that OTHERS are making in court. Like any juror, I am qualified to look at the EVIDENCE and make a decision.

    "Anonymous" just doesn't seem able to grasp that concept.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And now he's ridiculously suggesting that I'm the one who is arguing with the CDC. No, the FBI is arguing with the CDC.
      ================================================
      Anonymous is right: it is Mister Lake and not the FBI that is contesting the CDC findings. The FBI search even in principle couldn't SUBTRACT a single one of the spores found earlier (ie in late 2001) and it was the sheer number and placement (ie on all three floors of the building) of spores found in late 2001 that told the CDC that more than one letter was involved. That's even more true if you take the words of Stephanie Dailey to heart: she reported handling a white-powder letter that she disposed of there on the first floor (ie so that it never made it to the second and third floors). Therefore there's little chance that that letter explains the widespread contamination of the upper floors.

      Delete
    2. R. Rowley wrote: "Anonymous is right: it is Mister Lake and not the FBI that is contesting the CDC findings."

      Just so we won't be arguing over the meaning of words again, the FBI did not CONTEST the CDC's findings. I.e., they didn't say the CDC was wrong. The FBI just came to a different conclusion (there was only one letter, the one opened by Dai;ey) and said nothing about the CDC's version of events. I'm comparing the findings.

      "she reported handling a white-powder letter that she disposed of there on the first floor (ie so that it never made it to the second and third floors). Therefore there's little chance that that letter explains the widespread contamination of the upper floors."

      Absolute TOTAL NONSENSE. The letter was opened on the first floor and from there the spores were tracked all over the building. The ventilation system may have helped spread the spores.

      The "widespread contamination" on the upper floors would be EXACTLY what one would expect to result from people tracking spores around the building. People on the other floors would go to the mail room for paper for the Xerox machines. And they'd track the spores back to their own floors. Plus, people delivering mail would track the spores to other floors. The amount of spores found decreased as you got further and further away from Dailey's desk.

      If the J-Lo letter had contained anthrax, there would have been a "hot spot" around where it was opened -- just as there was a "hot spot" around Dailey's desk. There was no such hot spot. The third floor, where the J-Lo letter was opened was the LEAST CONTAMINATED floor in the building.

      Ed

      Delete
  16. Ed is quite right that the FBI's position in pursuing Steve Hatfill was directly contradicted by the qualified scientists doing the epidemiology investigation for the government. Not having ever bothered to obtained the 2000 pages of CDC documents (which were freely available and repeatedly offered to him), Ed may not even understand who was doing the sampling and epidemiological investigation. But thank you Ed for pointing the issue out -- the entire purpose of the GAO's review is to understand the issues in which the FBI"s assertions are contradicted by the scientific findings. And you've found another doozy. Laurie Garrett has written on the relationship of the agencies.


    ReplyDelete
  17. In the case of the CDC's conclusion that there were likely two letters sent (to the different publications of the AMI,


    First Case of Bioterrorism-Related Inhalational Anthrax in the United States, Palm Beach County, Florida, 2001
    Traeger MS, Wiersma ST, Rosenstein NE, et al.
    Emerging Infectious Diseases 2002 Oct;8(10):1029-1034.

    note that EID Journal is a peer-reviewed CDC journal tracking trends and analyzing new and reemerging infectious disease issues around the world.

    You might be interested in reading and linking some of the related peer reviewed literature in EID.


    Environmental Sampling for Spores of Bacillus anthracis
    Teshale EH, Painter J, Burr GA, et al.
    Emerging Infectious Diseases 2002 Oct;8(10):1083-1087.

    Airborne Infection with Bacillus anthracis-from Mills to Mail
    Emerging Infectious Diseases 2004 Jun;10(6).

    Swab Materials and Bacillus anthracis Spore Recovery from Nonporous Surfaces
    Emerging Infectious Diseases 2004 Jun;10(6).

    Bioterrorism-related Inhalational Anthrax in an Elderly Woman, Connecticut, 2001
    Griffith KS, Mead P, Armstrong GL, et al.
    Emerging Infectious Diseases 2003 Jun;9(6):681-688.

    Inactivation of Bacillus anthracis Spores
    Whitney EAS, Beatty ME, Taylor TH Jr, et al.
    Emerging Infectious Diseases 2003 Jun;9(6):623-627.

    First Case of Bioterrorism-Related Inhalational Anthrax, Florida, 2001: North Carolina Investigation
    Maillard J-M, Fischer M, McKee KT Jr, et al.
    Emerging Infectious Diseases 2002 Oct;8(10):1035-1038.

    Surveillance for Anthrax Cases Associated with Contaminated Letters, New Jersey, Delaware, & Pennsylvania, 2001
    Tan CG, Sandhu HS, Crawford DC, et al.
    Emerging Infectious Diseases 2002 Oct;8(10):1073-1077.

    Bioterrorism-Related Anthrax Surveillance, Connecticut, September–December, 2001
    Williams AA, Parashar UD, Stoica A, et al.
    Emerging Infectious Diseases 2002 Oct;8(10):1078-1082.

    Laboratory Response to Anthrax Bioterrorism, New York City, 2001
    Heller MB, Bunning ML, France MEB, et al.
    Emerging Infectious Diseases 2002 Oct;8(10):1096-1102.

    Surface Sampling Methods for Bacillus anthracis Spore Contamination
    Sanderson WT, Hein MJ, Taylor L, et al.
    Emerging Infectious Diseases 2002 Oct;8(10):1145-1151.

    Collaboration Between Public Health and Law Enforcement: New Paradigms and Partnerships for Bioterrorism Planning & Response
    Butler JC, Cohen ML, Friedman CR, et al.
    Emerging Infectious Diseases 2002 Oct;8(10):1152-1156.

    Epidemiologic Response to Anthrax Outbreaks: A Review of Field Investigations, 1950–2001
    Bales ME, Dannenberg AL, Brachman PS, et al.
    Emerging Infectious Diseases 2002 Oct;8(10):1163-1174.

    ReplyDelete
  18. "Anonymous" wrote: "Ed is quite right that the FBI's position in pursuing Steve Hatfill was directly contradicted by the qualified scientists doing the epidemiology investigation for the government."

    That seems to be another one of your fantasies. There was no previous mention of Steven Hatfill in this thread.

    Plus, it was expert scientists like Barbara Hatch Rosenberg who were pointing at Hatfill as being the anthrax mailer while the FBI kept saying there was no evidence to support such a claim. So, you've got things backwards - as usual.

    "Anonymous" also wrote: "note that EID Journal is a peer-reviewed CDC journal tracking trends and analyzing new and reemerging infectious disease issues around the world."

    You're making it clear you also do not understand the peer review process. There is nothing wrong with what the CDC wrote as far as epidemiology is concerned. The anthrax came in the mail. That's all that matters for epidemiology purposes. It doesn't matter if there was one letter or two. Either way, it doesn't change the source of the anthrax and the infection - the mails. BUT, for criminology purposes it makes a BIG difference. The CDC people were not criminologists, so they didn't care about how the criminology aspects would be affected.

    It's two different fields of study looking at the same data from two different perspectives. The CDC merely sees the source of the infection being the US mails. One or two letters? Who cares? It isn't part of the CDC's job to track down the killer. They turn that chore over to the FBI.

    The FBI sees the letter that caused the murder as a WEAPON. It was opened by a specific person and it had specific effects. It makes a BIG difference if there was just one letter that matches other letters, or if there was also a second very DIFFERENT letter that would suggest some kind of coordinated attack by two different people. The EVIDENCE says very clearly there was only one letter sent by one culprit.

    "the entire purpose of the GAO's review is to understand the issues in which the FBI"s assertions are contradicted by the scientific findings. And you've found another doozy."

    Only in your fantasies. There are NO SCIENTIFIC FINDINGS which say the J-Lo letter contained anthrax. There is only WITNESS TESTIMONY that was changed to fit a theory, and the witness testimony conflicts with the scientific findings.

    I seriously doubt the GAO will even mention the J-Lo letter. It has nothing to do with anything.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's two different fields of study looking at the same data from two different perspectives. The CDC merely sees the source of the infection being the US mails. One or two letters? Who cares?
      ==============================================
      Spoken like a civilian without even a peripheral interest in infectious diseases/epidemiology. They do care. It's in the report, as I already posted today.

      Delete
    2. R. Rowley wrote: "They do care."

      I don't want to argue over words again. CDC personnel are NOT TRAINED to do a CRIMINAL investigation. They are trained to do EPIDEMIOLOGICAL investigations. When they found that the spores had arrived at AMI via the mails (via one letter or two), that was the end of their investigation. They contacted the FBI and let the FBI do the criminal investigation.

      The CDC people might have "cared" about who did it, like we all did, but they didn't do any kind of criminal investigation to determine who did it.

      Ed

      Delete
  19. You're making it clear you also do not understand the peer review process. There is nothing wrong with what the CDC wrote as far as epidemiology is concerned. The anthrax came in the mail. That's all that matters for epidemiology purposes. It doesn't matter if there was one letter or two. Either way, it doesn't change the source of the anthrax and the infection - the mails. BUT, for criminology purposes it makes a BIG difference. The CDC people were not criminologists, so they didn't care about how the criminology aspects would be affected.
    ================================================
    I would dispute that. A PART of epidemiology is: determining not just the GENERAL source of the pathenogen (the vector) but the distribution/spread of that pathenogen and how that infecte (the) person(s).

    ALL the victims (as far as we know) were sickened, directly or indirectly, by mail.
    But one lady was (evidently) sickened by SNIFFING the outside of an envelope.
    Two postal workers were sicked by ambient contamination via mail sorters that squeezed the envelopes etc. Different ways that the spores entered their respiratory tracts.

    As I understand it, this is primarily an epidemiological question, and only secondarily/derivatively a law enforcement one.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Mr. Lake,

    Please state the name of the person you think opened the so-called "J-Lo letter" and the location that the person opened it. Cite your source. Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Okay. The source is the National Enquirer. Here's the link: http://www.anthraxinvestigation.com/misc2.html#ne011031

      It says,

      "The envelope sent to the Sun was addressed: “Please forward to Jennifer Lopez, c/o the Sun.”

      “When I picked up the envelope, I could feel something cylindrical inside,” [Managing Editor Joe] West told The ENQUIRER.

      “Something told me, `Don’t open it! So I tossed it into the garbage.”

      But recently hired news assistant Bobby Bender, whose daughter is a J.Lo. Fan, said, “I want to open it.” He grabbed the envelope from West’s garbage can.

      As he opened it, I saw a metal cigar tube – obviously the cylinder I’;d felt – with a cheap cigar inside.” Said West. “There was also an empty can of chewing tobacco and a small detergent carton.

      “There was a handwritten letter to Jennifer Lopez. The writer said how much he loved her and asked her to marry him. The letter also contained some sexual innuendo. "

      “Sticking out of the powder was a little gold something. I couldn’t tell what.

      Investigators say that addressing the letter to Lopez may have been a clever ploy – her name on the envelope made the letter intriguing enough for a Sun staffer to open.

      Moments later, Bender appeared in a different part of the newsroom.

      “Bobby Bender came around the corner with this letter in the upturned palms of his hands,” said photo assistant Roz Suss, a 13-year Sun staffer.

      “It was a business-size sheet of stationery decorated with pink and blue clouds around the edges. It was folded into three sections, and in the middle was a plie of what looked like pink-tinged talcum powder.

      “Just then Bob Stevens came walking from his desk. He was obviously curious about it and held out his hands. Bender delicately transferred the letter from his palms to Bob’s palms.


      The person who opened the J-Lo letter was Bobby Bender.

      Bob Stevens desk was on the third floor. So, the letter was opened on the third floor. I think there may be a floor plan somewhere which shows the location of his desk on the third floor.

      Ed

      Delete
    2. Here's another link:

      http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/keeping_tabs/2001/10/scooby_dos_and_scrappy_donts.html

      Via Google, I also found that the incident is described on page 41 of Leonard Cole's book on the anthrax attacks. On that page, Bender disputes the claim that he gave the letter to Stevens. But, he remembers the package. And, he says, "You could smell the powdered detergent."

      Do a Google search for "Bobby Bender" anthrax AMI and you'll find the page.

      Ed

      Delete
  21. R. Rowley wrote: A PART of epidemiology is: determining not just the GENERAL source of the pathenogen (the vector) but the distribution/spread of that pathenogen and how that infecte (the) person(s)."

    If so, then the CDC failed to do an adequate job. They stopped with what they believed was "most likely" and didn't look at ALL THE EVIDENCE the way the FBI did. Or they didn't view it from a criminology point of view.

    "As I understand it, this is primarily an epidemiological question, and only secondarily/derivatively a law enforcement one."

    Then you do not understand it at all. That makes no sense at all.

    The "epidemiological question" is easily answered. It was a terrorist act. A terrorist sent letters filled with anthrax through the mails. Some people were killed or injured by spores that went through the tiny openings in closed envelopes. Others were infected by spores that were carried around in the air or on other letters that touched the anthrax letters. End of epidemiological investigation.

    The task of finding out who the terrorist was NOT part of the CDC's job. They turned that over the the FBI.

    If it had been a contagious disease spread by an infected "carrier," things would have gone differently. Then it would NOT have been a criminal investigation. It would have been a purely epidemiological investigation. Cops would just get themselves infected if they hunted for the carrier.

    Also, if the case of anthrax appeared to be "naturally occurring" and was killing only people who worked with horses or made drums from animal skins, then it would probably also have been purely a CDC investigation. Cops wouldn't know what to look for, and they could get themselves infected.

    However: 1. Anthrax is NOT an infectious disease. 2. The cases of anthrax were NOT naturally occurring. So, the CDC would NOT be in charge of finding the source. It would be a criminal matter. They would (and did) turn the investigation over to the FBI.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. However: 1. Anthrax is NOT an infectious disease. 2. The cases of anthrax were NOT naturally occurring. So, the CDC would NOT be in charge of finding the source.
      ==================================================
      What's your source for that? And why do I have to ask?

      (And strictly speaking you can become infected by another person's anthrax on the skin: if Bob Stevens hands were covered with a thin layer of powder and then he shook hands with someone(or gave them a playful face smack), and the someone subsequently sniffed his own hand etc. it would be a possible vector. 'Infectiousness' isn't a black or white category but something on a scale of likelihood. Anthrax isn't HIGHLY infectious, but it is (potentially) infectious)
      ============================================

      What is anthrax?

      Anthrax is a rare infectious disease caused by the bacterium Bacillus anthracis. [...]

      https://www.health.ny.gov/diseases/communicable/anthrax/fact_sheet.htm

      Delete
    2. R. Rowley wrote: "Anthrax is a rare infectious disease"

      Okay. We have another dispute over words. I shouldn't have said "infectious disease," I should have said "communicable disease," i.e., a disease that can be transmitted from one person to another by touch or by air.

      The screwball argument that Stevens could have been covered with spores is just plain NUTS. It's rationalizing to make a ridiculous argument that anthrax can be a "communicable" disease. Maybe it can by Mr. Rowley's definition, but NOT by the CDC's definition. If he wants to use his own definitions for everything, he shouldn't expect anyone to agree with him.

      Ed

      Delete
  22. Years ago, I was exchanging emails with someone at the CDC, and he told me that his favorite movie of all time was "Panic In The Streets" from 1950.
    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0042832/?ref_=fn_tt_tt_1.

    I told him I had it in my collection and it was a favorite of mine, too. Here's a synopsis of that movie:

    "When a body is found in the New Orleans docks, it's pretty obvious that he died from gun shot wounds. The police surgeon notices that the man is also displaying other symptoms and Lt. Commander Clint Reed, a doctor with the U.S. Public Health Service, diagnoses a highly contagious disease, pneumonic plague. He tries to convince local officials to find everyone who may have been in contact with the dead man. The Mayor supports his efforts but many, including the police, are doubtful. Reed wants to avoid publicity so as not to panic the public. They have little information to go on - they don't know the dead man's identity - and Reed estimates they have 48 hours before disease begins to spread. With police Capt. Tom Warren going through the motions, Reed sets out to find the killers."

    In this instance, the U.S. Public Health Service assists the police to find the killer because there are TWO investigations going on concurrently: (1) Who killed the man whose body was found? and (2) who may have been infected by encountering the dead man?

    Obviously, the killer was in the dead man's presence and therefore was probably infected and has become a carrier. The police are hunting for him because he's a MURDERER. The Public Health Service is hunting for him because he's a probable CARRIER of pneumonic plague.

    So, both agencies are hunting for the killer - but for different reasons. That would NOT be the case if the disease was not infectious. Like anthrax, for example. The Public Health Service (or CDC) would not hunt for the killer. They'd leave that to the police.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  23. Professor Cole, a researcher who travelled to Florida and took trascribed interviews, writes:

    "FBI agent Judy Orihuela also referred to Bender's presumably handling "one of the Lopez letters."

    The woman Ed reliesy on observing Stevens review the letter, Suss, says: "See, this is why the FBI felt there was more than one package. I never saw this package or anything related to this package." [the one with the cigar and detergent that was opened on the third floor].

    So while Ed believe your account about the package being delivered to Stevens and Suss observing it, he instead should rely on the serious researcher, Cole, who travelled to Florida and took transcribed interviews.

    Those emails are available to the GAO to obtain. Ed has no information whatsoever about the letter with the powder that Stevens set on his keyboard -- and where it was opened.

    There is absolutely no evidence for Ed's belief that it was opened on the third floor rather than the first floor.

    In the meantime, if Ed should upload the recently produced civil depositions if he want to fancy himself as a "researcher" as Dr. Cole indisputably is -- as illustrated by his travelling to Florida and obtaining transcribed interviews.

    Ed's disagreement with the published, peer-reviewed CDC finding of the epidemiologists is best understood in the context of the transcribed interviews by the witnesses.

    Dr. Cole spoke at the conference in DC moderated by Lew and his presentation was filmed.

    http://www.amerithrax.wordpress.com

    ReplyDelete
  24. "Anonymous" wrote: "So while Ed believe your account about the package being delivered to Stevens and Suss observing it, he instead should rely on the serious researcher, Cole, who travelled to Florida and took transcribed interviews."

    All you are pointing out is the UNRELIABILITY of eyewitnesses and the UNRELIABILITY of reporters who are not criminal investigators. The reporter for the National Enquirer talked with the witnesses and got one view of the situation. Later, Cole talked with some of the same people and got a different view of the situation. So, we not only have different witnesses saying different things, we have different reporters adding their interpretations to what was said.

    When witnesses disagree, criminal investigators look at the PHYSICAL EVIDENCE.

    "Ed has no information whatsoever about the letter with the powder that Stevens set on his keyboard -- and where it was opened."

    I have statements from witnesses as reported in the National Enquirer. I have the CDC floor plan which shows where Stevens' "work area" was located on the third floor. Leonard Cole says that Suss's desk was 6 feet from Stevens' desk. THEY WERE ALL ON THE THIRD FLOOR.

    "There is absolutely no evidence for Ed's belief that it was opened on the third floor rather than the first floor."

    There is an ABUNDANCE of evidence that the J-Lo letter was opened on the third floor. Are you rationalizing/fantasizing that all the people who saw the J-Lo letter went down to the mail room as a group just to open that letter?

    There is absolutely no evidence for "Anonymous's" suggestion/belief that it was opened on the first floor rather than the third floor.

    The witnesses disagree with one another!

    The PHYSICAL EVIDENCE in the form of the location of the spores says that Stephanie Dailey opened the anthrax letter at her desk on the first floor. There was only one anthrax letter. PERIOD.

    All "Anonymous" is doing is demonstrating once again that he does not UNDERSTAND anything. That's why he wants everyone to listen ONLY to the supposed "expert" who seems to agree with him.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  25. The package with the cigar was opened on the third floor, having been taken out of Joe West's trash can. Based on the witness statements taken by Cole, there is no evidence as to where the letter he set on the keyboard was opened. But you are free to rely on your assumptions and beliefs as to where it was opened in disagreeing with the CDC's peer-reviewed published conclusion based on the epidemiological investigation. But you should have made clear it was YOU who disagreed with the CDC's published peer-reviewed conclusion reached after the extensive epidemiological investigation done by the EPA and CDC and others. You nowhere disclose that which is highly deceptive.

    ReplyDelete
  26. "Anonymous" wrote: "The package with the cigar was opened on the third floor, having been taken out of Joe West's trash can. Based on the witness statements taken by Cole, there is no evidence as to where the letter he set on the keyboard was opened."

    Can't you understand anything?

    The "J-Lo letter" was opened by Bobby Bender on the third floor. Editor Joe West WITNESSED IT. West described what he saw. Leonard Cole does NOT even mention Joe West or what Joe West saw. Do you think that because Cole didn't interview or mention Joe West, that Joe West doesn't exist? Joe West SAW the letter and the powder in with the cigar tube, the empty chewing tobacco tin, etc.

    Furthermore, Bobby Bender SAYS that the package he remembers opening was addressed to Jennifer Lopez, and it contained "a cigar tube containing a cigar, a small Star of David charm, and something that seemed like soap powder."

    So, Bender remembers the package with powder. And, he also remembers the Star of David. Joe West said the Star of David was in the powder. Roz Suss also remembers the Star of David in the powder in the letter. She remembers the details about the letter.

    The fact that Bobby Bender couldn't remember the letter doesn't mean it didn't exist. Two other people say it DID exist. So, the evidence says Bender was simply focused on other things in the package. Bender doesn't explain where the powder was. Maybe he just considered the paper that held the powder to be just that -- a sheet of paper. Maybe he didn't even notice that the sheet of paper had writing on it.

    They are clearly confused about the other letter that contained a powder. They know of its existence, but they know no details about it. So, they are assuming it could have been another "J-Lo letter."

    It's hard to say what they are talking about. There definitely weren't "two J-Lo letters," but there certainly could have been a J-Lo letter inside the J-Lo package. And, they could just have misspoken and assume that the other letter opened somewhere else in the building was also a "J-Lo letter" with powder.

    After opening the envelope in the presence of Joe West, Bender took the envelope and it's contents to where Suss and Stevens had their desks. He may have shown the package, the Star of David and the powder to Stevens without even remembering the sheet of paper the powder was wrapped in.

    The fact that someone heard about another powder filled letter and ASSUMED it was another J-Lo letter doesn't mean there was another J-Lo a letter. They were just making incorrect assumptions. That's what witnesses do. It's the job of the investigator to sort them out.

    Leonard Cole doesn't even try to sort out the discrepancies between what people remember. That would be something the investigators would TRY to do.

    The only letter that contained anthrax was the letter opened by Stephanie Dailey on the first floor. It had NOTHING to do with the soap-containing package/letter opened by Bender on the THIRD floor.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The only letter that contained anthrax was the letter opened by Stephanie Dailey on the first floor
      ==========================================
      That's the opposite of what the CDC found.

      Delete
    2. R. Rowley wrote: "That's the opposite of what the CDC found."

      Not really. The CDC reported on what they considered "most likely." And, they didn't know that Bruce Ivins sent the anthrax letters.

      I'm using more up-to-date information than they used. Plus, I'm looking at the data from a criminal investigator's point of view, not from a epidemiologist's point of view.

      Our findings disagree, but they're not opposites. "Most likely" is just an opinion. If someone else has a different opinion about what is "most likely," it's not an opposite. A third person could have a third "most likely" scenario. You can't be opposite of both people at the two other points of a triangle.

      Ed

      Delete
  27. Just point out the CDC finding in your post and say that you believe that the CDC finding must be mistaken. Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That seems like another order. The CDC findings and my analysis of them are all shown in great, step-by-step detail on my J-Lo letter web page here: http://www.anthraxinvestigation.com/J-LoLetter.html

      Ed

      Delete
  28. Ed, even your straw men from 2002 turn into concrete, eh?

    ReplyDelete
  29. "Anonymous,"

    I've changed my mind about countless things since 2002. But, there are also countless things which over the years have been supported by more and more evidence, so they become closer and closer to being certainties.

    Your arguments, on the other hand, were fixed from day one. And it's clear nothing can change your mind about anything.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  30. Your theory that Somalia pirates hijacked the Malaysia 777 flight and made a water landing off Somalia, you estimate, has a 2% probability -- and even your sister could confirm that your theory a First Grader theory wrote the Fall 2001 anthrax letters has a .00000002% probability.

    Why propose them at all, eh?

    ReplyDelete
  31. "Anonymous" wrote: "Why propose them at all, eh?"

    Yes, I understand that you have no concept of logic and reasoning. So, you cannot comprehend tossing an idea into the ring for discussion. You can only understand BELIEFS. Either you believe something, or you don't.

    I do NOT believe Somalian pirates highjacked Malaysia Airlines flight 370, NOR DO I DISBELIEVE IT.

    You DISBELIEVE it without any real basis. It's just something you decided to do. You don't cite any facts or evidence to justify your disbelief. It's just your baseless FEELING.

    While I do not BELIEVE Somalian pirates hijacked flight 370, I think it's an intriguing possibility. It occurred to me because the plane was heading in that general direction when the records of its course stopped. I can't think of any other good reason why the plane would go in that direction. It seems a reckless and as stupid as hijacking a large ship. And, I have a vague memory of some airliner landing on the water just off that coast of some African country a few years ago.

    So, I mentioned it as AN IDEA. Nothing more. But, I understand you cannot comprehend "ideas." You only understand BELIEFS.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wow! Time flies. The airliner that crashed in the water off the coast of Africa was Ethiopian Airlines flight 961. It happened in 1996. I remember it like it happened just a year or two ago. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethiopian_Airlines_Flight_961

      It was hijacked by 3 Ethiopians and crash landed in the Indian Ocean off the coast of the the Comoros Islands, which are between the coasts of Africa and Madagascar.

      Ed

      Delete
    2. I threw in the "eh?" as evidence that Canadians also think your theory that a First Grader wrote the letters is stupid. All Canadians I've asked about it agree that you should propose good theories, not bad theories. For example, vet this report that the plane was seen flying low over the Maldives and pull up the airports on google earth. Thanks.


      List of airports in the Maldives with GPS locations.

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


      Delete
    3. "Anonymous" wrote: "Canadians also think your theory that a First Grader wrote the letters is stupid."

      I showed you emails from THIRTY-ONE people who agreed with the theory, including one from a Canadian Chief of Police. You just cannot accept anything from anybody who disagrees with you.

      So, who cares what people tell you? You're only talking with people who agree that the FBI is wrong.

      A worker on an oil platform also saw the Malaysian airliner plunge into the sea not far from where it last communicated with the ground. And there are a bunch of other sightings by "witnesses" in other places. All it proves is that eyewitnesses are VERY OFTEN WRONG.

      I'm going to work up a timeline showing what we know about the flight. Maybe I'll prove myself wrong. I'm not tied to the hypothesis. If it's wrong, I'm open to PROOF that it's wrong.

      Ed

      Delete
    4. Let's explore this claim of yours that there is a Canadian thinks a First Grader wrote the anthrax letters. Do you have the email to post? Thanks. I saw you falsely claim that your sister agreed to you so I'm skeptical.

      Delete
    5. "Anonymous,"

      The email was posted in the "Certainty" thread. Click HERE to go to it.

      Click HERE to go to the specific post.

      In December 2008, the Canadian Police office argues that it doesn't seem logical that Ivins would use a child that way, since it requires avoiding fingerprints, etc.

      But, when he posts again on January 12, 2009, he says,

      While I agree with you, I would rather use the expression "preponderance of facts" to describe what you are debating in the present context.

      Others might use the "preponderance of evidence", but I think it somehow reflects a higher degree of solidity in the scale of demonstrations.

      All this being highly subjective.

      For instance, we might say at this stage that the preponderance of evidence leads to the conclusion that Dr Ivins and Dr Ivins alone was the perpetrator in Amerithrax.

      But in the case of your handwriting argumentation, it might be said that the preponderance of facts supports your conclusion that a child wrote the letters.

      You could just make you own mind on this nuance by staging a little safari in the wilderness of Google using both expressions.
      But this is a really minor point, just for the sake of the discussion.


      The preponderance of evidence says Ivins was the anthrax mailer.

      The preponderance of FACTS says that a child wrote the letters.

      The two findings are not incompatible. One is about the BIG picture. The other is about a small detail.

      But, I can see that it can be argued as to whether he agrees with the hypothesis or not. That's why I didn't include him in the "firmly agreed" column, but only in the "seems to agree" column.

      Ed

      Delete
    6. We can see two things:

      1) He suggests the prosecution could not have obtained a conviction -- which requires a beyond a reasonable doubt standard. A mere preponderance of evidence would lead to an acquittal. The higher standard avoids innocent people being convicted.

      2) He thinks that it is not established by a preponderance of evidence that someone who first learned to write English wrote the anthrax letters.

      Delete
    7. "Anonymous" wrote: "He suggests the prosecution could not have obtained a conviction"

      And "A mere preponderance of evidence would lead to an acquittal."

      ABSOLUTE, TOTAL NONSENSE. That's just your screwball "spin" on things. The Canadian Police Chief wrote:

      "I am satisfied Dr Ivins was mad enough to be the perpetrator and knowing that he was also a long distance driver who loved far away mailboxes totally eliminates the need of yet another disturbed turnpike-happy and disturbed scientist "familiar with New Jersey" in the big picture."

      And, "we might say at this stage that the preponderance of evidence leads to the conclusion that Dr Ivins and Dr Ivins alone was the perpetrator in Amerithrax."

      He has no other theory. He's saying NOTHING about any trial. He's saying the evidence says Ivins did it. And, he has no reason to believe anyone else was involved. Whether or not the "preponderance of evidence" would have been enough to convince a jury that Ivins was guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt" is and UNKNOWN.

      Just because the term "preponderance of evidence" was used doesn't mean it can't ALSO be enough to convince a jury.

      Ed

      Delete
    8. Now, as to this police officer who thought there wasn't a preponderance of evidence supporting your theory that someone who just learned english wrote the Fall 2001 anthrax letters....

      was he a Chief of Police or did you give him a promotion?

      Given he says he DIDN'T think the preponderance of evidence favored your theory, that reduces to zero the number of Canadians that you've persuaded in 13 years. Thus justifying my earlier "eh?"

      Delete
    9. "Anonymous,"

      The Canadian Police official wrote: "But in the case of your handwriting argumentation, it might be said that the preponderance of facts supports your conclusion that a child wrote the letters."

      That certainly is NOT a disagreement.

      You need to find a NEW OBSESSION. Your OBSESSION about the handwriting is getting VERY tiresome.

      Ed

      Delete
  32. This is for anonymous: the significance (for me) of the J-Lo letter is: since it was read on Sept 19th, 2001, it couldn't possibly have been mailed in Princeton (or even in Florida) on Sept 18th. It constitutes a 'pre-batch', either by itself, or if Stephanie Dailey's letter was also a pseudo-fan letter, with that other letter. It tells us what the ORIGINAL plan was for Amerithrax, before the hubbub about Sept 11th caused the mastermind to change to a pseudo-Muslim motif......so as to maximize panic.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Click HERE for a news story which says:

    "An email sent to journalists, supposedly from representatives from the Uighur separatist movement, claimed for responsibility for the Malaysia Airlines flight’s disappearance.

    It says that a passenger aboard was a Uighur and that he'd taken flight simulator lessons in Sweden.

    I don't believe or disbelieve it. I'm just showing another theory.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That was a case of mistaken identity. The fellow who worked for Saab in Sweden, the assistant professor now in Turkey, was just a fellow with the same name. So the theory can be eliminated upon even a cursory examination of the facts -- much like your First Grader theory.

      To be specific, the assistant professor has an alibi (he was thousands of miles away and has never been in Malaysia) -- much like Dr. Ivins did.

      Delete
    2. "Anonymous" wrote: "That was a case of mistaken identity."

      Could be. I haven't had the time to sort things out. I've got a kazillion other things going on.

      You seem to believe you are the standard for the universe. You are looking at the mountain of facts and I am looking at the same mountain of facts. But, we're digging through it from different angles. So, it's natural for you to find something before I find it, and vice versa.

      I made it clear that I didn't believe the theory nor disbelieve it. It was just another theory.

      You haven't disproved the "First Grader hypothesis" in any way, shape or form. You just refuse to believe it and your mind is closed on the subject. So, please stop pretending that there are ANY solid facts which disprove the hypothesis. It just shows how closed-minded you are and how obsessed you are with your own theory.

      Ed

      Delete
    3. You have argued a First Grader wrote the Fall 2001 anthrax letters for 13 years. You claim to have persuaded 31 over those 13 years -- upon even the most superficial audit, you have grossly overstated the number, leaving you having persuaded at most one person for each year of daily advocacy. That means unless you have already succeeded in persuading one person this year, if it is a typical year, you can expect to persuade one person this year. Personally, I think we should exclude blood relatives. But to be fair to your sister I should note that she was just commenting that children like to doodle. There was no doodling by a child on the Fall 2001 anthrax letters. Ed, it is time to abandon your theory that a First Grader wrote the Fall 2001 anthrax letters.

      Your theory that an airplane that went missing had an accident, on the other hand, is an example of a reasonable theory. Note that no one phoned home.

      Delete
    4. "Anonymous" wrote: "You claim to have persuaded 31 over those 13 years"

      Don't you understand ANYTHING? You are trying to persuade people to accept your beliefs. I haven't tried to PERSUADE anyone about ANYTHING.

      In 2002, I merely presented an hypothesis based upon what the facts say. It's presented on a take it or leave it basis. The idea behind an hypothesis is to find evidence and proof one way or the other. ALL the "evidence" and "proof" found since the hypothesis was developed say the hypothesis is CORRECT. There has been NO meaningful evidence that says it is incorrect. Personal opinions and beliefs don't mean anything.

      Your OBSESSION with this subject is INSANE. Your OBSESSION with what my sister's beliefs is INSANE and CREEPY. Your OBSESSION with trying to get me to change the hypothesis is INSANE and STUPID.

      Your INSANE OBSESSIONS won't change anything. If you find EVIDENCE (which doesn't include opinions or beliefs) let me know. Otherwise, I'm not interested in your INSANE OBSESSIONS.

      Ed

      Delete
    5. Ed, for the last 13 years, it has been your claim it was 99% certain a First Grader wrote the anthrax letters that is INSANE and CREEPY. Your suggestion that someone need to propose facts disproving it was STUPID. It was a non-starter from the start. You merely were proposing that looking at the handwriting it looks like the person had just learned English. Okay. You are entitled to your opinion.

      Delete
    6. "Anonymous" wrote: "Your suggestion that someone need to propose facts disproving it was STUPID."

      You believe that anyone who disagrees with you is stupid. You cannot understand the concept of evidence and facts, so you just call anyone who DOES look at the evidence and facts as being stupid. You are reducing the debate to the level of an obnoxious 12-year-old.

      "You merely were proposing that looking at the handwriting it looks like the person had just learned English."

      NO, I AM NOT. The hypothesis says the writer was just learning to WRITE. PERIOD. English is merely the language the writer was learning to WRITE.

      "You are entitled to your opinion."

      Yes, and you are entitled to your beliefs, even if you cannot comprehend the concept of "facts and evidence" and need to twist everything to fit your beliefs.

      Your OBSESSION with arguing that Muslim extremists sent the anthrax letters is being repeated in your endless rantings on Lew's site that Muslim terrorists were also behind the disappearance of Malaysia Airlines flight MH370.

      Ed

      Delete
  34. Another theory - a fire on board the aircraft:

    "Fire in an aircraft demands one thing - you get the machine on the ground as soon as possible. There are two well remembered experiences in my memory. The AirCanada DC9 which landed I believe in Columbus Ohio in the eighties. That pilot delayed descent and bypassed several airports. He didn't instinctively know the closest airports. He got it on the ground eventually but lost 30 odd souls. In the 1998 crash of Swissair DC-10 off Nova Scotia was another example of heroic pilots. They were 15 minutes out of Halifax but the fire simply overcame them and they had to ditch in the ocean. Just ran out of time. That fire incidentally started when the aircraft was about an hour out of Kennedy. Guess what the transponders and communications were shut off as they pulled the busses.

    Get on Google Earth and type in Pulau Langkawi and then look at it in relation to the radar track heading. 2+2=4 That for me is the simple explanation why it turned and headed in that direction.


    Click HERE for the source.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Someone shoots down the fire theory:

      "I was one of the first people to bring up the possibility of fire many days ago. i reject that hypothesis now. The problem is the simple and basic truth that at 8:11 AM, seven hours later, the airplane pinged a satellite. I'm convinced that this data is legit. I've looked into the computer side of it closely and it makes sense. There is no possible fire scenario that I can imagine that would allow power to that specific unit and not allow power to any other unit. For one, all the SATCOM share the same power circuit. If a fire took out ACARS and the transponder it took out all other SATCOM too. Since the SATCOM was live seven hours later, no fire. Not possible."

      Click HERE for the source.

      Ed

      Delete
  35. A new report from ABC news:

    5 Theories About What Happened to Missing Malaysia Flight
    The link: http://abcnews.go.com/International/theories-happened-missing-malaysia-flight/story?id=22954389

    4 of the 5 theories have it being destroyed where it was last known to be.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  36. Ed, on the merits, we can agree that the writer of the letters was not Bruce Ivins and leave it that.

    You reason that the writer:

    1. was just learning the Uncial style of writing.

    2. just learning how to draw the letter R.

    3. learning to write smaller.

    4. learning when to capitalize and when not to capitalize.

    5. learning about punctuation.

    6. learning about the question mark.

    7. developing better hand-eye coordination.

    8. learning to judge how much room he had to write.

    9. learning new words.

    10. learning to copy things in English with confidence. Eliminating pause marks.

    11. writing English with confidence. Using fewer strokes to draw a letter.

    12. the doublining constituted "doodling"

    13. the person responsible was in contact with people who were just learning English


    Your argument supports the conclusion that Bruce Ivins was likely not the writer of the letters -- which is also what the FBI handwriting expert concluded in the uploading handwriting opinion.

    In contrast, the FBI handwriting expert concluded (in the opinion you have not yet uploaded) that the handwriting was consistent with the lead hijacker Mohammed Atta.

    ReplyDelete
  37. "Anonymous" wrote: "we can agree that the writer of the letters was not Bruce Ivins and leave it that."

    I can leave it at that. But can you? You repeatedly and endlessly bring up the subject like it is some kind of uncontrollable OBSESSION with you.

    "Anonymous" also wrote: "In contrast, the FBI handwriting expert concluded (in the opinion you have not yet uploaded) that the handwriting was consistent with the lead hijacker Mohammed Atta."

    I don't recall seeing any such OPINION. And, what difference does an OPINION make if there are other EXPERTS with DIFFERENT OPINIONS?

    It's not a matter that can be settled by picking the OPINION you like, which is what you do. It's a matter of determining what is TRUE AND CORRECT, based upon an examination of the FACTS AND EVIDENCE. When that is done, the FACTS AND EVIDENCE say that Ivins used a child to write the letters and to address the envelopes. OPINIONS cannot change that.

    And your OBSESSION with the subject just shows how irrational you are.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  38. Okay. Ed disagrees with the FBI's handwriting expert, head of its forensics lab. Duly noted.

    You are the True Believer, Ed. Your theory that a First Grader wrote the Fall 2001 anthrax letters is really dumb.

    ReplyDelete
  39. The important thing on the handwriting is that both you and the FBI's handwriting expert agree that Bruce Ivins likely did not write the Fall 2001 anthrax letters.

    ReplyDelete
  40. You say that there is a conflict opinion and can't point to any handwriting expert who has ever issued an opinion based on examination of the handwriting that concluded, formally or informally, that Bruce Ivins likely wrote the anthrax letters. There is no conflict of opinion as you suggest. Just a case that was closed that is conflict with the FBI's own expert's opinion, which I've uploaded.

    ReplyDelete
  41. "Anonymous" wrote: "Ed disagrees with the FBI's handwriting expert, head of its forensics lab."

    Do I? Why don't you EXPLAIN how we disagree, and provide sources showing where we disagree? Why do you just make unsupported CLAIMS? Adults don't do things that way. Only obnoxious children do.

    "Your theory that a First Grader wrote the Fall 2001 anthrax letters is really dumb. "

    You've been stating your BELIEFS for 12 years. But, I think it is REALLY DUMB for a person to argue BELIEFS AGAINST FACTS for 12 years. Normal adults would sooner or later realize that arguing BELIEFS against FACTS is totally STUPID.

    Your other two posts are just mindless ramblings. You're just making it clear that you are going to endlessly argue your OBSESSIONS and no logic or reasoning is going to change your mind about anything.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  42. Now that we've covered your First Grader theory, if you will, upload the civil deposition of Reynold M. Salerno, the head of the Sandia team that visited USAMRIID to investigate USAMRIID after the Fall 2001 anthrax mailings. He is highly expert and it is very meaty.

    ReplyDelete
  43. "Anonymous,"

    If you believe the deposition by Salerno has something important to say about Ivins' guilt or innocence, please explain.

    If it has nothing to say about Ivins' guilt or innocence, then it is irrelevant.

    I see no reason to put an irrelevant deposition on my site.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. For the record, I only asked for and received 8 depositions from the DOJ:

      On Feb. 20, 2014, they shipped me the depositions by Adamovicz, Andrews, Byrne, Friedlander and Welkos.

      On Feb. 26, 2014, they shipped me the depositions by Friend, Worsham and Little.

      Ed

      Delete
  44. The important thing on the handwriting is that both you and the FBI's handwriting expert agree that Bruce Ivins likely did not write the Fall 2001 anthrax letters.

    In the formal handwriting examination conducted in the Amerithrax investigation, it was concluded that “Bruce E. Ivins probably did not write the writings appearing on the ‘anthrax’ envelopes and letters.” The Assistant US Attorney did not disclose that fact in the Amerithrax Investigative Summary.

    Posted by Lew Weinstein on August 13, 2013
    http://caseclosedbylewweinstein.wordpress.com/2013/08/13/in-the-formal-handwriting-examination-conducted-in-the-amerithrax-investigation-it-was-concluded-that-bruce-e-ivins-probably-did-not-write-the-writings-appearing-on-the-anthrax-envelopes-and/

    ReplyDelete
  45. "Anonymous" wrote: "The important thing on the handwriting is that both you and the FBI's handwriting expert agree that Bruce Ivins likely did not write the Fall 2001 anthrax letters."

    Please explain WHY you believe that is important.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  46. "1) How on earth could a commercial airliner locate a specific American warship moving across the middle of the Indian Ocean? (2) Why would Muslim extremists hijack a aircraft from a Muslim country that is carrying numerous Muslims, including a Muslim pilot and co-pilot in order to try to kill some American sailors (but actually just kill a lot of Muslims)? "

    Ed, with respect to the Al Qaeda Southeastern Asian planes plot involving an apartment full of Malaysian hijackers and a Malaysian pilot -- or KSM's and Sufaat's plan to recruit four Indonesian pilots -- am I right that you do not know the planes they expected to hijack? Leaving what airport? Isn't that relevant to the question you raise?

    What was publicly known about the location of the U.S.S. Pinckney off of Malaysia in the South China Sea on March 7 and 8? Isn't that relevant to the question you raise?

    In the past, with respect to the targeting of other warships, what intel did Al Qaeda have? Such as in the case of Babar Ahmad currently on trial on such a charge in Connecticut.

    Would a Garmin GPS tracker on the ship suffice to identify its location? I can readily track someone two states away and pinpoint what department they are in at IKEA just by turning on the locator function on using their cell phone or IPAD. Why couldn't someone use a GPS tracker to target the USS Pinckney in the South China Sea?

    ReplyDelete
  47. The Al Qaeda fellow currently on trial got the intel on the position of ships was extradited and is on trial about the same time as the spokesman, Ghayth, who promised a storm of planes.

    As tradecraft, wouldn't it be as simple as a young lady in Manila when the stopped at port turning on the geolocator of a sailor's IPAD or cell phone?

    http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-03-07-341980347_x.htm

    Former sailor arrested on terror charge

    By Matt Apuzzo, Associated Press Writer

    WASHINGTON — A former Navy sailor was arrested Wednesday for allegedly releasing classified information that ended up in the hands of a suspected terrorism financier.
    Hassan Abujihaad, 31, of Phoenix, is accused in a case that began in Connecticut and followed a suspected terrorist network across the country and into Europe and the Middle East.

    He was arrested in Phoenix on charges of supporting terrorism with an intent to kill U.S. citizens and transmitting classified information to unauthorized people.

    Abujihaad, who is also known as Paul R. Hall, is charged in the same case as Babar Ahmad, a British computer specialist arrested in 2004 and accused of running Web sites to raise money for terrorism. Ahmad is scheduled to be extradited to the U.S. to face trial.

    During a search of Ahmad's computers, investigators discovered files containing classified information about the positions of U.S. Navy ships and discussing their susceptibility to attack.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Certainly, it is a lot more likely that Al Qaeda is targeting US naval targets than it is that a First Grader wrote the anthrax letters -- as you think. Isn't it?

    ReplyDelete
  49. When I proposed the theory to the NYT, the star reporter distinguished the plot involving the four Malaysians and the Malaysian "pilot" and Sufaat's plan.

    "i'm more impressed by Sufaat and crashing into a ship than by Badat. The puzzle is -- why hijack a plane and then fly it for hours over open sea? If they thought they were headig for a ship and missed it, that would be a good answer."

    If you were more informed about the history of the Al Qaeda Southeastern Asian plane operation planning, perhaps you would not have come up with this theory --and not your Somali pirate theory. It would have helped if you had not been a week late in understanding the pings.

    ReplyDelete
  50. "Anonymous" wrote: "Would a Garmin GPS tracker on the ship suffice to identify its location?"

    It would identify the location to the person ABOARD the ship who had the GPS tracker. It tells the PERSON WHO HAS IT where he is.

    "I can readily track someone two states away and pinpoint what department they are in at IKEA just by turning on the locator function on using their cell phone or IPAD. Why couldn't someone use a GPS tracker to target the USS Pinckney in the South China Sea?"

    You're mixing up two different technologies and failing to understand either one. Cell phones work off of CELL PHONE TOWERS, NOT satellites. They determine the location of a phone by triangulating the angles from two different towers.

    "What was publicly known about the location of the U.S.S. Pinckney off of Malaysia in the South China Sea on March 7 and 8? Isn't that relevant to the question you raise?"

    It's only relevant to your BELIEFS. Even if the Pinckney WERE in that area of the Indian Ocean (which seems HIGHLY unlikely), it still wouldn't make any sense to hijack a plane in Malaysia to attack it. The plane wouldn't be able to find the Pinckney, and if it did find it, the Pinkney almost certainly has anti-aircraft defenses.

    "The puzzle is -- why hijack a plane and then fly it for hours over open sea? If they thought they were headig for a ship and missed it, that would be a good answer.""

    It would be RATIONALIZING an answer. It's dreaming up fantasies to make a screwball belief work.

    " It would have helped if you had not been a week late in understanding the pings.

    And you clearly do not understand "pings" yet. I had a good general idea of how the pings worked. I just didn't realize how they could make it a virtual certainty that the plane had NOT gone down in the South China Sea.

    "Certainly, it is a lot more likely that Al Qaeda is targeting US naval targets than it is that a First Grader wrote the anthrax letters -- as you think. Isn't it?"

    Of course not. The idea that flight MH370 was targeting an American ship and missed it is just plain RIDICULOUS and is UNSUPPORTED BY ANY FACTS. The hypothesis that a child wrote the anthrax letters is supported by SOLID, UNCHALLENGED FACTS.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ed, I have no beliefs or opinion on the subject of MH 370. The investigators think the plane was hijacked. I have no idea what happened.

      The New York Times reported Yazid Sufaat's plot to crash into a warship. That's a historic fact. I'm asking the location of the warship near Malaysia. I believe it was in joint exercises with another country. What country? Then the operative wouldn't even have to be on the ship. As to the U.S.S. Pinckney, as I said, I believe it was in the South China Sea. Yes, no doubt all such ships have anti-aircraft defenses -- and can move pretty quick when they want. But it is not a belief, Ed. It is brainstorming why someone would have diverted the plane and informing oneself about the plane plots by terrorists from Kuala Lumpur. The possibility -- Yazid Sufaat's plot -- was reported in the NYT after I contacted them. It was widely reported throughout the world. Yazid told me "the plan was on the way" and I've long been asking what he meant. He was recruiting jihadists as recently as a year ago.

      As to your screwball belief that a First Grader wrote the Fall 2001 anthrax letters, 0 out of 35 million Canadians credit the theory. And among US citizens, you have averaged 1 convert a year -- with none in 2014.

      Delete
    2. "Anonymous" wrote: "The investigators think the plane was hijacked. I have no idea what happened."

      The prevailing theory among "investigators" seems to be that one of the pilots committed suicide by taking full control of the ship and flying it toward the southern Indian Ocean.

      Click these links: LINK LINK LINK

      At the moment, I tend to agree with that hypothesis, since it's the only theory that explains all the changes in course the plane made before it headed south into the middle of the Indian Ocean.

      Your reasoning about Canadians is just as preposterous as your reasoning about flight MH370. (1) I'm not trying to convert anyone to my hypothesis that a child wrote the anthrax letters. (2)All of Canada does not visit my site. I doubt that 1% do. (3)There's no way to know how many Canadians are among the 31 who agreed that a child wrote the letters. AND, (4) the only person who still brings up the subject is YOU, so there's no one discussing the subject, which means there's no one weighing on for or against the hypothesis.

      You need to learn about basic reasoning. You can't rely on your BELIEFS to answer every question.

      Ed

      Delete
  51. "Anonymous,"

    According to Stars and Stripes, "The USS Kidd, an Arleigh Burke-class guided missile destroyer, joined the USS Pinckney in the search effort, according to the U.S. 7th Fleet. Both destroyers were conducting training in the South China Sea when they were dispatched to aid the search."

    So, your screwball logic is that flight MH370 was hijacked to attack one of two destroyers which where BOTH in the South China Sea when the flight was hijacked. Instead of attacking those ships WHERE THEY WERE, the hijackers flew the plane to the southern Indian Ocean where the ships wouldn't be until until DAYS after the plane crashed and the ships were assigned to hunt for where the plane went down.

    How can that POSSIBLY make sense to you?!?! The idea that it makes more sense than that a child wrote the anthrax letters is LAUGHABLY IDIOTIC.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  52. Ed, some hours ago I told you it was in the South China Sea. (see above) When people see you mischaracterize things they will assume you have poor reading comprehension -- or a lack of integrity. Or both. And I asked where it was.

    Am I right you have no answer to these questions?

    "Ed, with respect to the Al Qaeda Southeastern Asian planes plot involving an apartment full of Malaysian hijackers and a Malaysian pilot -- or KSM's and Sufaat's plan to recruit four Indonesian pilots -- am I right that you do not know the planes they expected to hijack? Leaving what airport? Isn't that relevant to the question you raise?"

    "What was publicly known about the location of the U.S.S. Pinckney off of Malaysia in the South China Sea on March 7 and 8? Isn't that relevant to the question you raise?"

    "In the past, with respect to the targeting of other warships, what intel did Al Qaeda have? Such as in the case of Babar Ahmad currently on trial on such a charge in Connecticut."

    "Would a Garmin GPS tracker on the ship suffice to identify its location? I can readily track someone two states away and pinpoint what department they are in at IKEA just by turning on the locator function on using their cell phone or IPAD. Why couldn't someone use a GPS tracker to target the USS Pinckney in the South China Sea?"

    You appear not to understand the GPS apps most all smart phones have now.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Ed, Seventh Fleet is all about presence throughout the entire region, from Guam to the Indian Ocean and Japan to Australia.

    ReplyDelete
  54. "Anonymous' wrote: "You appear not to understand the GPS apps most all smart phones have now."

    If you understand it, WHY DON'T YOU EXPLAIN IT?! Why just ask questions that no one is going to answer because the questions are meaningless?

    If a smart phones has a GPS app, what does that have to do with anything?

    You are still MISUNDERSTANDING. A "GPS locator or app" tells the person HOLDING the locator or phone with the app where THEY are. The app does NOT tell you where someone else is.

    So, what good does some GPS tracker on a ship do? What is it you think it accomplishes? If you think it would help someone on flight MH370 locate an American warship, PLEASE EXPLAIN HOW. All it would do is tell the person on the ship where THE SHIP is.

    ""In the past, with respect to the targeting of other warships, what intel did Al Qaeda have?"

    Your questions are meaningless and absurd. You ask about things that are UNKNOWN and argue that because they are unknown they could prove what you believe.

    That is ridiculous reasoning.

    Logical reasoning is based upon what is KNOWN, not on what is UNknown.

    When you base your reasoning on the UNKNOWN, you just make up answer you want. Then you ask others to disprove your baseless, nonsensical answer.

    "Ed, Seventh Fleet is all about presence throughout the entire region, from Guam to the Indian Ocean and Japan to Australia."

    SO WHAT? That just explains why ships from the 7th fleet were sent into the southern Indian Ocean to help with the search. That doesn't mean that any ships from the 7th fleet were previously in that area.

    About the only reason for a ship to be in that area is if its traveling between Australia and South Africa.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  55. The captain of Flight 370 was in no state of mind to fly the day it disappeared and could have taken the Boeing 777 for a "last joyride" before crashing into the Indian Ocean, a fellow pilot says.

    Captain Zaharie Ahmad Shah's world was crumbling, said the long-time associate. He had been facing serious family problems, including separation from his wife and relationship problems with another woman he was seeing.

    The man, who spoke to the Herald on condition of anonymity, said Captain Zaharie was "terribly upset" when his wife told him she was leaving and believed he may have decided to take the Malaysia Airlines plane to a part of the world he had never flown in.


    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/air-accidents/news/article.cfm?c_id=665&objectid=11226334

    ReplyDelete
  56. Ed quotes and comments:

    ""In the past, with respect to the targeting of other warships, what intel did Al Qaeda have?"

    Your questions are meaningless and absurd. You ask about things that are UNKNOWN "

    Unknown? Hardly. As I've posted and linked, the intel is evidenced by documentary evidence that is subject of a guilty plea just within the last few months. Babar Ahmad will be sentenced after testimony by the shoebomber who has testified about the Malaysian shoe bomb plot. But today's significant news is that the Captain was very upset about his wife was moving out. That is new and potentially very significant information. Given you know next to nothing about Yazid Sufaat and the planning done at his condo about the Southeast Asian plane plot, the testing of Malaysian Airlines security by Attash with a razor etc., you might best stick to current news reports about the pilot and search of the debris field.

    Relatedly, you know nothing about the ongoing trials of Al Qaeda's anthrax program. So on anthrax, just stick to your First Grader theory -- and stay within your comfort zone.

    ReplyDelete
  57. Ed:

    "Look! It's block lettering and looks like the person is learning English. It must have been written by a First Grader!"

    You crack me up.

    ReplyDelete
  58. "Anonymous" wrote: "The captain of Flight 370 was in no state of mind to fly the day it disappeared and could have taken the Boeing 777 for a "last joyride" before crashing into the Indian Ocean, a fellow pilot says."

    Yeah, that seems to be the prevailing theory. It best fits all the KNOWN evidence.

    There could still be some other explanation, but suicide seems to best explain why the plane changed directions and flew west across Malaysia and then turned south toward an empty ocean.

    The pilots on PPRUNE.com are speculating that if/when they find the wreckage, there could be dozens of cell phones with people showing what was going on in the cabin while they were all flying south to nowhere. Maybe one of them even had a cell phone with a GPS app and could see where they were heading.

    However, there's also some questionable "evidence" that the pilot first took the plane to about 45,000 feet where everyone in the passenger cabin would suffocate. So, the pilot could have been flying a planeload of dead or unconscious passengers.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  59. "Anonymous" wrote: "Look! It's block lettering and looks like the person is learning English. It must have been written by a First Grader!"

    All you are doing is showing that you do not understand facts and evidence. All you understand is BELIEFS.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  60. "Anonymous" wrote: "Given you know next to nothing about Yazid Sufaat and the planning done at his condo about the Southeast Asian plane plot, the testing of Malaysian Airlines security by Attash with a razor etc., you might best stick to current news reports about the pilot and search of the debris field."

    You might consider doing the same thing. Otherwise, you need to EXPLAIN what the hell you are driving at? Are you now saying you BELIEVE that the pilot of MH370 committed suicide as part of some kind of plan? What do you believe was the PURPOSE of the plan? And why didn't anyone take credit?

    And what is the percentage level of certainty you have in this new theory -- if it is a theory? Do you believe it 100% the way you seem to believe everything 100%?

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  61. The Southeast plane plot / shoebombing plot is relevant to the sentencing of Abu Ghayth, Babar Ahmad and the trial of KSM, Hawsawi, Attash, bin Al-Shibh, Balucchi etc. But I realize you don't follow current events that don't fit with your schtick. You write about the "moon landing" as if it illustrates anything -- rather than having taken the time to understand the facts of Al Qaeda's anthrax program.

    It's your unpleasant "schtick" that is going to turn off any agent in marketing a novel. Likability is important in the marketing of ideas. You need to listen to some Ted Talks and become a positive person. It's never too late in life -- until it is.

    And you should drop your First Grader theory. No publisher is going to go near someone arguing a First Grader wrote the Fall 2001 anthrax letters. That's just nutty.

    On MH 370, I have no reason to venture a theory. I'm just reporting and organizing publicly known information.

    You might simultaneously market past novels. I see no reason you just forget the past half dozen manuscripts. Fiction doesn't age. Indeed, often a particular topic it becomes back in fashion.

    ReplyDelete
  62. "Anonymous" wrote: "You write about the "moon landing" as if it illustrates anything -- rather than having taken the time to understand the facts of Al Qaeda's anthrax program."

    Where did I write about the moon landing? And what does "Al Qaeda's anthrax program" have to do with anything? You write words, but they make no sense.

    "It's your unpleasant "schtick" that is going to turn off any agent in marketing a novel. Likability is important in the marketing of ideas."

    You have no idea what I wrote in my query letters. It's ridiculous to assume I wrote to an agent in the same tone I use to respond to your nonsense. I've had agents in the past. Both are now retired. That's why I have to find a new agent.

    You're the LAST person on earth I'd turn to for advice on marketing a novel.

    "And you should drop your First Grader theory. No publisher is going to go near someone arguing a First Grader wrote the Fall 2001 anthrax letters. That's just nutty."

    That's another example of your illogical logic. You piece things together just to make them fit your beliefs -- and the result makes absolutely no sense.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  63. Hello Mr Lake.
    I want to believe that the crew and passengers of the flight mh370 are alive
    Why?
    It is easier to think of a catastrophic error which in a terrorist conspiracy.

    I have four questions and a solution:
    1 Why the missing passengers Phones still ring?
    2I want to believe that the crew and passengers of the flight mh370 are alive
    Why?
    It is easier to think of a catastrophic event which in a terrorist conspiracy.

    I have four questions and a solution:
    1 Why the missing passengers Phones still ring?
    2 Why the plane remained isolated while abruptly turned left ?
    3 Why the plane did not return to its starting point ?
    4 Why fly the plane for more than 7 hours towards the Australian coast ?

    Industry experts say ringing phones don't necessarily mean that the calls are going through....but it is possible. So I want to find people alive.

    Solution: The aircraft is in Australia (Western Australia ) at some point north or northeast of Perth because.... Suddenly, the left engine failed and the communication system was offline for some impact ( blast or computer chaos ) , the aircraft drifted to left for lack of another engine , and did not return home because the navigation system was severely limited . They only can make a big curse o circle to the left and reduce altitude to reach land, Australia.

    My theory has happened before, I remember a film by Charlton Heston and another of James Steward:
    Crash Landing: The Rescue of Flight 232 (1992)
    The Flight of the Phoenix, Twentieth Century-Fox, 1966.

    The pilot is an expert and nearly two dozen passengers are also experts in engineering. I hope the plane has crashed in the desert sands of western australia.

    How I can prove this theory ?
    1 + A visual Inspection ,look on uninhabited desert areas of western Australia.
    2 + If the plane has crashed maybe one seismograph detected the movement of the land in that area in the expected time.

    Maybe I've seen too many movies but I want to find people alive and not garbage at sea.

    ReplyDelete
  64. Joseph from Spain,

    It's okay to WANT to find people alive, but what you WANT isn't going to change what actually happened.

    I haven't read anything about phones ringing. I'll do some research on that. I think you may be misunderstanding something.

    It's difficult to decipher your English. I can't make any sense of this: " Why the plane remained isolated while abruptly turned left ?" Isolated?

    I don't think the plane had enough fuel to get to Australia. It had enough when it first started out, but it didn't have enough after first flying north for awhile and then turning west for awhile.

    Your other questions are questions everyone is asking: Why did the plane turn away from its original course? Why did it head across the Indian Ocean?

    It doesn't have to be terrorism. The best guess (I think) is that the pilot committed suicide and took everyone else with him. Another guess would be that there was some kind of fire in the cockpit which either killed the pilots and passengers, or which made the plane uncontrollable by the pilots while also destroying the radio.

    It would be nice to find the people alive. But, I don't expect it to happen.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  65. My research finds this:

    Malaysian Air 370: Passenger Cellphones Didn't Ring

    One strange bit of evidence that turned up almost immediately sticks out: claims by relatives that they were able to place calls to the cellphones of loved ones and even reach the voicemail in-boxes of the missing.

    Unfortunately, a ringing cellphone doesn’t say anything about the party on the other end, explained Jeff Kagan, a well-known cellular industry analyst.

    “We are used to the landline world. When you dial a number and hear ringing, it is ringing on the other end,” he told FoxNews.com via email. “However wireless is different.”

    Any ringing the family members heard wasn’t replicated on the other end of the line. Instead, the ringing sound a cellphone makes in your ear is essentially a mask for the emptiness that would otherwise exist as the network looks for and attempts to reach the number you’ve dialed, he explained.

    “With a wireless call, you dial and hit send, then you hear ringing. However it is not ringing on the other end. What is happening is the network is searching for the other phone. That can take up to several rings,” Kagan said. “If it does not find the phone, it cannot complete the call.”

    When the network can’t complete a call, it drops it, presents a generic recorded message, or sends the call to voicemail.


    The link: http://news.discovery.com/tech/gear-and-gadgets/malaysian-air-370-passengers-cell-phones-didnt-ring-140325.htm

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The official version of the Malaysian authorities is not credible because...

      BBC NEWS: "MH370: Missing plane search 'most challenging ever'"

      "Late on Monday, Malaysian officials issued a new version of the last communication between air traffic control and the plane's cockpit.

      In a statement, authorities said the last words received by ground controllers were "good night Malaysian three seven zero".

      They had previously said that the last words from the plane were "all right, good night".

      It is not clear why the official account has changed."

      LINK: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-26830703

      Delete
    2. Joseph from Spain,

      Here's the transcript from the last communications between Kuala Lumpur air traffic control and flight MH370:

      ------------------------------
      12:46:51 MAS 370 Lumpur Control Malaysian Three Seven Zero
      12:46:51 ATC Malaysian Three Seven Zero Lumpur radar Good Morning climb flight level two five zero
      12:46:54 MAS370 Morning level two five zero Malaysian Three Seven Zero
      12:50:06 ATC Malaysian Three Seven Zero climb flight level three five zero
      12:50:09 MAS370 Flight level three five zero Malaysian Three Seven Zero
      01:01:14 MAS370 Malaysian Three Seven Zero maintaining level three five zero
      01:01:19 ATC Malaysian Three Seven Zero
      01:07:55 MAS370 Malaysian...Three Seven Zero maintaining level three five zero
      01:08:00 ATC Malaysian Three Seven Zero
      01:19:24 ATC Malaysian Three Seven Zero contact Ho Chi Minh 120 decimal 9 Good Night
      01:19:29 MAS370 Good Night Malaysian Three Seven Zero
      ----------------------------------
      The Link: http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/535538-malaysian-airlines-mh370-contact-lost-451.html#post8413178

      It's not clear why the official account changed, but it appears the first account was just someone PARAPHRASING what was GENERALLY said. Now we have what was ACTUALLY said. It was recorded, so we may someday actually hear the words being spoken.

      I think the Malaysian spokesman who gave the first version to the media just didn't expect that the media would be examining every word for clues. So, he wasn't providing exact words.

      They weren't accustomed to dealing with the media, nor with providing information about disasters. So, they didn't realize how PRECISE they needed to be.

      I don't see it as a big deal.

      Ed

      Delete
    3. MR Lake. Here are the problems.

      "This sort of mistake hits at the heart of trust in their communications. If Malaysia is changing what the pilot said, people start thinking, `What are they going to change next?" said Hamish McLean, an expert in risk and crisis communication at Griffith University in Brisbane, Australia.

      "Information is in a crisis is absolutely critical. When we are dealing with such a small amount of information its needs to be handled very carefully," he said.
      ..................................................
      Opposition leader Lim Kit Siang said the correction set off a "medley of shame, sadness and anger" and strengthened the case for creating an opposition-led parliamentary committee to investigate the government's performance in the search.
      .........................................................
      The final words from the cockpit, and who said them, are of interest not only because there are few other clues to the disappearance, but because the communication occurred just a minute before the plane's transponders were shut off.
      ....................................................................
      Prime Minister Najib Razak was less direct. He said with "deep sadness and regret" that the plane's last known position was "a remote location, far from any possible landing sites," and that the flight "ended" in the southern Indian Ocean.
      Sarah Bacj, a 48-year-old American expatriate teacher whose boyfriend, Philip Wood, was on the flight, said the decision by Malaysia Airlines to inject some certainty into the fate of the passengers was a mistake. Until then, she said she thought the Malaysian government had acted responsibly, but the text message "totally violated my trust."

      "I fell off the cliff," Bacj said. "The way the text message came, I expected proof. That they had found the bodies, or that they had found confirmed wreckage, or something ... but they didn't actually tell us anything at all. The only thing they did was make a judgment statement about evidence -- unconfirmed evidence, mind you."
      ................................................................
      Still, the government's handling of information has at times fed perceptions that it was holding back. From the first day of the search, crews were looking far to the west of the plane's last point of contact with air-traffic controllers, but it took about a week for officials to explain that radar had detected the plane in the area.

      Fragments from "Malaysian credibility challenged over change in last words heard from missing jetliner" AP
      http://www.foxnews.com/world/2014/04/01/malaysian-credibility-challenged-over-change-in-missing-jet-pilot-last-words/?intcmp=latestnews
      JSP.

      Delete
    4. Joseph from Spain,

      I agree that the Malaysian officials shouldn't have done things the way they did, but I don't think there was anything sinister behind it.

      I think the Malaysian politicians and officials were expecting they could talk to the rest of the world the same way they talk to their own people - with condescension - like talking with a child.

      They want to sweep the whole incident under the rug, to forget about it and move on. The longer it remains in the news, the more chance someone high up is going to show his incompetence and lose his job.

      Ed

      Delete
  66. OK . Complementary explanation:

    + Isolated: The communications system stops working and keeps the plane isolated of something or someone. Simultaneously the plane rotates to left.

    + About phones ringing:
    "Families: Cellphones of missing passengers still ring"
    Greg Toppo, USATODAY 9:53 p.m. EDT March 11, 2014
    http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2014/03/11/malaysia-airlines-370-passengers-cell-phones/6285325/

    You think the pilot is a criminal and I think that the pilot is a hero.
    Why no one gives a chance to pilot?

    NEWS REPORT about "The Rescue of Flight 232 ( tv movie1992)"

    JULY 19, 1989 A day Siouxlanders won't forget
    By Marcia Poole Journal staff writer

    "Just before 4 p.m. on July 19, 1989, pilots of United Flight 232 faced thE unimaginable. With 296 people on board, they would try to land a DC-10 that had lost all hydraulics. Aviators have likened the crisis to driving a car without steering. No training had prepared the experienced crew for such an emergency -- there were no procedures. According to flight manuals, it wasn't supposed to happen. But slightly more one hour into the flight from Denver to Philadelphia via Chicago, at 37,000 feet over Alta, Iowa, it happened.

    Part of the No. 2, tail-mounted, engine assembly blew apart. Shrapnel from the explosion severed all three of the DC-10's hydraulic lines which powered the jumbo jet's flight controls. As the pilots wrestled for some control it became apparent that they had to put down the plane at nearby Sioux Gateway Airport, a facility not meant to accommodate such a large aircraft. But Sioux Gateway offered the best -- perhaps the only -- chance for a safe landing......."

    A catastrophic event is possible and a heroic solution also.

    ReplyDelete
  67. Joseph from Spain wrote: "You think the pilot is a criminal and I think that the pilot is a hero."

    I don't really have a firm opinion one way or the other. I'm just looking at the DATA and trying to figure out what it indicates.

    The DATA says the plane headed south into the middle of the Indian Ocean. The DATA says it could NOT have crash landed in Australian somewhere.

    I don't see any reason why terrorists or hijackers would fly into the middle of the Indian Ocean without telling the world what they were doing and why they did it.

    I can imagine the pilot wanting to commit suicide by disappearing without a trace. It would bring shame on his family if he committed suicide and killed 228 innocent people at the same time. And, he didn't have the courage to just shoot himself in the head.

    The only way the pilot could be a hero is if there was some kind to fire in the cockpit or some other major disaster that would prevent communication with the ground AND any kind of landing. If the pilot saw that the plane was doomed, he might head into the middle of the Indian Ocean so that the plane wouldn't crash into the middle of some city somewhere. This scenario IS possible, but it seems like the pilot should have been able to communicate the problem to the ground somehow. And it would have been more logical to circle around in the Bay of Bengal or the South China Sea.

    The crash of flight 232 is just a crash landing. There's absolutely NO reason to believe the plane crash landed on the ground anywhere. There's a highway that runs along the northwest Australian coast. Survivors would have walked to it by now. And why would the pilot go out into the desert to crash? Why not crash by trying to land on the highway? Or next to the highway?

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Mr Lake:

      "The DATA says the plane headed south into the middle of the Indian Ocean."

      YES, and no more.

      Prime Minister Najib Razak was less direct. He said with "deep sadness and regret" that the plane's last known position was "a remote location, far from any possible landing sites," and that the flight "ended" in the southern Indian Ocean. The only thing he did was make a judgment statement about evidence -- unconfirmed evidence.

      "And why would the pilot go out into the desert to crash? Why not crash by trying to land on the highway? Or next to the highway? "
      ......because the plane is almost out of control.

      The flight could not return home or any other airport. The airplane can go just to drift as in the crash of flight 232
      National Geographic movie:
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HFGBwbMATuY

      The DC-10 didn't respond anymore to flight control inputs and the descending right turn was arrested by using no. 1 engine power reduction.
      Sioux City Airport was sighted at 9 miles out, but the aircraft was aligned with the closed runway 22 (6600 feet long) instead of the longer (8999 feet) runway 31. Given the position and the difficulty in making left turns, the approach to runway 22 was continued.

      This example is old and the control system has been modernized but if the control system does not work all has to be done more carefully.
      Landing on sand is softer than do this on hard ground like in this movie:
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxfZHP1HHHg.

      Have you ever seen the map of western australia?
      http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Western_Australia_location_map.svg

      Western Australia (WA) is Australia's largest state with a total land area of 2,529,875 square kilometres (976,790 sq mi), and the second-largest country subdivision in the world – however, a significant part of it is sparsely populated. The state has approximately 2.5 million inhabitants and 92% of the state's population lives in the south-west corner of the state.

      In the central area or the north area there is a great void, an underutilized space with many possibilities.

      And I hope that: Everybody is wrong and they are alive in WA.
      JSP.
      END

      Delete
    2. Joseph From Spain wrote: "I hope that: Everybody is wrong and they are alive in WA."

      I hope so, too. But I wouldn't bet on it.

      Ed

      Delete
  68. Here's the link to the actual transcript of the final communications with Malaysia Airlines flight MH370: http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2014/images/04/01/transcript.pdf

    And remember, a "transcript" is someone writing down what they HEAR on a recording. So, the recording also exists somewhere.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. MR Lake

      + The final words from the cockpit, and who said them, are of interest not only because there are few other clues to the disappearance, but because the communication occurred just a minute before the plane's transponders were shut off. The words were in English, as aviation communications are around the world.

      YES "a "transcript" is someone writing down what they HEAR on a recording" like this:
      No sounds of gunfire, explosions, screams, foreign language, but suddenly everything changed and the plane turned left & transponders were shut off & and the plane can not establish communication with anyone just a minute after.

      So we can choose between two possibilities:
      An evil plan or a disastrous event.
      JSP

      Delete
    2. When Flight MH370 finished saying, "Good Night Malaysian Three Seven Zero," they were supposed to contact Viet Nam air controllers and report entering their air space. They didn't do that.

      I've read that the Viet Nam air traffic control then contacted another plane in the area - a Japanese airliner - and asked them to see if they could contact MH370.

      The captain, who asked to not be named, said his plane, which was bound for Narita, Japan, was far into Vietnamese airspace when he was asked to relay, using his plane's emergency frequency, to MH370 for the latter to establish its position, as the authorities could not contact the aircraft.

      "We managed to establish contact with MH370 just after 1.30am and asked them if they have transferred into Vietnamese airspace.

      "The voice on the other side could have been either Captain Zaharie (Ahmad Shah, 53,) or Fariq (Abdul Hamid, 27), but I was sure it was the co-pilot.

      "There were a lot of interference... static... but I heard mumbling from the other end.

      "That was the last time we heard from them, as we lost the connection," he told the New Sunday Times.


      The link: http://www.nst.com.my/nation/general/font-color-red-missing-mh370-font-pilot-i-established-contact-with-plane-1.503464?cache=03%2F7.212150%3Fpage%3D0%3Fpage%3D0%2F7.247066%2F7.490557%2F7.502513%2F7.576388#ixzz2xfZFd2tx

      For some unknown reason, very little is being said of that event.

      Ed

      Delete
    3. Mr Lake

      Someone tried to say something.
      An hijacker can try to deceive but here... is no message or deception

      I think it's a desperate attempt to establish communication with someone.
      JSP.

      Delete
    4. Joseph from Spain wrote: "I think it's a desperate attempt to establish communication with someone."

      Yes, it seems like something was wrong. But, after that point, the plane changed course and headed west. 45 minutes after that call, it was spotted on Malaysian military radar heading west.

      Then a half hour later it supposedly passed directly over Pulau Perak, an island in the Malacca Straits.

      And some time later, somewhere, it turned south.

      So, it appears someone WAS in control of the plane if it made those turns. It's kind of far-fetched to imagine that the plane could have changed course all by itself.

      Ed

      Delete
    5. Mr Lake
      "So, it appears someone WAS in control of the plane if it made those turns. It's kind of far-fetched to imagine that the plane could have changed course all by itself."

      + I agree.

      BBC NEWS ASIA
      02:15: Malaysian military radar plotted Flight MH370 at a point south of Phuket island in the Strait of Malacca, west of its last known location. Thai military radar logs also confirmed that the plane turned west and then north over the Andaman sea.
      http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-26503141
      So, the aircraft not try to go home, nor tried to go another airport.

      + I suppose the pilot attempts to control the plane and fails in the attempt. The-fly-be-wire control was broken catastrophically for unknown reasons and the plane was left adrift to left, to Western Australia.

      Paradoxically obey the plane is the only way to salvation.

      I hope we will be able to get some good news.
      JSP

      Delete
    6. Joseph from Spain,

      Your theory also requires that no one could use the radio to call a "Mayday" to tell the world that the aircraft is in trouble. And, no one on board had a satellite phone to use.

      "Salvation" would be to fly until the plane ran out of fuel and then hope to be able to land it "dead stick," meaning without power.

      It's all "possible," but not very likely.

      Ed

      Delete
    7. Here's an interesting link where one reporter tries to look at the facts about MH370 and another tries to ignore the facts: http://www.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/bestoftv/2014/04/03/malaysia-search-continues-wise-newday.cnn.html

      Ed

      Delete
    8. Hello Mr Lake

      Summarizing: (Fragment of a news published by AP)
      a) Prime Minister Najib Razak ...... said with "deep sadness and regret" that the plane's last known position was "a remote location, far from any possible landing sites," and that the flight "ended" in the southern Indian Ocean.

      b) When the evidence is the lack of evidence
      Sarah Bacj, a 48-year-old American expatriate teacher whose boyfriend, Philip Wood, was on the flight, said the decision by Malaysia Airlines to inject some certainty into the fate of the passengers was a mistake. Until then, she said she thought the Malaysian government had acted responsibly, but the text message "totally violated my trust."

      "I fell off the cliff," Bacj said. "The way the text message came, I expected proof. That they had found the bodies, or that they had found confirmed wreckage, or something ... but they didn't actually tell us anything at all. The only thing they did was make a judgment statement about evidence -- unconfirmed evidence, mind you."

      c) The final words from the cockpit, and who said them, are of interest not only because there are few other clues to the disappearance, but because the communication occurred just a minute before the plane's transponders were shut off. The words were in English, as aviation communications are around the world. No more sounds, words or deceptions, nothing.

      d) The last evidence (The ping) from BBC news:
      08:11: (00:11 GMT, 8 March) Seven hours after contact with air traffic control was lost, a satellite above the Indian Ocean picked up data from the plane in the form of an automatic "handshake" between the aircraft and a ground station.

      This information, disclosed a week after the plane's disappearance, suggested the jet was in one of two flight corridors, one stretching north between Thailand and Kazakhstan, the other south between Indonesia and the southern Indian Ocean.

      08:19: There is some evidence of a further "partial handshake" at this time between the plane and a ground station but experts are still working on analysing this data, the Malaysian transport minister said on 25 March.

      09:15: (01:15 GMT) This would have been the next scheduled automatic contact between the ground station and the plane but there was no response from the aircraft.

      I suppose a ship adrift, a wandering flight. Military radars of other countries say nothing .I prefer to think that the flight system failed and the plane crashed in WA ( Great Sandy Desert or Gibson desert according a topographic map of australia https://www.dfat.gov.au/aib/images/australia-topographic-map-960.jpg ) .

      + And the Australian military radar no detected the plane because the pilot was flying too low to landing at any reasonable place on his errant travel (and almost out of gas). I Seek a place where victims of an accident can survive and not the victims of an evil plan.
      + I prefer this place to land:Great Sandy Desert near to lake Mackay
      JSP.

      Delete
    9. Joseph From Spain wrote: "I prefer to think that the flight system failed and the plane crashed in WA ( Great Sandy Desert or Gibson desert according a topographic map of Australia"

      Okay.

      Personally, I have no preferences. It makes no difference to me what happened. So, I just look at the facts. Right now, the facts say that the plane crashed in the middle of the Indian Ocean and everyone aboard was killed. And the crash was "most likely" the result of a suicide by either the pilot, the co-pilot or someone else aboard.

      If new facts appear which show some other answer, I will have no problem adjusting to those new facts. I have no preferences that I need to hold onto.

      Ed

      Delete
  69. Joseph from Spain,

    The shower curtain in my bathroom has a map of the world on it. It keeps reminding me that the French "own" some islands in the southern Indian Ocean. They're called the Kerguelen Islands. Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerguelen_Islands

    Instead of believing that flight MH370 crashed in some Australian desert without being noticed and without anyone being able to walk to a highway, why not believe that the pilot crash-landed on one of the Kerguelen Islands? They're among the most remote places in the world.

    I don't think MH370 had anywhere near enough fuel to get there, but it makes for a more believable story.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. MR Lake

      Good idea, the plane could land on the Peninsula of Courbet, a flat place.

      The pilot had in his house a very expensive toy, a custom flight simulator. I trust in driver skill and the help of passengers and crew.
      JSP

      Delete
  70. Interesting article out in the Journal of Applied Microbiology this month.

    Military Authors in Journal for Applied Microbiology (April 2014): “Further treatment of the bioagent (e.g., applying a uniform change to the particles, adding a fluidizing agent) can enhance the ability of the powder to disperse by inhibiting particle agglomeration (Matsumoto, 2003), as observed in the 2001 attacks.”


    The authors in section on Test procedure state:

    “Two independent laboratories performed sample preparation and aerosolization studies using separate chambers and personnel. Three independent aerosol loading experiments were performed by each laboratory. Samples for aerosolization were prepared by adding 0.08 g of lyophilized BAΔS, 0.02 g hydrophobic fumed silica (Aerosil® R812S, Evonik Industries), and 15 sterile 3-mm borosilicate glass beads to a 15-mL round-bottom polypropylene tube and securing the cap with Parafilm® to create an airtight seal. The tube was vortexed for 2 min on high, with pauses at 30-second intervals to tap the bottom of the tube against a hard surface. The Parafilm was then removed under aseptic conditions and the glass beads were discarded. The milled spore–silica mixture was resealed and stored at 4 °C until aerosolization.”

    ReplyDelete
  71. "Anonymous" wrote: "Interesting article out in the Journal of Applied Microbiology this month."

    It's only interesting because it seems to still cite that thoroughly debunked Matsumoto article as some kind of source.

    The actual findings don't seem to mean anything. Everyone knows that fumed silica can "inhibit particle agglomeration."

    It looks like those two sections were taken out of context to make some kind of illogical point.

    Why not provide a link to the article? If the link would require buying the article, why not provide a copy of the article via email so that I can read what it says in its entirety?

    Looking at the web site for the Journal of Applied Microbiology at the link HERE, all I see is an article titled "Mechanism of killing of spores of Bacillus anthracis in a high-temperature gas environment, and analysis of DNA damage generated by various decontamination treatments of spores of Bacillus anthracis, Bacillus subtilis and Bacillus thuringiensis." So, it doesn't really have anything to do with the anthrax investigation.

    Why are you trying to make it seem relevant?

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  72. You are referring to a different article. The title of the article is "Standard Method For Deposition Of Dry, Aerosolized, Silica-Coated Bacillus Spores Onto Inanimate Surfaces."

    ReplyDelete
  73. "Anonymous" wrote: "You are referring to a different article."

    I wasn't referring to it. I was trying to figure out what you are talking about because you do not explain anything and FORCE people to try to figure out what you're talking about.

    The article you now mention is at the link HERE and the abstract says:

    "Significance And Impact Of Study

    As demonstrated in 2001, a biological attack using anthrax disseminated as a dry powder is a credible threat. This method will provide a means to load spores onto surfaces that mimic a “real-world” scenario of an aerosolized anthrax attack. The method has utility for evaluating sporicidal technologies and for non-decontamination studies, e.g., fate and transport or reaerosolization."


    So, it's a method for making aerosolizable spores. Whether or not it "mimics" what happened during the anthrax attacks is debatable. It all depends upon what is meant by "mimic."

    It doesn't really have anything to do with the 2001 anthrax attacks, other than mentioning them in passing.

    But, thanks for the reference.

    You really need to learn how to say things without requiring that people ask you to explain what you are trying to say.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  74. Ed, I emailed you a copy of the title page of the article earlier today. I then corrected you when you later misstated the title. Instead of asking for explanations, you should take the documents provided you and upload them so as to avoid your unending torrent of mistakes.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Anonymous" wrote: "Instead of asking for explanations, you should take the documents provided you and upload them so as to avoid your unending torrent of mistakes."

      Please explain how "uploading" meaningless pages from meaningless documents accomplishes anything.
      Please explain how uploading meaningless documents avoids mistakes.
      Please explain what mistakes you are talking about.

      Ed

      Delete
  75. "Anonymous" just sent me an email with two images that I see are now also on Lew Weinstein's blog HERE. No explanation, of course. Just the images and what was posted to Weinstein's blog.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  76. From the March 16 (B) comment (partial):

    And, both Truthers suddenly and inexplicably seemed to cite Leonard Cole as being a supreme authority.
    ========================================================
    Problem: I haven't mention Cole/his book on this thread. I haven't mentioned either on the Internet in many months/years. I did refer to/ link sample pages from Robert Graysmith's book thusly: (end of post):
    --------------------------------------------------------------
    Graysmith's book is very good on this:

    http://books.google.com/books?id=fy6dcvs0UvoC&pg=PT15&lpg=PT15&dq=j-lo+letter+amerithrax&source=bl&ots=mQEppM-gq9&sig=QHygDlKQq68eAf1JmljP9SyehNM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=HGEfU8vFE7PCyAHS44CQDQ&ved=0CCQQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=j-lo%20letter%20amerithrax&f=false
    ============================================
    The only thing 'sudden' and 'inexplicable' is that Mister Lake could screw up my very explicit reference to Graysmith (and in particular the very sample pages that deal with the J-Lo letter) and instead think I was talking about about Cole. Only two persons on the thread talked about Cole: Mister Lake and Anonymous. Are those the ( two) 'both Truthers'? That's the only interpretation that would save the 'summary'. It's clear to me that Mister Lake didn't bother to read my link, wherein he would have seen Graysmith's name over and over again, at the top of each page.

    ReplyDelete
  77. R. Rowley wrote: "I haven't mention Cole/his book on this thread."

    Oops. You're right. You didn't. I guess I stopped reading when you argued that "there's no reason the sender couldn't have mixed anthrax spores in with laundry detergent" That was such preposterous rationalizing that I evidently didn't look at the link you provided after that. I wish I had. Graysmith's comments are in direct contradiction to a lot of what the National Enquirer wrote AND what the facts say. That would have helped me write an even better comment.

    Maybe I'll write something tomorrow about Graysmith's book and the error on my part that you pointed out.

    Thanks for bringing it to my attention.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oops. You're right. You didn't. I guess I stopped reading when you argued that "there's no reason the sender couldn't have mixed anthrax spores in with laundry detergent"
      =================================================
      So, if you don't 'like' an argument (which you are guaranteed not to since you have pre-labelled just about all your interlocutors 'Truthers'), you don't bother to read their entire posts?!?!?!?!? Does that make any sense whatsoever?!?!?! (Note: if/when I read your posts, I generally read the entire thing, precisely so I understand what the argument(s) is/are).

      You've MOCKED the idea that anthrax spores could have been mixed with detergent. Now get off your high horse and EXPLAIN why that is impossible (hint: it isn't; very few households would be without laundry detergent and it is a good way to disguise the true purpose of the mailing, and thus make it likely that no one would sense any danger) or unlikely. Methinks you can't (or you would have done so already).
      ==============================================
      Graysmith's comments are in direct contradiction to a lot of what the National Enquirer wrote AND what the facts say.
      ========================================
      Facts ex machina again?
      -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      You've explained here why you didn't know I that I cited Graysmith. But you HAVEN'T explained why/how you TOTALLY INVENTED the notion that cited Cole. What is that explanation, Mister Lake?

      Delete
    2. R. Rowley wrote: "Now get off your high horse and EXPLAIN why that is impossible"

      I never said anything was "impossible." You are just demonstrating that you do not read what I write, and you misinterpret things. Why don't you get off your high horse and explain how/why you TOTALLY INVENTED the notion that I said it was impossible? What is that explanation, Mr. Rowley?

      The facts say that the letter opened by Stephanie Dailey was the ONLY letter that contained anthrax. So, the notion that there was anthrax in the soap powder is just plain silly. The facts say it was laundry detergent. There is NO reason to believe anthrax was mixed in with the detergent.

      How should I know how I made the mistake? It was just a mistake. For some reason I had Leonard Cole's book on my mind. And you don't mention Graysmith until the very last paragraph, which is mostly just a link. I don't recall the context of the moment.

      Ed

      Delete
    3. R. Rowley wrote: "Now get off your high horse and EXPLAIN why that is impossible"

      I never said anything was "impossible." You are just demonstrating that you do not read what I write[...]
      ========================================
      You wrote "preposterous". I wrote in reaction (my prior post, partial)(but complete sentence):

      Now get off your high horse and EXPLAIN why that is impossible (hint: it isn't; very few households would be without laundry detergent and it is a good way to disguise the true purpose of the mailing, and thus make it likely that no one would sense any danger) or unlikely*.
      -------------
      Let me repeat the end of the sentence: "or unlikely". Does it register with Mister Lake that I'm saying "preposterous"= impossible OR unlikely? No, it does not. I guess he's not even reading to the end of my sentences, even when they are complaining about PAST misrepresentations by him about PRIOR things I wrote on the same thread! You're a hopeless case, Mister Lake. You misrepresent things here that ANY third party reader can see is a misrepresentation of what I wrote. Whose reputation is thereby damaged?
      -----------------------------------------------
      How should I know how I made the mistake? It was just a mistake.
      ---------------------------------------------
      No, it was a mistake alright but it was one that follows a pattern:
      I, Ed Lake, label my interlocutors "Truthers", claim they all essentially think in the same way(s), therefore there's no misrepresentation in grouping them together and attributing the same (mistaken) ideas to them. THAT'S the dynamic behind that class of mistake, because what I wrote about Graysmith ("Graysmith's book is very good on this:")
      is not synonymous with [Graysmith/Cole) being the "supreme authority"
      (Mister Lake's term) on J.Lo/AIM contamination. Heck it's probably not even a fair characterization for Anonymous's take on Cole either. It's Mister Lake's pre-polemicizing even his errors with straw-man characterizations.


      *I would say that "unlikely" would be a bare minimum condition for any English-speaker to call something 'preposterous'. Not all unlikely events/ideas are preposterous, but all preposterous ideas are IPSO FACTO going to be unlikely ones.

      Delete
    4. The facts say that the letter opened by Stephanie Dailey was the ONLY letter that contained anthrax.
      =======================================
      As we've gone over laboriously in this thread (and the one back in October) that's the opposite of what the CDC found (and what the County Board of Health found); once again for old times sake: the CDC:
      ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Workplace interviews regarding mail exposure showed that the index patient rarely handled or opened workplace mail, but co-workers recalled that he had examined a piece of stationery containing a fine, white, talc-like powder on September 19. The patient was observed holding the stationery close to his face as he looked at it over his computer keyboard.
      ----------------------------------------------------
      rr note: This is the J.Lo letter without being named as such. something Mister Lake has never denied. Below: under 'Discussion'
      ----------------------------------------------------

      The index patient’s infection most likely occurred from inhalation of B. anthracis spores following a primary aerosolization, i.e., spores released into the air after opening a spore-containing letter. This scenario is consistent with co-workers’ recollections that the index patient held a letter containing powder over his computer keyboard, as well as environmental samples showing contamination at his keyboard, an incoming-mail desk near his workspace, and his mailroom mailbox. The second case-patient did not recall opening or seeing a letter containing powder, and the mechanism of spore aerosolization resulting in his infection is unclear. He was likely exposed while delivering 10,000–15,000 mail pieces daily to the workplace mailroom; both the mailroom and mail van were contaminated with B. anthracis spores. He may have inhaled spores after mail was compressed or shaken during delivery or after he (unknowingly) or a co-worker opened a spore-containing envelope. A secondary aerosolization, i.e., spores resuspended in the air after settling to a surface following an initial release, may also have resulted in his infection.
      ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      http://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/8/10/02-0354_article.htm
      ==================================================
      As noted a couple times on this thread, Mister Lake wants to dissent from this CDC finding without even admitting that he is dissenting from it. On account of that would cast him down into the fiery hell of 'Trutherism'. A hell of his own design.

      Delete
    5. R. Rowley wrote: "As noted a couple times on this thread, Mister Lake wants to dissent from this CDC finding without even admitting that he is dissenting from it. "

      I ADMIT I dissent from the CDC report. The CDC is WRONG.

      CDC investigators are NOT criminal investigators. They are epidemiologists. For them, the fact that the anthrax arrived in the mail is "good enough." They don't really care which letter contained the anthrax.

      They've got witness testimony that suggests that the J-Lo letter was the letter that contained anthrax, because it's the only letter that the witnesses saw Bob Stevens read. That's good enough for the CDC. But, it's NOT good enough for a criminal investigation.

      In a criminal investigation, TWO anthrax letters that were mailed at different times and are very different in appearance would be VERY important. It would be a matter that would require resolution.

      In the criminal investigation done by the FBI, the FBI found that the J-Lo letter was highly unlikely to have contained anthrax (since the area where it was opened was the LEAST contaminated area in the building). Their investigation showed that ONLY the powder-filled letter opened by Stephanie Dailey in the mailroom contained anthrax.

      The FACTS support the FBI findings.
      The FACTS dispute the CDC findings.

      I think the CDC knows this. They just haven't changed any of their reports because it would be bad policy and bad politics. They would only change things if someone SUED them demanding a change. Otherwise, they leave things the way they are. They're just like newspapers in that way. They don't correct mistakes that they aren't FORCED to correct. They just move on and do the best they can in the future. If they start admitting to and correcting mistakes, the media will jump all over it and the public will never trust them. It's better politics to just leave mistakes uncorrected.

      PLUS, from an epidemiology perspective, there WAS no mistake. The anthrax came in the mail. PERIOD. Which letter contained the anthrax is unimportant when explaining how anthrax got into the building and killed Bob Stevens. That's not an epidemiologist's concern. They left that area of investigation to the FBI.

      Ed

      Delete
    6. Mr. Rowley,

      The CDC merely said that the J-Lo letter "most likely" contained the anthrax that killed Bob Stevens. "Most likely" is an OPINION, not a statement of fact. That was their OPINION at the time.

      They're not going to change their OPINION unless someone proves to a SCIENTIFIC CERTAINTY that they were wrong. No one can do that. The FBI merely explains that it is a NEAR certainty (my words, not theirs) that the letter opened by Stephanie Dailey was the only letter received at AMI that contained anthrax. "Near certainty" is a stronger opinion, probably with more evidence, but it is still just an opinion.

      I weigh the evidence behind these two "opinions," and to me it's a "near certainty" that the CDC is wrong and the FBI is right. There was only one anthrax letter received at AMI, and it was the one opened by Stephanie Dailey.

      Ed

      Delete
  78. After the 2001 anthrax incidents and the report by GAO that additional methological validation of sampling collection and analytical methods should be conducted, studies such as the one I sent yesterday and this study below were done. (The one below was done by Dugway, CDC, and EPA authors). In each study, the method involved the addition of ten percent (by weight) of an amorphous silica-based flow enhancer to the dried spores.

    Appl Environ Microbiol. Jul 2009; 75(13): 4297–4306.
    Published online May 8, 2009. doi: 10.1128/AEM.02549-08
    PMCID: PMC2704799

    Cheryl Fairfield Estill,1,* Paul A. Baron,1 Jeremy K. Beard,2 Misty J. Hein,1 Lloyd D. Larsen,2 Laura Rose,3 Frank W. Schaefer, III,4 Judith Noble-Wang,3 Lisa Hodges,3 H. D. Alan Lindquist,4 Gregory J. Deye,1 and Matthew J. Arduino3 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, 4676 Columbia Parkway, Cincinnati, Ohio 45226,1 Dugway Proving Ground, P.O. Box 217, Dugway, Utah 84022,2 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Center for Infectious Diseases, 1600 Clifton Road, N.E., Atlanta, Georgia 30333,3 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Homeland Security Research Center, 26 W. M. L. King Drive, Cincinnati, Ohio 452684

    *Corresponding author. Mailing address: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, MS R-14, 4676 Columbia Parkway, Cincinnati, OH 45226. Phone: (513) 841-4476. Fax: (513) 841-4486. E-mail:CEstill@cdc.gov

    ABSTRACT

    After the 2001 anthrax incidents, surface sampling techniques for biological agents were found to be inadequately validated, especially at low surface loadings.

    ***

    The Government Accountability Office (GAO) reported that additional methodological validation of sampling collection and analytical methods should be conducted to enhance the interpretation of negative sampling results because initial samples from two postal facilities were negative, but later samples were positive (17). The GAO (17) report defined validation as “… a formal and independently administered empirical process. For validation, the overall performance characteristics of a given method must be certified as meeting the specified requirements for intended use and as conforming with applicable standards.” Currently, there is no preexisting standard for a presumable safe level of surface contamination with B. anthracis spores that may be assessed through sampling and analysis.

    MATERIALS AND METHODS

    ***

    The culture was incubated at 30°C in a 10-liter fermentation vessel with an agitation rate of 250 rpm and an aeration rate greater than 0.5 volume min−1. Sporulation was generally complete within 24 h. Spores were collected by simple centrifugation to remove spent media. The pelleted material was dried by a proprietary azeotropic method. Ten percent (by weight) of an amorphous silica-based flow enhancer was added to the dried spores. The dried material was milled using an exclusionary ball mill. In this process, the material passed through a series of stages separated by increasingly finer mesh screens. In each stage, 0.01-m-diameter steel balls forced the product through the screen separators. A pneumatic vibrator actuated the entire mill. The resulting spores were approximately 1.0 μm.

    ReplyDelete
  79. This morning, "Anonymous" attempted to post sections of another irrelevant and meaningless scientific article without any explanation. I deleted it. Here are a couple sections from the article:

    After the 2001 anthrax incidents and the report by GAO that additional methological validation of sampling collection and analytical methods should be conducted, studies such as the one I sent yesterday and this study below were done. (The one below was done by Dugway, CDC, and EPA authors). In each study, the method involved the addition of ten percent (by weight) of an amorphous silica-based flow enhancer to the dried spores.

    and

    After the 2001 anthrax incidents, surface sampling techniques for biological agents were found to be inadequately validated, especially at low surface loadings.

    SO WHAT?? Without any explanation of why this article has some kind meaning to discussions of the anthrax attacks, the entire post is clearly irrelevant. That's why it was deleted.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  80. You deleted the link to the full-text article so that people can read it. (It's linked over at Lew's blog).

    That's always been one of the reason for your confusion, Ed. You don't read the scholarly, peer-reviewed literature by the CDC and Dugway and EPA and Aberdeen etc authors. For example, you similarly haven't read

    Comparison of Air Sampling Methods for Aerosolized Spores of B. anthracis Sterne

    Cheryl Fairfield Estilla, Paul A. Barona, Jeremy K. Beardb, Misty J. Heina, Lloyd D. Larsenb, Gregory J. Deyea, Laura Rosec & Lisa Hodgescd
    pages 179-186

    Published online: 23 Feb 2011

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Anonymous" wrote: "You deleted the link to the full-text article so that people can read it."

      I hadn't actually deleted the post, it was still in my moderators' file. It does NOT contain any link.

      If you look up above in this thread, you'll see that the post is now there. I let it go through to demonstrate a point. Please point out the "link."

      You don't seem to know what a "link" is, much less what is relevant. That's always been the reason for your confusion. You don't understand anything, so you can't explain anything. Endlessly posting irrelevant material just demonstrates that fact.

      Ed

      Delete
    2. The post on Lew's site also does NOT contain any link.

      Plus, the article is from 2009. So, you would DEFINITELY need some very good explanation for posting it now on this blog.

      Ed

      Delete
  81. "Anonymous" just attempted to post (without explanation or link) parts of an article from 2007 titled "Development of an Aerosol System for Uniformly Depositing Bacillus Anthracis Spore Particles on Surfaces."

    It has been deleted.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  82. Using the Wayback Machine relating to Ed's page on the Silicon Signature, we can trace his profound confusion and demonstrate that it resulted from his failure to read the scientific literature. Tonight I expect to develop a chronology that shows for 10 years he has propagated a confusion that might have been totally avoided if he had simply bothered to read the literature. He enjoys pontificating. But he's not a researcher. Nor is he qualified to do more than link the literature.

    Ed is not qualified to discuss the literature. For that we have the expertise of the corresponding authors.

    By analogy, Ed persists in his theory a First Grader wrote the Fall 2001 anthrax letters because he is what he calls a "True Believer." He has developed his schtick to substitute for an informed view that comes from reading the literature.

    ReplyDelete
  83. "Anonymous" wrote: "Tonight I expect to develop a chronology that shows for 10 years he has propagated a confusion that might have been totally avoided if he had simply bothered to read the literature."

    You're going to EXPLAIN something???!!! I'm looking forward to seeing it. But, I suspect it will be nothing but a meaningless list that explains nothing, and everyone is just supposed to just assume it means something.

    My understanding of the silicon signature hasn't changed much in 13 years. The fact that some supposed "experts" disagree with THE FBI'S FINDINGS and the findings of REAL experts doesn't change what is fact and what is some conspiracy theorist "expert's" belief.

    Your endless blather demonstrating that you do not understand the facts about the handwriting on the anthrax documents is getting very tiresome.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  84. From Sunday's comment:

    Graysmith says that as Ernesto Blanco carried the J-Lo letter through the building in his mail delivery cart, he left a trail of spores behind him. That is total nonsense. The facts say otherwise. The CDC's data showed the mailroom to be the most contaminated place in the AMI building.
    ==================================================
    Once again, the pejorative reaction ("total nonsense") without meaningful explanation.

    That the mailroom was the MOST* contaminated part of the building does not in any way contradict a letter/package being in the mailcart and going up to the 2nd and 3rd floors, AND leaking the spores (which are vastly smaller than the pores of the envelopes) along the way. That, I submit, is just about the ONLY way you are going to get contaminiation on all three floors. Unless there were 3 anthrax-bearing letters: one for the first floor, one for the second and one for the third.



    *This would likely be true whether there was one anthrax-bearing letter, or two, or three, or four, or whatever. Dumping a sackful of mail on the floor is going to release
    spores from the sack, those clinging to cross-contaminated pieces of mail etc.
    So the the-mailroom-was-the-most-contaminated-part-of-the-building idea seems to fit EVERYTHING we know about how such contamination works. Because all mail enters through the mailroom/spends some time in the mailroom, sometimes under
    rough-house conditions.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. R. Rowley wrote: "That the mailroom was the MOST* contaminated part of the building does not in any way contradict a letter/package being in the mailcart and going up to the 2nd and 3rd floors, AND leaking the spores (which are vastly smaller than the pores of the envelopes) along the way."

      How can a sealed envelope INSIDE A CART leak spores along the way?

      The anthrax letter opened by Stephanie Dailey scattered spores all around on the floor near her desk which was in the mailroom. People coming to the mail room to get copy paper (or anything else) could track the spores through the rest of the building. It's no different than spilling flour on the kitchen floor and then tracking it through a house. PLUS, it can be argued that the cleaning crew would have vacuumed up some of the spores, and the vacuum cleaners could have blown spores through the building as the cleaning crew went from floor to floor. The spores would go through the "pores" in the vacuum cleaner bag just the way they went through the envelope.

      Ed

      Delete
    2. R. Rowley wrote: "That the mailroom was the MOST* contaminated part of the building does not in any way contradict a letter/package being in the mailcart and going up to the 2nd and 3rd floors, AND leaking the spores (which are vastly smaller than the pores of the envelopes) along the way."

      How can a sealed envelope INSIDE A CART leak spores along the way?
      ==============================================
      Because not all the LEAKED spores are going to settle, and certainly not settle permanently, at the bottom of the cart. The letter/package is likely to be on top of OTHER pieces of mail, and that's how cross-contamination occurs(leakage from an anthrax-bearing letter to a non-anthrax-bearing one in close proximity) and the floatability of the (microscopic)
      spores is such that wind currents within the building are going to loft SOME of those spores into the air. How many? Don't know, as it depends on too many variables.

      Delete
    3. R. Rowley wrote: "The letter/package is likely to be on top of OTHER pieces of mail

      My first job was in a mail room, and I delivered mail in an office. Mail deliverers don't pile the mail into a cart with the packages on top. They generally have slots in the cart, one slot for every department or person along the delivery route. If there are BIG packages to be delivered, they go in a bin in the bottom of the cart. Do a Google image search for "mail cart," and you'll see what I mean. http://images.google.com/

      But, my Sunday comment included an answer. The problem is, the same answer applies to a letter opened on the first floor by Stephanie Dailey OR a letter opened on the third floor by Bobby Bender. Here's the answer:

      The anthrax letter was in a mailbag that was brought from the post office. Spores leaked from it, contaminating post offices along the way. The anthrax letter also cross-contaminated other envelopes in the AMI mail bag. When the mail was delivered within the building, spores on the cross-contaminated mail were sprinkled everywhere a piece of mail was delivered.

      That explains the contamination in the building. But the FACT that the area around Stephanie Dailey's desk was the MOST contaminated area in the building, and the third floor was the LEAST contaminated area in the building, is ONLY explained by there being just one anthrax letter, the letter opened by Stephanie Dailey.

      Ed

      Delete
    4. R. Rowley wrote: "The letter/package is likely to be on top of OTHER pieces of mail

      My first job was in a mail room, and I delivered mail in an office. Mail deliverers don't pile the mail into a cart with the packages on top.
      =============================================
      Obviously there's some variability in that. If you watch the movie ZODIAC, which obviously was very much concerned with letters from the killer, in the first post-title scenes we (intermittently) follow the progress of the first letter to the (SF) CHRONICLE: first from the mail truck on the street outside, then on the elevator, then in a mail-room sort of environment, then to the secretary of the editor (in chief). The mail cart does not seem to have slots: the letters are in a heap, thought they seem to be in rubber-band secured bundles, evidently pre-sorted at the P.O.

      I don't know why you stress the sealing of the envelopes. That won't stop leakage through the pores of the sides. We know this quite independently of the AMI building: the mailbox on Nassau and Bank Streets was still contaminated in late August, 2002 despite having seen many letters come and go in the intervening 10 months. How did it become contaminated? Through the pores of the envelopes. And there's no reason to think there was any great jostling involved to produce that in the short time the letters were in the mailbox.

      Delete
    5. R. Rowley wrote: "If you watch the movie ZODIAC .."

      The problem with movies is that they often distort things for "cinematic" purposes. They're not going to show every step the letter went through if there are too many steps. The audience will get bored. So, they'll cut out some steps and combine others.

      We KNOW that the mail arrived unsorted at AMI in mail bags. We KNOW that the next step was then to open the mailbags, and then the mailroom workers sorted the mail into the slots in the mail sorting rack for each department or person. (That is EXACTLY how we did it where I worked approximately a thousand years ago.) If you have already sorted the mail, you are NOT going to dump it into a cart willy nilly. You'll carefully take the mail out of each sorting slot and put it in the matching slot in the mail cart. OR, you'll put the mail into the mail cart in the order in which it is to be delivered, usually with some kind of divider to tell you where one mail batch ends and the next starts.

      Yes, it might be POSSIBLE that they did things some other way, but that is the way the KNOWN FACTS fit together.

      R. Rowley also wrote: "I don't know why you stress the sealing of the envelopes."

      I stress it because there's a BIG difference between the amount of spores that will leak through pores in the envelope and the amount of spores that will be released when you OPEN the envelope and the powder spills out.

      The facts say that the anthrax letter was OPENED on the first floor by Stephanie Dailey, NOT on the third floor by Bobby Bender. It is only on the first floor where the spores spilled out. There is no matching spill point on the third floor.

      Ed

      Delete
  85. Mister Lake continues:
    ------------------------------
    The FBI said the spores were most likely tracked through the building by people coming to the thoroughly contaminated mail room to get copy paper. Graysmith says (without any apparent foundation) that Blanco had "rested a handful of mail atop stacks of copy paper" for some unexplained reason.
    ================================================
    Where is the document that says "most likely tracked through the building by people coming to the thoroughly contaminated mail room to get copy paper." , and why do I have to ask?

    If you've ever worked in an office building (let alone a 3-story building) you know that there are frequently multiple copy machines and therefore multiple copy-paper storage areas. That the mailroom (!) would be the only place in the whole building
    with such paper and 300-plus people would have to go down to the mailroom seems very unlikely. If only because it requires people to roam far from their desks, and would lead to excess traffic in the mailroom. Chances are that copy paper was for
    either just the first floor or a section thereof. Basic logic (plus I did work in an office building and saw the basic layout).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. R. Rowley wrote: "If you've ever worked in an office building (let alone a 3-story building) you know that there are frequently multiple copy machines and therefore multiple copy-paper storage areas."

      It doesn't make any difference what other companies do. It's only important what they did at AMI. According to an article HERE:

      Anthrax at AMI traveled via copiers

      By John Murawski, Palm Beach Post Staff Writer
      Sunday, September 15, 2002

      BOCA RATON -- FBI investigators believe photocopy machines helped spread anthrax throughout the American Media Inc. headquarters last year before the building was quarantined.

      While testing the three-story building for anthrax spores, investigators found that every copy machine in the building -- more than two dozen in all -- tested positive for anthrax, according to a source familiar with the investigation.

      The anthrax is believed to have gotten into the copiers from reams of copy paper that had trapped airborne spores in the company's mail room, where the paper was stored.


      The article also mentions the idea that the mailcart could have spread spores through the building. It implies the spores may have clung to it's wheels. It doesn't suggest the spores magically jumped out of a bin in the cart.

      Ed

      Delete
  86. From the Sunday comment:
    --------------
    While I'd normally be the last person in the world to cite the National Enquirer as a key authority on anything, the J-Lo letter was opened in their building by their people, and they had much better access than Cole or Graysmith to interview all the AMI employees involved.
    ==============================================
    But none of the discrepancies much matter: blueish-tinted, pinkish-tinted, what difference does it make when people are trying to remember a letter of some WEEKS EARLIER? (ie at a time when there was no particular need to pay attention) Each narrative is going to contain variant details as the respective witnesses remember it. What do all accounts AGREE ON?

    1) there was a package-cum-letter thrown out.

    2) Bobby Bender was told it was sent to the SUN c/o Jennifer Lopez.

    3) He retrieved the letter, and handed it, with (some?) powder still in the fold, to Bob Stevens.

    4) Stevens took it to his desk, placed it thereon, and examined it closely due to the poor vision thing.

    5) The letter would have been incinerated in situ within a day or two, as it had no evident value to THE SUN.

    This bare-bones outline accounts for his lethal infection and accounts for the 2nd and 3rd floors being contaminated (via the transport of the J-Lo package through those two floors).

    All the accounts show how the CDC pieced together the story from the various parties involved: Roz Suss, Bobby Bender, Stevens (when he was alive), Carla Chadwick, the absent correspondence editor (whose absence helped pinpoint the date), etc

    IOW, I'm not knocking the ENQUIRER account, I just don't see how their details conflict in a MAJOR way with those of Graysmith OR Cole. Major way=way that would lead us to believe that the J-Lo letter had nothing to do with Stevens' infection/death.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. R. Rowley wrote: "I'm not knocking the ENQUIRER account, I just don't see how their details conflict in a MAJOR way with those of Graysmith OR Cole."

      The details do not conflict with each other in any major way. Cole, Graysmith AND the Enquirer are simply all WRONG about the J-Lo letter containing anthrax.

      If the J-Lo letter contained anthrax, WHY WASN'T THE AREA WHERE IT WAS OPENED THE MOST CONTAMINATED AREA IN THE BUILDING? Instead, it was the LEAST CONTAMINATED area in the building.

      Ed

      Delete
  87. On July 11, 2007, demonstrating his half-decade confusion up that point, argued:

    "The idea of coating spores to make them more "flyable" is absolute and total nonsense. It's beyond that. It's ridiculous and absurd. It's just plain STUPID. ... coating spores makes them HEAVIER, and therefore LESS FLYABLE."

    07/11/2007 9:19:19 AM PDT by EdLake

    If Ed simply had read the literature -- to include the literature dating prior to Fall 2001 -- he would have known the use of silica. Then related issues of protection from destruction by sunlight, the making detection more difficult, the protection from being destroyed by an exploding bomb etc. and other purposes could be addressed.

    But Ed's statement evidences that he was not even aware of its commonly understood use so amply demonstrated by the literature that Ed refuses to read, link or post.

    Whenever the literature was quoted to Ed, he would ignore, not link it, refuse to upload it etc. His confusion for the past decade has stemmed in large part from this failure to read the scientific literature.

    These experts do such a good job in their highly specialized and technical field that the least we can do is go find what they have written and share their expertise by quoting it -- without the sort of nonsense demonstrated by Ed's statement and fundamental confusion above.

    He takes the same approach to civil depositions such as the one by Reynolds M. Salerno, a biosecurity expert who led the Sandia team in a probing inspection of USAMRIID in Spring 2002.

    ReplyDelete
  88. "Anonymous" wrote that I wrote in 2007: "The idea of coating spores to make them more "flyable" is absolute and total nonsense. It's beyond that. It's ridiculous and absurd. It's just plain STUPID. ... coating spores makes them HEAVIER, and therefore LESS FLYABLE."

    That argument was about WEAPONIZING anthrax spores. My logic was valid, but I didn't have all the facts. Technically, coating a spore with silica DOES make the spore "less flyable," since it makes it heavier. BUT, a single spore is so light that the added weight of the silica doesn't create any significant problem with "flying ability."

    And, there were two different arguments going on at that time: (1) The attack spores were NOT coated with silica. Conspiracy theorists argued that they WERE coated with silica. (2) Weaponized spores are NOT ALWAYS coated with silica. Conspiracy theorists argued that they are always coated with silica.

    There were no publications at that time (2007) which showed how WEAPONIZED spores were coated with silica.

    The Gary Matsumoto article in Science which came out in 2003 was "preposterous" in its claim the silica particles were glued to the spores with "polymerized glass."

    It wasn't until March 1, 2008, that the actual process of coating spores with silica was revealed along with PICTURES of WEAPONIZED spores coated with silica. The silica was bound to the spores by the difference in their electrical charges. Silica particles have a negative electrical charge, and the spore has a positive electrical charge. So, the silica particles CLING to the spore.

    As soon as those NEW FACTS where provided, I changed my theory ABOUT WEAPONIZED SPORES because my understanding had changed. However, it changed NOTHING about the attack spores.

    Meanwhile, the conspiracy theorists continue to argue that the spores in the anthrax letters were coated with silica. THE ATTACK SPORES WERE NOT COATED WITH SILICA. That part of my argument has not changed. I just learned more about actual weaponization processes that were NOT used as part of the attacks.

    And, there is NOTHING any any NEW article ANYWHERE that PROVES that the attack spores were coated with silica. The conspiracy theorists just continue to believe what they want to believe in the face of solid science which shows they are arguing total nonsense.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  89. Atom 1: “I think I’ve lost an electron.” Atom 2: “Are you sure?” Atom 1: “Yeah, I’m positive.”

    As you so passionately argued, "weaponization" is just a buzz word.

    After you spoke to Ken Alibek, I told him about the AFIP report -- about which he knew nothing -- and changed his view.

    Upload and link materials.

    Stop telling prospective agents that you suck at marketing.

    Drop your First Grader theory so as to avoid losing credibility.

    ReplyDelete
  90. "Anonymous,"

    I constantly upload and link relevant materials. I just ignore the irrelevant materials that you post without explanation.

    I don't tell prospective agents that I suck at marketing. I only mention that to readers of my blog as part of EXPLAINING the process. I understand you cannot comprehend explaining anything, but that's not my problem.

    There's no reason to believe that an agent who is interested in sci-fi novels is going to do any extensive reading of my web site. And, even if he did, he knows all the problems writers have, so there'd be nothing unusual in what he read.

    You just don't understand how the agent-seeking process works. It's just something else you do not understand. I've had agents in the past. I understand how it works.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  91. Ed, I think we both know why you didn't obtain and upload Pat Fellows' civil deposition.

    ReplyDelete
  92. "Anonymous" wrote: "Ed, I think we both know why you didn't obtain and upload Pat Fellows' civil deposition."

    Do we? I dropped my FOIA request for it, because you kept endlessly saying that it was "shredded" and was not available.

    Were you LYING?

    If you have it, why don't you provide it? I'd certainly like to see it. Or, are you just playing some kind of game? Is that what "we both know"?

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  93. Now that we see how easy it is to identify the location of warships, what ships were in the Indian Ocean on March 8, 2014? What about March 7 for when the data was archived?

    Returning to Amerithrax, you should obtain and upload the civil deposition in Stevens v. US of Colonel Elliott, who led the Inspector General's into USAMRIID as a presumed source of the Fall 2001 anthrax mailings. His team's investigation was conducted in November 2001 and he explained to Dr. Jahrling that he was determined to get to the bottom of the source of the virulent Ames used in the mailings.

    ReplyDelete
  94. "Anonymous" wrote: "what ships were in the Indian Ocean on March 8, 2014? What about March 7 for when the data was archived?"

    Let us know when you find out, and PLEASE explain what you think your findings mean.

    "Anonymous" also wrote: "he explained to Dr. Jahrling that he was determined to get to the bottom of the source of the virulent Ames used in the mailings."

    I gather he didn't do what he said, otherwise you'd be posting it somewhere. So, you make it clear that there's nothing relevant in Col. Elliott's deposition. If I'm wrong about that, please EXPLAIN what there is in the deposition that is relevant.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  95. On WIkipedia, I hope you explained to that fellow that you instead are a guy who thinks a First Grader wrote the anthrax letters. It's important to emphasize your bona fides.

    ReplyDelete
  96. "Anonymous,"

    I didn't have to explain anything to him. Another Wikipedia editor put all those deleted links back. Plus, he added my 2012 book to the references section of the article.

    I asked the editor who deleted my links why he thinks I'm a conspiracy theorist. I suspect he may think I'm conspiring with the government to debunk his personal theory about the case.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  97. The original editor wrote, you note:

    "Ed, I noticed you are a crank abusing Wikipedia to promote your website and delusional beliefs. Now would be a great time to leave because you have been rumbled"

    Now, I've pointed out to you that your view that a First Grader wrote the anthrax letters is in fact delusional. So I think he or she nailed it there. And more broadly, Ed, he or she is certainly right that you have an agenda. You haven't wavered in your inappropriate, highly polarizing "schtick" for over a decade.

    Wikipedia should be edited by people who don't have an agenda like you do. Wikipedia articles should be edited by people who are dispassionately reviewing the material under the protocols and guidelines governing the forum. So even if you are offended by his characterization of your theory of the case as delusional, buck up and move on. You've had 2 people buy your book this past month. So take a break and rest on your laurels..

    Instead, focus on obtaining source materials that can be made available to GAO, which is known for being dispassionate. For example, consider what FOIA materials might be freed from the bowels of the Post Office, CDC, EPA and Sandia on the subject of the Silicon Signature. In other words, if you disagree with the editor, have it established by the GAO that your view is the correct view by obtaining authoritative information. Then the GAO's report will be citable authority. There will be numerous press articles reporting GAO's findings. In the meantime, stop promoting your website on Wikipedia.
    .


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Now, I've pointed out to you that your view that a First Grader wrote the anthrax letters is in fact delusional.
      ==================================================
      I think that's too strong. There are reasons for thinking a child printer is
      extremely unlikely, but 'delusional' is too much like, indeed stronger than,
      "preposterous", used upthread by the host. It's a hypothesis, not one I think bears great scrutiny, but certainly not on the same level as Elvis being kidnapped by Martians or anything I would label 'delusional'. I think
      rhetorical hyperbole is one of Internet discussion's major negative features.

      Delete
  98. "Anonymous" wrote: "Wikipedia should be edited by people who don't have an agenda like you do."

    Everyone has an agenda, even if it is just to be unbiased and correct.

    Your advice has been noted and will be ignored.

    I'll be adding back the links using links that go to the original articles. If he/she deletes those links, then it will be clear he/she has some malicious agenda.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  99. Ed, the editor says you've been "rumbled."

    That's British slang meaning "to reveal or discover the true character of."

    I think it is your theory a First Grader who wrote the anthrax letters that makes it so easy for you to be rumbled.

    ReplyDelete
  100. "Anonymous,"

    I asked him to explain why he thinks I'm a "conspiracy theorist." He refused to explain. So, you and he have a LOT in common. Neither of you can explain your beliefs.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  101. Ed, you have falsely claimed

    "Meanwhile, one Anthrax Truther seems certain that Muslim terrorists hijacked MH370 and flew it into the Indian Ocean to do a suicide attack upon an American warship there."

    I have quite plainly stated I have no opinion on Malaysian Airlines 370. I did share with the NYT the historic plot that Yazid Sufaat's plan was to have a plan hijacked and crashed into a US warship. The NYT promptly reported the item and it was widely reported in many languages.

    I also have always shared that I did not know what Yazid Sufaat meant when he told me the plan was on the way. Yazid Sufaat was Al Qaeda's anthrax lab technician but has been unavailable to me ever since he was arrested. You like mischaracterizing people in order to provoke me into having to post. It's a very poor practice to be so closely associated with your marketing of a novel.

    ReplyDelete
  102. Ed writes:

    "There almost certainly were American warships in the Indian Ocean at that time."

    Putting aside where American warships were, a recent issue of INSPIRE did make that claim, casting it as an expansion.

    The Navy declined to respond but has elsewhere described the geographic scope of their operations expansively.

    ReplyDelete
  103. "Anonymous,"

    You seem to have misread what I wrote. So, let me emphasize one particular word for you:

    "Meanwhile, one Anthrax Truther seems certain that Muslim terrorists hijacked MH370 and flew it into the Indian Ocean to do a suicide attack upon an American warship there."

    That's the way things SEEM to me, since you go on and on with what SEEMS to be a theory about MH370.

    I'm not trying to "provoke" you. I'm just trying to get you to explain things. Your beliefs SEEM to make no sense. So, they definitely do NEED explanations.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, Ed. I am posting articles on the subject of MH 370. I have previously stated on the blog you are quoting from that I don't favor any theory. So it doesn't "seem" that I do -- you just intentionally mischaracterize things. You do it all the time. It is part of your "schtick". It is part of what leads folks like that editor to describe you as a "crank." People behaving professionally quote what others say and then respond to the substance.

      You may feel a need to "debate" what happened to MH 370. Most people feel a need to find the plane. Acting in a dislikable fashion (mischaracterizing others as you do) is extremely poor marketing practice.

      Delete
    2. "Anonymous" wrote: "You may feel a need to "debate" what happened to MH 370."

      I have absolutely no interest in debating what happened to MH370. I'm just trying to understand what happened to MH370 based upon what the known facts at the moment say.

      The known facts at the moment SEEM to say that the pilot or co-pilot took over the plane in order to commit suicide.

      That's just my interpretation of the KNOWN FACTS. It is NOT A BELIEF. I'm always open to ANY FACTS which disprove this. If anyone finds any such facts, I would immediately change my interpretation of what the facts say.

      You argue your beliefs. I try to figure out what the facts say. Until you learn to understand that I'm not talking about BELIEFS, only about a CURRENT interpretation of the FACTS, you're never going to understand what I'm talking about.

      Ed

      Delete
  104. Ed, he said you were a crank.

    You think a First Grader wrote the anthrax letters. As evidence you point to evidence that the person had recently learned to write English and in a second batch decided to write smaller, having previously run out of room. That's preposterous.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Anonymous,"

      You are misreading things to serve your own purposes, as usual.

      The child didn't decide to write smaller because on the first envelopes he ran out of room. I made no such claim. As you say, that would be preposterous.

      Here's what the FACTS indicate:

      1. The child didn't know how to write any smaller when he addressed the media envelopes. He wrote the way they teach you in kindergarten, where you write on blank paper by copying off of a blackboard. Size is unimportant.

      2. Because the child couldn't write small, or had never done so, IVINS couldn't use any envelopes the child may have addressed which included the return address. It would be too clear that a child did the writing and NOT a Muslim terrorist who wasn't accustomed to writing in English. (Try adding a return address to the media envelopes using the writing size in the addresses.)

      3. In first grade, they teach you how to write smaller by giving you LINED paper. The child has to make his writing fit between the lines. The child may have had the ability when he's younger and in kindergarten, he was just never taught there to write smaller.

      4. When the child addressed the Senate envelopes, due to what he'd learned in first grade, he was able to write small enough to fit both the address and the return address on the envelopes. BUT, he still wrote both in the same size. Unlike an adult - even an adult who wasn't accustomed to writing in English - he didn't know how or didn't have the ability to write in TWO DIFFERENT SIZES. And he probably didn't know they were supposed to be in two different sizes.

      If you want to understand things, you need to at least TRY to read what I wrote.

      Ed

      Delete
    2. Richard, given that there was no child, Ed's preposterous theory was fairly described as delusional.

      Delete
    3. Richard, why don't you ask "Anonymous" to explain how he KNOWS "there was no child"? It appears to be a preposterous delusion he has.

      Ed

      Delete
    4. Richard, given that there was no child, Ed's preposterous theory was fairly described as delusional.
      -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Well, we are talking about a hierarchy of hypotheses. From the most likely to the least likely. "Delusional" suggests to me that a given hypothesis isn't merely unaccepted by a wide following, isn't merely very unlikely but involves something like the breaking of physical laws (though even here I wouldn't want to rile religious believers by claiming that God can't do that).

      Ivins did have SOME small children in his life: from his wife's daycare business, to his volunteer work to amuse kids with juggling, possibly in church (if a children's choir ever accompanied his music) etc.
      So I don't find the CONCEPT so far out as Anonymous does.
      ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

      Something (for me) of interest lately about how increased knowledge of a subject actually drives disputants apart: (it can be applied to Amerithrax discussions):
      http://www.vox.com/2014/4/6/5556462/brain-dead-how-politics-makes-us-stupid

      Delete
    5. Mr. Rowley,

      That is a VERY interesting link. Thanks for providing it. It certainly applies to politics where it's always "us against them." And, it probably applies to arguments over a lot of public issues where it is also "us against them." But, I'm not sure it applies to the debates over the anthrax attacks.

      In debates over the anthrax attacks, it is sometimes "us against them," i.e., "Truthers against the government," but there's also a big "ME against them" issue between the Truthers. No two Truthers seem to have exactly the same theory. Your theory is certainly VERY different from Anonymous's theory. You and Anonymous are only on the same side when you both agree that the FBI's findings in the case are wrong.

      With Anthrax Truthers there MAY be a way to change their minds. It requires convincing them - one by one - that they are NOT the only person in the world who understands what happened. That may be very difficult, but it doesn't appear to be impossible.

      Ed

      Delete
  105. "Anonymous" wrote: "Putting aside where American warships were, a recent issue of INSPIRE did make that claim, casting it as an expansion. "

    Sorry, but you need to EXPLAIN what you are talking about. I don't have time to hunt for the article in "Inspire" (whatever that is) to figure out what claim they made and what "casting it an an expansion" means.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  106. The Seventh Fleet has been in the Indian Ocean for a half century. It was thought to relate partly to the instability of the rivalry between Pakistan and India and also to China. Indonesia has been okay with it. As to Yazid Sufaat's historic plot to crash a plane into a US warship, you had ruled out the theory because you thought it impossible that someone would know where a ship was. You've since learned that there is even a website that identifies the location of ships. You also have merely assumed that under such a theory the warship would be in the Indian Ocean.

    Yazid Sufaat has been interrogated on the subject. The title of the interrogation report is "Pendedahan Yazid Sufaat Berkaitan Projek Keganasan di Indonesia dan Singapura."

    ReplyDelete
  107. "Anonymous" wrote: "As to Yazid Sufaat's historic plot to crash a plane into a US warship, you had ruled out the theory because you thought it impossible that someone would know where a ship was."

    You just endlessly distort things to make them fit your beliefs. I never said ANYTHING was "impossible." I merely asked you how someone who had hijacked flight MH370 would know where a ship was located in the Indian Ocean. You responded with fantasies about locating the ship with a cell phone that used cell towers planted in the middle of the ocean.

    Do you now believe that someone with a laptop computer SOMEHOW accessed the Internet on a flight to China and based upon what they saw, they steered an intercept course ACROSS THE INDIAN OCEAN to meet with that ship? But, they didn't meet with the ship, did they? And that doesn't change you mind, does it? You're just going to believe what you want to believe. Right? Why didn't they attack a ship in the South China Sea? Is it because you believe there are no wi-fi hotspots in the middle of the South China Sea, but there ARE in the Indian Ocean?

    Ed

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ed, I have the highest possible rating in ham radio operation.

      You, on the other hand, think a First Grader wrote the Fall 2001 anthrax letters. I post only to remind people of that fact.

      Delete
    2. "Anonymous" wrote: 'I have the highest possible rating in ham radio operation."

      Your comment really belongs in the new "Putting 2 and 2 together" thread. You are putting 2 and 2 together and getting 735.

      Please explain how you being a ham radio operator has ANYTHING to do with what happened to flight MH370.

      Please explain how my hypothesis about the handwriting has ANYTHING to do with what happened to flight MH370 OR with you being a ham radio operator.

      You seem to BELIEVE that you can justify your beliefs by putting any two random events together and simply claiming they prove something. That is insane reasoning.

      Ed

      Delete
    3. Ed, I have the highest possible rating in ham radio operation.

      You, on the other hand, think a First Grader wrote the Fall 2001 anthrax letters. I post only to remind people of that fact.
      ==================================================
      I must admit that I don't understand the juxtaposition of those two ideas.
      My approach is always eclectic: if I'm studying Amerithrax, I wouldn't mind stealing ideas from the devil himself, if I found it useful.

      This appears to be a justification for bringing in the child-printed-it hypothesis into each and every discussion, even when the focus isn't on the printing and/or its origin.

      Mister Lake can be wrong about that hypothesis and right about OTHER aspects of the Case. And I write that as someone who thinks an adult printed the Amerithrax texts.

      Delete
  108. R. Rowley wrote: "This appears to be a justification for bringing in the child-printed-it hypothesis into each and every discussion, even when the focus isn't on the printing and/or its origin."

    He doesn't need a reason to bring in the child-printed-it hypothesis. He just does it because he believes it annoys me. It's pure maliciousness. He also sends me messages that attack me personally in sleazy and disgusting ways. I consider the source and just chalk them off as being mindless rantings.

    "Anonymous" has no real argument, so he has to resort to disgusting personal attacks. In his mind he probably justifies it by figuring that referring to him as a "True Believer" or "Anthrax Truther" is some kind of personal attack, too. It's not. It just a way of referring to people who dispute the government without getting personal.

    I agree that it doesn't make any difference where a good idea comes from. I'd steal from the devil, too. But, "Anonymous" seems to feel that anyone who has even LISTENED TO Ivins' counselor Judith McLean is incompetent and an enemy of society. It's another one of his many obsessions.

    Ed

    ReplyDelete