This quote is relevant to the theories of two bloggers who post or attempt to post to this blog:
1. "DXer" from Lew Weinstein's blog endlessly demonstrates that he cannot explain anything. And it is clear that the reason he cannot explain anything is either (1) he doesn't understand what he is arguing, or (2) he knows that if he tried to explain himself his explanation would be seen to be clearly ridiculous.
2. R. Rowley, on the other hand, occasionally seems to try to explain himself. But, when he does so, he shows everyone that he simply does not understand what he is talking about. His beliefs do not jibe with reality.
Very little to nothing of what DXer attempts to post has any relevance to the anthrax attacks of 2001. Yet, he seems to think he is somehow making a good argument for his theory that al Qaeda was behind the anthrax attacks. Here are two recent examples of his meaningless babble:
andEd, perhaps I can help you make a credible argument in support of an Ivins Theory.
To start, rather than try to suggest he grew the anthrax in the autoclave (ha!) used by others, point out that the FBI doesn't know what happened to the Ames that his assistants were always making. They said it wasn't put into Flask 1029. See Amerithrax Investigative Summary.
Also, Ed, if I could help you further in coming up with a credible Ivins Theory, consider Ivins experiment with heat shocked vs. non-heat-shocked spores. That was done in 1412 in connection with aerosol experiments. It could be done in lieu of purification using Renocal, Ivins said. He said he was first learned that it was done by Iraq during the Persian Gulf war era.DXer doesn't even appear to understand that I'm not trying to develop any kind of "Ivins theory." The FBI and DOJ presented their legal case against Ivins. I simply see it as a very good case. DXer clearly doesn't understand or doesn't believe the evidence, and he apparently doesn't even understand that it's the FBI, not me, who did the investigation. Nothing in what he talks about in those two attempted posts has anything to do with the evidence against Dr. Bruce Ivins.
R. Rowley, on the other hand, endlessly demonstrates that he does not understand circumstantial evidence. He says the FBI has no case against Ivins because the FBI doesn't view evidence the way Mr. Rowley views evidence. In a post HERE, Mr. Rowley argued:
Evidence of the drives to Princeton would be: toll receipts on a road heading to/from NJ; CC television footage of Ivins on any road leading to New Jersey; a parking ticket issued in NJ ; a speeding ticket issued on a highway going to/from New Jersey; receipts for gasoline or any other purchase on the way to/from New Jersey; someone who wrote down/remembered Ivins tag numbers for some reason on the night(s) in question, etc. And, please note, ALL of the above would be "circumstantial evidence" save only the eyewitness jotting down the tag numbers.In reality, "DIRECT evidence" is defined as follows:
Evidence in the form of testimony from a witness who actually saw, heard, or touched the subject of questioning. Evidence that, if believed, proves existence of the fact in issue without inference or presumption. That means of proof which tends to show the existence of a fact in question, without the intervention of the proof of any other fact, and which is distinguished from Circumstantial Evidence, often called indirect.Therefore, while they might not be "direct evidence" of Ivins' guilt,
Toll receipts would be direct evidence of Ivins' trip to New Jersey.Click HERE for a definition of "Circumstantial Evidence."
A parking ticket in New Jersey would be direct evidence of Ivins' trip to New Jersey.
A speeding ticket would be direct evidence of Ivins' trip to New Jersey.
Gasoline receipts would be direct evidence of Ivins' trip to New Jersey.
An eye witness would be direct evidence of Ivins' trip to New Jersey.
"Books, movies, and television often perpetuate the belief that circumstantial evidence may not be used to convict a criminal of a crime. But this view is incorrect. In many cases, circumstantial evidence is the only evidence linking an accused to a crime; direct evidence may simply not exist. As a result, the jury may have only circumstantial evidence to consider in determining whether to convict or acquit a person charged with a crime. In fact, the U.S. Supreme Court has stated that "circumstantial evidence is intrinsically no different from testimonial [direct] evidence"(Holland v. United States, 348 U.S. 121, 75 S. Ct. 127, 99 L. Ed. 150 [1954]). Thus, the distinction between direct and circumstantial evidence has little practical effect in the presentation or admissibility of evidence in trials."Here's the example of circumstantial evidence that I provided to Mr. Rowley, but which he doesn't seem to understand. He he clearly cannot explain why it wouldn't be totally valid in court:
1. Ivins created the powders and the letters.In another post (HERE), Mr. Rowley argued:
2. The letters were mailed from New Jersey.
3. Ivins had no alibi for the times when the letters were mailed.
4. Ivins had a history of driving long distances to commit crimes.
Therefore, we have good circumstantial evidence that:
5. Ivins drove to New Jersey to mail the letters.
The only solid evidence in the case is: that the genetic profile indicates that the flask (RMR_1029) was likely a parent of the attack anthrax. That doesn't point to Ivins alone.And I responded:
Generally speaking, NONE of the evidence in a circumstantial case points only to ONE person.
Evidence item #1 may point to suspects A, B, C and D.
Evidence item #2 may point to suspects A, C, J, K and L.
Evidence item #3 may point to suspects C, J, L and M.
Evidence item #4 may point to suspects A, C, D, K, L and M.
Which means that the ONLY person that ALL the evidence points to is C.But all Mr. Rowley did in response (as usual) is change the subject.
With every argument it becomes more and more clear that neither of these two Anthrax Truthers understands the evidence against Dr. Bruce Ivins. Therefore, they cannot explain why I or anyone else should not accept that evidence as very good proof of Dr. Ivins guilt in the anthrax attacks of 2001. And neither of the two Anthrax Truthers can make a clear case in favor of their own personal (and very different) theories -- probably because they do not understand their own theories, either.
Ed
"DXer" (a.k.a. "Anonymous") just attempted another post to this blog. Here it is in its entirety:
ReplyDelete-----------------------
Is that why the FBI cannot explain how Ivins dried the anthrax?
Or how or when he grew the anthrax?
Or is that why the FBI cannot explain when Dr. Ivins mailed the letters?
Or why the FBI cannot explain his motive?
Is that why you cannot explain how a First Grader wrote the Fall 2001 anthrax letters?
----------------------------
The post makes absolutely no sense, of course. And DXer is evidently incapable of explaining.
The FBI explained that Ivins had the MEANS to dry spores in many different ways. There's just no way to tell exactly which method he used. But, they don't need to do that in court.
Ivins grew anthrax spores as part of his job. He had the OPPORTUNITY to create the spores at many times and in many ways over the prior year or so. There's just no way to tell exactly when he created the spores. But, they don't need to do that in court.
The FBI explained the "window of time" when Ivins could have mailed the letters. Ivins had no alibi covering all of that time. So, he had the OPPORTUNITY to mail the letters. That's all the DOJ needs to show in court.
Explaining Ivins' exact motive requires mind-reading. Mind reading is not valid in court. So, the DOJ would show evidence that Ivins had multiple motives for sending the letters. Any or all of the motives could have been his reason. That's all the DOJ needs to do in court.
I've explained in great detail how a child wrote the letters. What is it you are incapable of understanding? Oh, yes, of course. You cannot explain why you cannot understand.
Ed
"DXer" (a.k.a. "Anonymous") just attempted another post to this blog. Here it is in its entirety:
ReplyDelete----------------------
Ed, What were the many different ways available to Dr. Ivins for drying the spores? And are you now saying you can name the special equipment in the B3 (which is where he was the nights they say he dried the anthracis) available to him with respect to such methods? We just got done establishing that the lyophilizer was in B5 and not B3 (where he was). And you can concede he did not have a spraydryer or fluidized bed dryer. What other special equipment did he have available that is consistent with the forensics?
-------------------
DXer,
I think you are misunderstanding something. There is no "special equipment" needed to dry spores. Spores will dry all by themselves. In fact, you have to work to PREVENT spores from drying all by themselves.
Dr. Majidi at the August 18, 2008 news conference said:
"You can ask any of the folks and the panel members, and they will tell you that you can dry biological samples in one of dozens of ways. lyophilizer is one of them. You can let the samples heat-dry. You can let the samples -- the water evaporate. You can --"
Unfortunately, a reporter interrupted before he could list the ways. Some of them involve using drying chemicals which mix with the water and cause quicker evaporation. I.e., it's a FASTER way to air dry spores.
As I've said dozens of times, the most likely method Ivins used was to simply let the spores air dry. You seem to think this requires some super-sophisticated equipment. It doesn't.
Ivins would just use one of the two centrifuges he had in his lab to wring as much water as he could out of the spores, turning them into a kind of paste.
Using his biosafety cabinet, he'd then scoop the paste out of the centrifuge tube and spread it on one or more petri dishes. He could do one dish per envelope.
Then he'd set the OPEN petri dishes on the surface within the biosafety cabinet and go do something else for awhile, like centrifuge more spores.
In about two hours, the spores in the petri dishes would be dry. The water would have EVAPORATED.
If Ivins was impatient, he could turn on some heat source. Heat will help with the evaporation process. He could set up a Bunsen Burner within the biosafety cabinet. Or he could use some other heat source. Some biosafety cabinets have built-in heat sources, the whole table gets warm. Warmer air will dry the spores in the dish faster, maybe in less than an hour.
One petri dish per letter is all he would need. Each dish would contain the spores from many dozens of growth plates.
There's really nothing complicated about air drying spores. It's no different from a child turning mud pies into dirt pies.
While Ivins friends and defenders argue that Ivins couldn't have used the lyophilizer in suite B5 to dry the spores, that is NOT TRUE. Ivins was experienced with the lylophilizer, and he knew how to clean up after himself. So, there's no reason he couldn't have dried the spores in the lyophilizer while it was in B5. I just don't think he did it that way. But it is possible.
If he air dried the spores or if he used the lyophilizer in suite B5 (or if he used chemicals), the forensics would be the same. There would be no way of telling for certain which method was used to dry the spores.
It's not really that hard to understand. Is it?
Ed
Here's the example of circumstantial evidence that I provided to Mr. Rowley, but which he doesn't seem to understand. He he clearly cannot explain why it wouldn't be totally valid in court:
ReplyDelete1. Ivins created the powders and the letters.
[This is Mister Lake's STARTING point, putting, as always, the cart before the horse for it renders a 'guilty' determination BEFORE any evidence is presented; if the jury believed that from the get-go, something precluded by the presumption of innocence, then indeed the 2 missing trips MIGHT be inferred based on believing------and it is a belief of Mister Lake's---- that Ivins "created the powders and the letters"
2. The letters were mailed from New Jersey.
[A REASONABLE inference based on that would be: the mailer lived in or near NJ (where "near"=within easy driving distance of Princeton), it in no way points to anyone living in Maryland, working at Fort Detrick etc. And it has little or nothing to do with Ivins whose entire DOCUMENTED personal contact with the state of New Jersey was: driving through the area as a boy of 10 in the family car in 1956. No known contact by Ivins as an adult with the entire state is known. And if it had been discovered it would have been in the end-of-investigation document.]
3. Ivins had no alibi for the times when the letters were mailed.
[Hatfill also confessed way back in mid 2002 that HE had no alibi for the night
periods of possible mailings, yet Lake in 12 years has never cited that as evidence of Hatfill's guilt]
4. Ivins had a history of driving long distances to commit crimes.
[Actually Ivins had a 'history' of driving long distances for a myriad of purposes, as others do: among them: just to clear his head/get away from home; to mail gifts anonymously; to examine the exteriors of Kappa Kappa Gamma exteriors; and on 2-3 occasions to break into two or three KKG houses. Amerithrax did not involve a break-in, nor did it involve 'casing' anyplace. To our knowledge. Reductionist in the extreme and thus misleading]
Therefore, we have good circumstantial evidence that:
5. Ivins drove to New Jersey to mail the letters.
[Again, this isn't evidence, circumstantial or otherwise. It is a weaving together of incomplete and/or poorly-stated relationships to INFER something, inferences that don't stand up under critical scrutiny]
Mr. Rowley misunderstands the example - probably deliberately. It's not worth my time to try to get him to understand. He'll always find another way to argue some screwball, distorted interpretation of what I say.
DeleteEd
But all Mr. Rowley did in response (as usual) is change the subject.
ReplyDelete=============================================
Readers who bother to read the previous thread will notice that, on the contrary, I stuck to the subject (whether something is direct or circumstantial evidence AND what it is evidence of).
They'll see that you changed the subject from being about evidence proving that Ivins drove to New Jersey to being about evidence proving that Ivins was the anthrax killer. Different arguments involve different views of the evidence.
DeleteEd
hey'll see that you changed the subject from being about evidence proving that Ivins drove to New Jersey to being about evidence proving that Ivins was the anthrax killer.
Delete-------------------------------------------------
On the contrary: I as always, on that thread gave concrete examples, as I had done in the past: speeding ticket(s), tolls receipts etc. Probably 5 or 6 indicators that such a trip (or trips) was(were) made. Stuff conspicuously absent in the case.
Lake, by contrast, gave us just more inferences based on nothing concrete. But let the reader decide. I have full confidence in him.
R. Rowley wrote: "let the reader decide."
DeleteFine. The reader will see that Mr. Rowley doesn't understand anything, he can only argue.
But, I suppose Mr. Rowley will argue about that, too.
Ed
They'll see that you changed the subject from being about evidence proving that Ivins drove to New Jersey to being about evidence proving that Ivins was the anthrax killer.
Delete=================================================
OUR* only interest in whether Ivins made the trip in the first place is: to determine whether he was the Anthrax Killer. OTHERWISE any such trip would be of no more general interest than his drive to Ithaca, New York. The trip to Ithaca establishes nothing about guilt/innocence, a trip to the Princeton mailbox all but proves that 'Ivins acting alone, yadda yadda yadda...'
*OUR. By "our" I mean: the Task Force, the DoJ, the Ivins' attorneys, interested third parties etc. Anyone who followed the case against Ivins closely.
R. Rowley wrote: "OUR* only interest in whether Ivins made the trip in the first place is: to determine whether he was the Anthrax Killer."
DeleteI agree. But you cited the kind of evidence YOU PERSONALLY REQUIRE in order to believe that Ivins drove to New Jersey.
I explained that you require DIRECT EVIDENCE that Ivins drove to New Jersey. In the Amerithrax case, the evidence that Ivins drove to New Jersey is CIRCUMSTANTIAL.
You also require DIRECT EVIDENCE that Ivins copied the documents, and DIRECT EVIDENCE that Ivins dried the attack anthrax. In the Amerithrax case, the evidence that Ivins did those tasks is CIRCUMSTANTIAL.
You say you require DIRECT EVIDENCE that Ivins did various tasks associated with the anthrax mailings before you will believe the CIRCUMSTANTIAL evidence that Ivins was the anthrax killer.
I'm saying that you do NOT need such DIRECT evidence to make a solid CIRCUMSTANTIAL case in court against Bruce Ivins. You can have CIRCUMSTANTIAL evidence that Ivins drove to New Jersey, that Ivins copied the letters, that Ivins dried the spores, etc.
I even cited a legal dictionary that says:
"In many cases, circumstantial evidence is the only evidence linking an accused to a crime; direct evidence may simply not exist. As a result, the jury may have only circumstantial evidence to consider in determining whether to convict or acquit a person charged with a crime. In fact, the U.S. Supreme Court has stated that "circumstantial evidence is intrinsically no different from testimonial [direct] evidence"(Holland v. United States, 348 U.S. 121, 75 S. Ct. 127, 99 L. Ed. 150 [1954])."
The jury in the Ivins trial would have had only circumstantial evidence that Ivins committed the crime. That includes circumstantial evidence that he MUST HAVE done certain things, such as drive to New Jersey, make copies of letters, dry the attack spores, etc.
Ed
R. Rowley wrote: "OUR* only interest in whether Ivins made the trip in the first place is: to determine whether he was the Anthrax Killer."
DeleteI agree. But you cited the kind of evidence YOU PERSONALLY REQUIRE in order to believe that Ivins drove to New Jersey.
==========================================
No, not the type of evidence. Nor any personal requirement. I wrote on that prior thread: (partial)
"Now, before Lake switches to his usual tactic of THEN claiming that I'm looking for/requiring a PARTICULAR TYPE (or types) of evidence, let me short-circuit that diversion: I'm not looking for any particular TYPE of evidence that Ivins made the trips, I'm looking for ANY EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER he made the trips. There is none. [...]"
--------------------------------------------------------
But that was way back on November 10, 2014 at 7:24 AM
so Lake has forgotten.
-------------------------------------------------------
Lake again:
I explained that you require DIRECT EVIDENCE that Ivins drove to New Jersey. In the Amerithrax case, the evidence that Ivins drove to New Jersey is CIRCUMSTANTIAL.
-----------------------------------------------------
The items I listed were all circumstantial save only an eye-witness.
You're confused.
R. Rowley wrote: "You're confused."
DeleteAnd I think you are the one who is confused -- or simply being argumentative.
However, I can see that trying to explain things to you is largely a waste of time. What I'll try to do from now on is get you to explain yourself. That way you can build your own traps and fall into them.
But, first, one more explanation:
R. Rowley wrote: "I'm not looking for any particular TYPE of evidence that Ivins made the trips, I'm looking for ANY EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER he made the trips. There is none."
Yes, there is. You just refuse to understand it.
In court, they would show circumstantial evidence proving beyond a reasonable doubt that Ivins was the only person who could have been responsible for the the crime. THEREFORE, he made the anthrax powders, he made the letter copies, AND he MUST have driven to New Jersey to mail the letters (even though the prosecution doesn't have any of the kind of evidence you personally require). He had the CAPABILITY to do all those things.
Ed
With every argument it becomes more and more clear that neither of these two Anthrax Truthers understands the evidence against Dr. Bruce Ivins.
ReplyDelete============================================
Since the 'other' Truther went to law school and became an attorney, holding that he doesn't understand the evidence against Ivins is rather far-fetched, and most of your readers are going to so adjudge. The true significance of your statement is:
after arguing for years that Ivins is guilty, you are more than satisfied with your present understanding of the law, for any better understanding by you (ie one that would inch you closer to DXer's level of understanding) might come at the price of realizing how feeble the case against Ivins is. Sometimes ignorance is bliss.
Mr. Rowley,
DeleteThe "other Truther" is evidently a civil attorney, NOT a criminal attorney. And his views are disputed by the criminal attorneys at the Department of Justice.
I'm open to any discussion of the evidence. But, the only arguments I get from Truthers is that they do not BELIEVE the evidence, and/or they do not BELIEVE the Department of Justice's evidence is what courts would accept as evidence.
The Summary report is a SUMMARY. The DOJ would NOT have given the summary report to the jury and asked them to read it and convict Ivins. The DOJ lawyers would have spent WEEKS explaining all the evidence to the jury, providing testimony, documents and other items of evidence.
The evidence showing Dr. Ivins was the anthrax killer is VERY strong. Truthers just believe someone else did it, so they don't even bother to try to understand the evidence against Dr. Ivins. They just wave it away and say it's "feeble." Yet, it is clearly rock solid compared to any evidence the Truthers present in support of their own personal theories.
Ed
The "other Truther" is evidently a civil attorney, NOT a criminal attorney. And his views are disputed by the criminal attorneys at the Department of Justice.
Delete============================================
Those attorneys:
1) purposely and studiously misrepresented the handwriting evidence, as Lake HIMSELF discovered (and which I inferred no later than 2012
by parsing Jeff Taylor's August 6th 2008 obfuscatory language in this thread:
http://anthraxdebate.blogspot.com/2012/02/feb-5-feb-11-2012-discussions.html )
2) misrepresented bits and pieces of other skeins of evidence (the lyophilizer etc).
3) were PAID to defend the Task Force's case, in public and (likely) elsewhere, regardless of whether they personally thought it strong or not.
They simply invoke, among other things, the magic phrase: 'We will prove (have proved/would have proved) the (pseudo-) defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt'. A formulaic phraseology, which, if taken literally, would mean that every person ever prosecuted was 'really guilty'. On account of the formula.
Do you think the late Johnnie Cochran truly believed that OJ Simpson was innocent of those homicides? Of course, he didn't. But his job was to PRETEND in public (inside the courtroom and out) that he believed that and that the evidence was all either manufactured or hopelessly compromised.
Ditto in the other direction with Taylor and Lieber in Amerithrax: THEIR job in the August 6th to February 2010 period was to do the best PR job possible. It had nothing to do with Due Process, since there was no indictment and thus no trial, no obligation for 'discovery' etc.
(But you've switched the focus from whether YOU know more about the law than DXer does-----your original contention---- to whether Lieber et alia know more than he does. The second item, even if established, wouldn't prove the first).
Mr. Rowley argues his personal belief and opinion that everyone is lying except him. Johnny Cochran was lying, instead of just trying to prove that the evidence wasn't sufficient to convict his client. And all the DOJ lawyers in the Amerithrax case are misrepresenting the evidence, a.k.a. "lying."
DeleteI have no interest in arguing beliefs and opinions. It's a waste of time.
The FACTS AND EVIDENCE say Bruce Ivins was the anthrax killer.
No opinions or beliefs can change that.
Ed
Mr. Rowley argues his personal belief and opinion that everyone is lying except him.
Delete==============================================
The function of an attorney is NOT to state one's personal opinions about a case, it's to 'help' his client, if he works for an individual/company, or his organization (here the DoJ) if he works for the prosecutor's office. Naturally, DoJ prosecutors end up with strong ties to law enforcement agencies of one form or another and in the Amerithrax Case the presentation of testimony/other evidence? to a grand jury earlier in the summer of 2008 meant that the DoJ had already committed itself to an attempted indictment and then prosecution of Ivins.
=======================================
I have no interest in arguing beliefs and opinions. It's a waste of time.
The FACTS AND EVIDENCE say Bruce Ivins was the anthrax killer.
============================
The second sentence is your belief.
R. Rowley wrote:
DeleteThe FACTS AND EVIDENCE say Bruce Ivins was the anthrax killer.
============================
The second sentence is your belief.
It's my evaluation of the facts and evidence. Yes, someone else could evaluate things differently, but then they should also be able to discuss WHY the FACTS and EVIDENCE do NOT say Ivins was the killer.
Mr. Rowley and DXer to not do that. Instead they argue that they simply do not believe the evidence, they believe the DOJ is lying, they believe someone else did it, and they believe their beliefs are better than facts and evidence (which they do NOT have to support their beliefs).
I don't really have an opinion or belief that Ivins did it. I just feel that the facts and evidence are sufficient to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, and I'm open to facts and evidence that says otherwise. Truthers believe what they believe and are NOT open to facts that say otherwise.
Ed
R. Rowley wrote:
DeleteThe FACTS AND EVIDENCE say Bruce Ivins was the anthrax killer.
============================
The second sentence is your belief.
It's my evaluation of the facts and evidence. Yes, someone else could evaluate things differently, but then they should also be able to discuss WHY the FACTS and EVIDENCE do NOT say Ivins was the killer.
Mr. Rowley and DXer to not do that. Instead they argue that they simply do not believe the evidence[...]
=-f=============
On the contrary. How many times have I brought up the results of the professional handwriting comparisons? Ten, fifteen, twenty times? Isn't that "evidence"? Actually, it's double evidence: evidence that Ivins likely (please do not delete the word "likely" in your response) did not print the letters; but also evidence of how the DoJ handled this case: like a PR problem that had to be finessed, something via concealment/misrepresentation, not as a Due Process-bound case.
Prior to the announcement and presentation of the evidence against Dr. Ivins, my evaluation of the available evidence was that someone in New Jersey sent the anthrax letters. I didn't "believe" it, and it wasn't an "opinion," it was just an evaluation of the only facts and evidence I had available. I had less than 50% confidence that the facts and evidence showed the right result.
DeleteWhen I viewed the facts and evidence which said Dr. Ivins was the anthrax killer, it was clearly superior to what little evidence I had that pointed to the guy in New Jersey. So, I had no problem changing my evaluation and accepting that THE FACTS AND EVIDENCE now say Dr. Ivins was the anthrax killer - with maybe 95 percent confidence.
People with beliefs generally cannot change their beliefs as a result of new evidence. They need to be converted to a NEW belief. And they have 100% confidence in whatever it is that they believe.
Ed
Mister Lake, in your first paragraph above, all you are doing is saying:
Delete'I had a hypothesis/belief* that the mailer lived in New Jersey but no concrete evidence of that'. It was all inference.
But since August 2008, what you've REALLY been saying (if one truly analyzes it) is:
'I have a hypothesis/belief that Ivins made both trips to the Princeton mailbox, but I have no concrete evidence of that.' It's all inference.
In each instance the hypothesis/belief is based on an inference or, more likely, a series of inferences ACTING IN ISOLATION from concrete evidence of any such trip(s).
Said another way, neither hypothesis/belief is falsifiable, since no other person could possibly come up with evidence that a phantom trip (from within New Jersey or from Maryland) did not take place. Non-falsifiability is ALSO the attraction for you of the 'air-dried' (sub-)hypothesis:
'The lyophilizer thing blew up in the face of the DoJ, but just let any Truther TRY to establish that there was no 'air' or no plates in Ivins' lab!'
So, it's the non-falsifiability that is the attraction to you, but that non-falsifiability cuts both ways.
This, once again, is the sign of a BAD overarching theory: that so many elements are not only unattested but fundamentally unfalsifiable.
*hypothesis/belief. As I have noted in the past, Mister Lake labels other people's hypotheses 'beliefs'; to listen to him he has never had a 'belief' of his own in his entire life! This is just polemics so close-to-the-bone that Lake isn't even aware that he's engaged in it.
R. Rowley wrote: "Mister Lake labels other people's hypotheses 'beliefs'; to listen to him he has never had a 'belief' of his own in his entire life! "
DeleteMr. Rowley is again playing word games, i.e., arguing over the exact definition of a word, instead of trying to understand what is being said.
I do not "believe" that the earth rotates around the sun. It's not a matter of belief. It's science. It's what the facts and evidence say. Beliefs have nothing to do with it.
The facts and evidence say that Bruce Ivins was the anthrax killer. The people who BELIEVE otherwise have no meaningful facts and evidence to support their BELIEFS.
Beliefs do not require facts or evidence.
I accept what the facts and evidence say UNTIL someone can provide BETTER facts and evidence. Truthers do not supply better facts and evidence, they just argue their BELIEFS an MISUNDERSTANDINGS. And they play word games, arguing over the meanings of words.
Here's a perfect example of Mr. Rowley's beliefs and misunderstandings:
R. Rowely wrote: "Said another way, neither hypothesis/belief is falsifiable, since no other person could possibly come up with evidence that a phantom trip (from within New Jersey or from Maryland) did not take place. "
Total nonsense. All you need to prove that the trip to New Jersey did NOT take place is PROVIDE AN ALIBI. Therefore, the claim that Ivins drove to New Jersey IS falsifiable. It CAN be proven false.
The fact that Ivins COULD NOT provide an alibi doesn't mean that his trip to New Jersey is not falsifiable, it means his hypothetical trip to New Jersey HAS NOT been PROVEN FALSE in any way.
"Not falsifiable" means it is NOT POSSIBLE to prove false. It doesn't mean that no one has yet found a way to prove it false.
Mr. Rowley simply doesn't understand the words and terms he's using.
Ed
"Not falsifiable" means it is NOT POSSIBLE to prove false.
Delete=================================
Yes I know that.
Observe:
1) in the Amerithrax Investigative Summary (Feb 2010) Montooth et alia say that (part of the) 'evidence' against Ivins is "unexplained" off-hours time by Ivins in the lab in fall 2001 (Sept-Oct).
2) by that time (Feb 2010) they had withheld Ivins' notebook(s) explaining that time in the lab FOR YEARS. Withheld it/them from the living Ivins, withheld it/them from the general public from August 2008 to February 2010.
Now 4 3/4 MORE years have passed and they STILL haven't released the notebook(s) to the public. In any form (fascimiles etc)
THAT'S one aspect of unfalsifiablity: you withhold the very documents needed to falsify sometime (ie to prove it wrong). And you do it when there's no chance anyone could be hurt by the release of said documents.
3) the OTHER unfalsifiable aspect is Montooth's admission in that WIRED article that he(Montooth) had no idea of the "timeframe" of Ivins' (putative) drying/purifying. IOW if the notebooks showed Ivins' off-hour lab time in fall 2001 completely and innocently 'explained', Montooth would then say 'Oh, the drying/purifying must have happened earlier!'.
I observed this before and Lake didn't disagree. IOW the Ivins-is-guilty hypothesis is independent of any chronology/set of circumstances. And hence unfalsifiable.
http://www.wired.com/2011/03/anthrax-redux-fbi-admits-to-holes-in-its-biggest-case-ever/
R. Rowley wrote: "THAT'S one aspect of unfalsifiablity: you withhold the very documents needed to falsify sometime (ie to prove it wrong)."
DeleteYOU HAVE THINGS BACKWARDS. And you demonstrate that you do NOT - REPEAT NOT understand what "not falsifiable" means.
You are absurdly saying that the claim that Ivins' overtime hours were "unexplainable" is false, and that it was MADE false by the FBI hiding documents in some massive conspiracy. Contrary to your backward belief, that means it WAS "falsifiable." You're saying they FALSIFIED it.
What is "NOT falsifiable" is your claim that the FBI hid evidence that would clear Dr. Ivins. No one can prove your claim is false, because if they try searching and do not find any such evidence, you'll just claim they didn't search hard enough, or didn't look in the right places, or that the searchers were part of the massive conspiracy. So, your claim is "not falsifiable." There's no way to show your claim is false, because you'll just dream up some other way it could "possibly" still be true.
IOW if the notebooks showed Ivins' off-hour lab time in fall 2001 completely and innocently 'explained', Montooth would then say 'Oh, the drying/purifying must have happened earlier!'.
And if gravity didn't work, we'd all go spinning off into space. Screwball arguments just show ignorance of the facts. If the "the notebooks showed Ivins' off-hour lab time in fall 2001 completely and innocently 'explained'," then you'd have a MASSIVE conspiracy where MANY people could show that the claim that Ivins' overtime was "unexplained" was FALSIFIED. And all of them could PROVE the claim was false.
But, what YOU believe "is NOT POSSIBLE to prove false." You believe that all those FBI agents are in on some massive conspiracy. How do you prove that false? If you ask them one by one, you'll just claim they're all lying.
As usual, you have everything backwards. You don't understand what you are talking about.
Ed
R. Rowley wrote: "THAT'S one aspect of unfalsifiablity: you withhold the very documents needed to falsify sometime (ie to prove it wrong)."
DeleteYOU HAVE THINGS BACKWARDS. And you demonstrate that you do NOT - REPEAT NOT understand what "not falsifiable" means.
You are absurdly saying that the claim that Ivins' overtime hours were "unexplainable" is false,[...]
=======================================
I'm saying it's unproven and the ONLY way to prove it is NOT via reminiscences of coworkers who worked with/near Ivins in the fall of 2001, since those co-workers might be able to remember how busy THEY were in the off-hours (in general), but would be unlikely to remember (or agree on amongst themselves) what Ivins was doing then (ie YEARS earlier) ; no, the only way to prove it is via those notebooks.
Mister Lake's super-naive take seems to be that the notebooks fully back up that Ivins' off-hours in fall 2001 were 'unexplained' but that the authorities capriciously decided never to reveal the notebooks' contents because........uh.... this is where it becomes super-vague. The Task Force/DoJ was trying DESPERATELY from August 6th 2008 onwards to convince the US public that Ivins was the sole perpetrator. So desperately that they misrepresented the handwriting comparisons; misrepresented the lyophilizer question etc. but the one SOLID piece of evidence (the notebooks) they withheld because...because??????????
==============================================
You believe that all those FBI agents are in on some massive conspiracy.
================================================
Was it a "massive conspiracy" to omit the only PROFESSIONAL handwriting comparison done? It's essentially the same thing. The 'boss' (Montooth/a lawyer working with him) makes a decision. The troops salute and obey. FBI agents are just that: agents. Federal agents working in a chain of command. They aren't FREE agents, dispensing
info to the media and the general public as they personally see fit. FBI agents can be fired for revealing info deemed 'inside the investigation'. And that's probably a good thing. Consider the case of Whitey Bulger and FBI agent Connolly . An extreme example but an instructive one .(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Connolly_(FBI)
R. Rowley wrote: "I'm saying it's unproven and the ONLY way to prove it is NOT via reminiscences of coworkers who worked with/near Ivins in the fall of 2001, since those co-workers might be able to remember how busy THEY were in the off-hours (in general), but would be unlikely to remember (or agree on amongst themselves) what Ivins was doing then (ie YEARS earlier) ; no, the only way to prove it is via those notebooks."
DeleteSo, this has nothing to do with the "scientific method." You just BELIEVE that the notebooks contain evidence that would exonerate Dr. Ivins, and until those notebooks are released, you're going to continue to believe what you want to believe. And, if the notebooks ARE released and they don't contain what you BELIEVE they contain, then the government is STILL hiding the proof of Ivins' innocence.
So, we're at an impasse. It's opinion versus opinion,and neither of us has the ability to provide evidence to break the impasse.
R. Rowley also wrote: "Was it a "massive conspiracy" to omit the only PROFESSIONAL handwriting comparison done? It's essentially the same thing. The 'boss' (Montooth/a lawyer working with him) makes a decision. The troops salute and obey. "
You confirm that you are a conspiracy theorist with no comprehension of how the world really works. In the real world, the "troops" rarely uniformly agree to commit crimes. Yes, you may be able to cite an example or two where it happened, but it's not the standard routine you seem to think it is.
The FBI explained its case against Dr. Ivins. It's up to the DEFENSE to present things like the "professional handwriting comparison." The Defense lawyers would have been provided that information during the "discovery" process.
They wouldn't have really needed it, since you do not need a "professional" to show that the handwriting on the anthrax letters is NOT Bruce Ivins' NORMAL handwriting. And no "professional" has said the handwriting on the anthrax letters could not possibly be Dr. Ivins' DISGUISED handwriting.
But, again we are arguing opinion versus opinion, which is pointless and a waste of time.
Ed
"DXer" (a.k.a. "Anonymous") attempted another post to this blog overnight. Here it is in its entirety:
ReplyDelete---------------------
Now, Ed, as you know, with respect to explaining how to make dried anthracis spores, you are not a microbiologist. Do you have any expert to cite? (I recommend Hadron scientist Serge Popov to you as an expert who has made your point about air drying; I solicited his opinion and uploaded it for you).
I also have uploaded the sworn testimony of numerous micobiologists who disagree with you (from the Stevens litigation). So please cite some microbiologists who agree with you -- starting with Dr. Popov if you like.
As for a lyophilizer, would you agree with me that the FBI scientist in fact PROVED that a lyophilizer could be used to make dried virulent anthracis -- without contamination? See AUSA Lieber's comments that FBI scientists had proved it because THEY HAD DONE IT.
Do you understand that given you are not a microbiologist, it is important that you find qualified experts to cite in support? In contrast, I am relying on the scientist working for the FBI who PROVED that the lyophilizer in Room 212 of Building 1412 could be used to make dried virulent anthracis without contamination. See AUSA Lieber's filmed statement that she knew it could be done because scientists working for the FBI did it. As for Dr. Ivins using the lyophilizer in B5, on the other hand, we know that he was in the B3, not B5, and that it provably was too big and heavy for him to move.
-------------------------
DXer makes NO SENSE. Prove WHAT? That spores will dry if left in the open air to dry? That is what happens in nature. Countless people have been killed by anthrax spores that dried naturally in the air, aerosolized and cause inhalation anthrax. There was a famous epidemic of cases in wool mills during the Industrial Revolution. It led to the discovery that germs cause diseases.
I cited Dr. Majidi stating that "You can let the samples heat-dry. You can let the samples -- the water evaporate."
I'd like to see any microbiologist claim that you cannot dry spores by allowing them to set in an open petri dish for a few hours. Such a comment would be stupid beyond belief. DXer suggests he has sources who say exactly that, but he doesn't quote them or provide links. He wants me to go hunt for the quotes. I've got better things to do than go on wild goose chases.
Click HERE for an accident report where someone at USAMRIID accidentally spilled some wet anthrax spores from a shaker, the spores dried and aerosolized, creating a contamination incident.
Click HERE for a report on how mold spores will aerosolize naturally.
And, DXer indicates he agrees that a lyophilizer COULD have been used to make the spores in Suite B5. But he doesn't explain what he's trying to argue (other than that he'll only accept HIS sources as being valid). It's just another meaningless comment.
It appears DXer is just putting up a smoke screen to cover the FACT that Ivins could easily have dried the attack spores in the biosafety cabinet in his lab. He wants the drying to have been done by some OFFICIALLY APPROVED method, otherwise he doesn't accept that it can be done at all.
Absurd.
Ed
"DXer" (a.k.a. "Anonymous") just attempted another two posts to this blog. One was a personal attack, so I just filed it away. Here is the other in its entirety:
ReplyDelete-------------------
Ed, when I ask you to cite a qualified expert, that means a qualified expert -- you will want to find an expert microbiologist. Dr. Majidi is not such an expert -- he is not a microbiologist and did not even know that there was no two person rule at USAMRIID. Now, if you like, you can rely on Hadron scientist Serge Popov, a former bioweaponeer, and cite his formal expert opinion that I obtained for you years ago. Alternatively, you can cite peer reviewed literature where it was done -- if you could find it. Dr. Popov's opinion, for example, establishes that the bioweaponeers on Ali-Al-Timimi's suite had the know-how.
But citing an FBI official or a prosecutor does not cut it. That's always been your problem --- you confuse assertion as evidence. The question is whether the mailed anthrax in the Fall 2001 letters could have been made by air drying by USAMRIID given the equipment he had in the B3. I've cited at least five qualified experts who in sworn testimony say not. Now it's your turn to cite one taking the contrary view. Dr. Zelikoff is an example of an independent expert qualified to address the issue. By all means, collect opinions by qualified experts and post them as I have.
On the lyophilizer, I said that the lyophilize could have been used in the B3 -- such as the B3 in Rm. 212 in Building 1412. It could not have been used in the B5 in Building 1425 for the reasons explained by the half dozen witnesses whose testimony I've uploaded. People would die because the lack of containment.
-------------------------
Most of what DXer wrote is just meaningless off-topic blather. The FBI hasn't named its experts, and their experts haven't gone public with their findings. So, I cannot cite them.
I cited an example of accidentally air drying spores in building 1425, and DXer just ignores it.
He also contradicts himself without realizing it. In his previous post he wrote:
"In contrast, I am relying on the scientist working for the FBI who PROVED that the lyophilizer in Room 212 of Building 1412 could be used to make dried virulent anthracis without contamination."
And in his latest post he wrote:
"It [the lyophilizer] could not have been used in the B5 in Building 1425 for the reasons explained by the half dozen witnesses whose testimony I've uploaded. People would die because the lack of containment.
In one statement his says the FBI proved there is no contamination when using it, in the next statement he argues that there is no "containment" and therefore people would die because of the contamination. DXer doesn't see that he's contradicting himself. He doesn't understand the words he uses. If the lyophilizer can be used in Building 1412 without contamination, then it can ALSO be used in Building 1425 without contamination. Period. End of story.
DXer wrote:
"The question is whether the mailed anthrax in the Fall 2001 letters could have been made by air drying by USAMRIID given the equipment he had in the B3. I've cited at least five qualified experts who in sworn testimony say not."
DXer has NOT cited ANY experts who say that. His experts say that Ivins could not have WEAPONIZED THE SPORES WITH SILICON using the equipment he had in B3.
Any "expert" who says Ivins could not have air dried the attack spores would have to be a total idiot. I'm waiting for DXer to quote these idiotic statements he says exist. He hasn't done so.
DXer just demonstrates over and over and over that he doesn't understand what he's talking about. And that is why he cannot explain anything.
Ed
"DXer" (a.k.a. "Anonymous") attempted two more posts to this blog overnight. He changed the subject, so I must have struck home in my previous comment, when I showed him that he doesn't know what he's talking about. His two new attempted posts are mostly just incoherent babblings about USAMRIID scientist Terry Abshire. DXer doesn't explain anything, he just rambles on and on.
ReplyDeleteSince the posts seem to be sleazy, vague insinuations that Terry Abshire had something to do with the anthrax attacks, I won't show DXer's comments here.
The only paragraph I'll show is one that doesn't mention Abshire's name and very nicely illustrates how incoherent DXer's rantings can be. Here it is:
"Ed, isn't the person who had the virulent Ames with the morphs that looked like the mailed anthrax standing alongside Rauf Ahmad at the 1999 international conference on anthrax? Rauf Ahmad was the scientist who attended the conferences and B3 labs on a mission to obtain virulent anthrax in 1999."
What is DXer trying to imply or insinuate? I have no idea. What does this have to do with the case against Bruce Ivins? I have no idea. And, of course, DXer is totally incapable of explaining anything.
Ed
I responded:
ReplyDeleteGenerally speaking, NONE of the evidence in a circumstantial case points only to ONE person.
Evidence item #1 may point to suspects A, B, C and D.
Evidence item #2 may point to suspects A, C, J, K and L.
Evidence item #3 may point to suspects C, J, L and M.
Evidence item #4 may point to suspects A, C, D, K, L and M.
Which means that the ONLY person that ALL the evidence points to is C.
===========================================
In each line above you have 'evidence' (not further specified and thus rather meaningless) that 'points' (another vague term that no attorney or educated-in-the-law layman would use) to 4 to 6 persons (each one given a letter designation).
Let's examine how this maps to Amerithrax:
Is there a single item of evidence in Amerithrax that points to 4 to 6 persons? No, there is not. There's an item that points to absolutely no KNOWN person (the handwriting or printing matched no one's: not Ivins', not anyone else's). There's an item of evidence that 'points' to hundreds of thousands of persons (at least!): the envelopes with the printing defects which were sold within a wide area in two fairly populated states. (But possibly other states too: ask DXer to be sure!).
Then there's the prose style of the texts: it could be said that 250 million persons in the US alone were capable of that prose style, either as a natural one or as an affectation to throw off investigators.
There's the substrain of anthrax used, but that could be either up to 100 persons, or 200 or even 300 persons. And those are very much ballpark figures.
So, nothing in the case we are talking about (Amerithrax) connects to Lake's 'model'.
R. Rowley wrote: "Is there a single item of evidence in Amerithrax that points to 4 to 6 persons? No, there is not." and "So, nothing in the case we are talking about (Amerithrax) connects to Lake's 'model'."
ReplyDeleteMr. Rowley neglects to mention that I created that "model" in response to a post from him where he wrote:
"The only solid evidence in the case is: that the genetic profile indicates that the flask (RMR_1029) was likely a parent of the attack anthrax. That doesn't point to Ivins alone."
So, Mr. Rowley contradicts himself. He first argues that an item of evidence points to multiple people and therefore isn't evidence, then he argues that "there is no single item of evidence in Amerithrax that points to 4 to 6 [multiple] persons."
Multiple people had a motive for the crime. Ivins was one of them.
Multiple people had access to flask RMR-1029. Ivins was one of them.
Multiple were vaccinated against anthrax. Ivins was one of them.
Multiple people could make purified spores. Ivins was one of them.
Multiple people knew how to dry spores. Ivins was one of them.
Multiple people had the facilities to make spores. Ivins was one of them.
Multiple people had the equipment to make spores. Ivins was one of them.
Multiple people could have bought the envelopes. Ivins was one of them.
Multiple people could have mailed the letters in New Jersey. Ivins was one of them.
Multiple people had connections to the crime scene. Ivins was one of them.
Multiple people had no alibi for the time of the crime. Ivins was one of them.
I could probably go on and on. But the key point is:
THE ONLY PERSON ALL THE EVIDENCE POINTS TO IS DR. IVINS.
Ed
Overnight, "DXer" (a.k.a. "Anonymous") sent me an email with the subject "Ed you deleted the post where Terry said the Dugway Spores did not look like the mailed anthrax". And the text of the email said in its entirety:
ReplyDelete------------------------------
You should not mischaracterize posts. I was not insinuating anything, you liar. I was quoting where the expert on the mophologies said the Dugway Spores did not look like the mailed anthrax.
I totally understand why you selectively post things -- avoiding all the issues you cannot handle, which is most of them.
--------------------------------
In reality, of course, I wrote: "Since the posts seem to be sleazy, vague insinuations that Terry Abshire had something to do with the anthrax attacks"
That's what the posts seemed like (and still seem like) to me.
Searching through the copy I saved of DXer's earlier attempted post, I think this is what he's talking about:
-------------------
Abshire says that the "Dugway Ames Spores "did not look like the spores from the preparations , but that some of her own Bacillus anthracis (Ba) spore preparations resemble the material contained in the letters."
--------------------
Unfortunately, as usual, DXer makes no sense, and he doesn't provide any link. OF COURSE the "Dugway Ames spores" didn't look like the spores in the anthrax letters.
Has DXer forgotten that the spores in the letters were newly grown spores using only seed spores from flask RMR-1029? Ivins grew the attack spores in agar on plates, which gave them a tan color. The spores from Dugway were grown in a fermenter, and would be more white in color.
DXer once again demonstrates that he doesn't understand anything. But, he's totally willing to argue using his total ignorance of the facts and evidence.
Ed
In another attempted post to this blog this morning, "DXer" (a.k.a. "Anonymous") wrote only, "Ed, in the cited 302 interview statement, which I've uploaded, she is talking about the morphs."
ReplyDeleteAbshire talks about morphs, she talks about a photo, and she talks about a vial she obtained from Ivins that was labeled "Dugway Ames Spores." She says NOTHING about any morphs in that vial. It appears that DXer is misinterpreting something, as usual.
PART of the 302 interview statement can be viewed by clicking HERE
The 302 form shows they are first talking about PHOTOGRAPHS of a vial labeled "Dugway Ames Spores" that was found in Building 1412. The 302 form says,
Abshire probably received this sample in the last year, and this is not the sample that she got from IVINS in 1987." .... "ABSHIRE believes that she requested the sample labeled "Dugway Ames Spores" from Ivins to see if this material looked like the the spores from the anthrax letter attacks from the Fall of 2001."
As I recall, this sample from RMR-1029 was NOT obtained by Abshire in 2004, but prior to the decision to create the FBI Repository, i.e., sometime in late 2001 or early 2002. At the time, she just wanted something to compare the attack spores to. Ivins supplied the sample, because at the time, he had no idea that there were traceable morphs in RMR-1029. Then, when the FBIR was created because they had found the morphs, Abshire asked for TWO new samples from Ivins. That's when Ivins supplied the TWO samples that were not prepared according to the FBIR requirements. One was thrown away. One was sent to Paul Keim.
I recall writing about this on my web site. I'll have to do some research to see if I can find it. As I recall, the FBI found that sample and it wasn't part of the FBIR and hadn't been checked for morphs. That's why the asked Abshire about it. But, I need to do more research to be certain.
I think DXer is mistaken. And, even if Abshire had been talking about morphs in that particular vial, what is DXer insinuating? Why does he mention this? He, of course, is totally incapable of explaining anything.
Ed
This is from my October 18, 2011 (B) comment:
DeleteThe sample Ivins gave to Terry Abshire in February of 2002 was NOT a submission to the FBI repository. It was NOT prepared in response to the subpoena. Abshire had asked Ivins to give her a sample of the Ames strain that she could use as a "standard" in her tests, something to compare the FBIR samples against. However, the sample was evidently never used for that purpose; it was just forgotten about and sat around in Abshire's cold room for years until it was noticed and became one of the samples that matched the attack anthrax. It proves nothing about anything. Ivins didn't know about the morphs in February of 2002, and he didn't use spores directly from flask RMR-1029 in the letters. So, there was no reason for him to not give Abshire the sample. The February 2002 slant created from flask RMR-1029 that Ivins gave to Abshire for the FBI repository, on the other hand, was improperly prepared. It was prepared in a way that meant it could not be used as evidence in court. It's very likely that the sample Ivins gave to Abshire that the Times is making such a big deal about was also not prepared according to subpoena instructions, so it couldn't be used in court, either. It appears that, years later, a sample was taken from it to create the properly prepared slant that became FBIR sample #053-070.
The problem is, I don't recall where I got that information. I think it's from 302 files. But I don't know what to search for in my NOTES file.
Ed
Ah! I found where I got that information from. I got it from Lew's site. In my October 11, 2011 (B) comment, I wrote:
DeleteThe FBI subpoena had to specifically asked for all Ames strain samples in his possession. But, the FBI had to go to Ivins again and again when they learned there were still more samples Ivins hadn't yet submitted. Some he hadn't submitted because he said they weren't his, they were left behind by scientists who no longer worked at USAMRIID. The one exception was a sample Ivins apparently gave to Terry Abshire when she requested a sample of Ames to be used to compare against all the other samples of Ames. That sample was NOT initially part of the FBI repository. Documents show that Abshire initially couldn't even remember where it came from, because it got stored away and never used for its intended purpose. (I've got the documents, but I haven't yet been able to dig out the original source link for them. Click HERE, HERE, HERE and HERE for a secondary source.)
Click HERE for the report that explains the source of sample #053-070.
Click HERE for the report that says (in the last paragraph) that the two photos are of the sample that became FBIR #053-070.
Ed
Hmm. This afternoon I received FOUR more emails from "DXer" (a.k.a. "Anonymous"). Three are just screwball, incoherent babbling, making no sense whatsoever. He just babbles about how he uses "experts" for his claims, and I am no expert. I can't tell if he now understands or still doesn't understand how EASY it was for Ivins to dry the spores in his biosafety cabinet in Room B-313. He seems to be saying he still doesn't understand.
ReplyDeleteOne email seems to deliberately distort what I wrote in order to create an argument. He quotes me:
"That happened on Friday when DXer reminded me that the FBI proved that the lyophilizer could be used in Suite B5 without contaminating the surrounding area, contrary to what some of Dr. Ivins friends and DXer himself had been arguing.
And then DXer shows he doesn't understand what he reads. He says,
Ed, the FBI scientists didn't use the lyophilizer in the B5, they used in the B3 -- as I said. AUSA Lieber knew a lyophilizer could be used because FBI scientist JE used one -- in his B3, in Rm. 212 in Building 1412.
I didn't say they used the lyophilizer in B5. Here is more of what I wrote in my Sunday comment:
----------------
That happened on Friday when DXer reminded me that the FBI proved that the lyophilizer could be used in Suite B5 without contaminating the surrounding area, contrary to what some of Dr. Ivins friends and DXer himself had been arguing. Somehow, DXer thought that if a lyophilizer could be safely used in Building 1412 without contamination, that meant it could NOT be safely used in Building 1425 without contamination. It appears he didn't understand the difference between "contamination" and "containment."
-----------------
The testing was done in Building 1412, but the results showed that there would be NO CONTAMINATION regardless of where the lyophilizer was used. Therefore Ivins COULD HAVE used the one in B5 to dry the attack spores.
B5 doesn't have the CONTAINMENT that Building 1412 has, but if you have no contamination you need no containment.
DXer just doesn't understand English or basic reasoning.
Ed
Maybe DXer doesn't understand the difference between "B3" which is Bacteriology Suite #B3 (where Ivins worked in Building 1425) -- and "BSL-3" which means "Biosafety Level #3." It's confusing because B3 is a BSL-3 area, but B5 is a BSL-2 area.
DeleteDXer wrote: FBI scientist JE used one -- in his B3, in Rm. 212 in Building 1412.
As far as I know, there is no Suite B3 in Building 1412. The entire building is a Biosafety Level 3 (BSL-3) area.
DXer gets so many things mixed up, it's very difficult to decipher what he's trying to argue.
Ed
From Sunday's comment: (partial):
ReplyDelete---------
Multiple people had a motive for the crime. Ivins was one of them.
Multiple people had access to flask RMR-1029. Ivins was one of them.
Multiple people were vaccinated against anthrax. Ivins was one of them.
Multiple people could make purified spores. Ivins was one of them.
Multiple people had the time to purify the spores. Ivins was one of them.
Multiple people knew how to dry spores. Ivins was one of them.
Multiple people had the facilities to make spores. Ivins was one of them.
Multiple people had access to a supply of spores. Ivins was one of them.
Multiple people had the equipment to make spores. Ivins was one of them.
Multiple people could have bought the envelopes. Ivins was one of them.
Multiple people could have made Xerox copies. Ivins was one of them.
Multiple people have disguised their handwriting. Ivins was one of them.
Multiple people could have mailed the letters. Ivins was one of them.
Multiple people had connections to the crime scene. Ivins was one of them.
Multiple people had no alibi for the time of the crime. Ivins was one of them.
BUT
The ONLY person who fits all the above evidence is Dr. Bruce Ivins.
================================================
1) I would quibble with QUITE a few of the above statements
2) especially the last, but
3) even that aside, all this ASSUMES (and there is no reason on earth to assume it!) that one person and one person only did the crimes.
Let's review: Lake has been arguing on the Internet for 12 or 13 years about Amerithrax and who likely did it.
1) his primary 'opponent' (by several orders of magnitude!) for just about all of those 12 or 13 years, DXer, thinks a GROUP of Muslim fanatics, affiliates of Al Qaeda, did the crimes.
Does it make a lick of sense to then try to persuade DXer via an 'explanation' that assumes that it was a 1-man job? (Hint: no, it does not!)
2) in the 2009 to 2014 timeframe, his second most responsive 'opponent', r. rowley, has said that in his opinion a domestic GROUP is responsible for the Amerithrax crimes.
Does it make a lick of sense to then try to persuade r.rowley via an 'explanation' that assumes that it was a 1-man job? (Hint: no, it does not!)
But this is par for the course with Mister Lake: he can't put his head around EITHER the idea that Ivins might be innocent OR the concept of group action to produce Amerithrax.
This is a little bit like talking to your grandmother and 'explaining' to her that people don't get old and die!
R. Rowley wrote: "3) even that aside, all this ASSUMES (and there is no reason on earth to assume it!) that one person and one person only did the crimes."
ReplyDeleteIt assumes NOTHING. It's an evaluation of the available evidence. There is no evidence that anyone knowingly assisted Ivins in committing the crime.
Mr. Rowley also wrote: "But this is par for the course with Mister Lake: he can't put his head around EITHER the idea that Ivins might be innocent OR the concept of group action to produce Amerithrax.
I'm looking at the facts and evidence. The facts and evidence show that Bruce Ivins was responsible for the anthrax attacks of 2001, and there is NO MEANINGFUL EVIDENCE that says otherwise.
Anthrax Truthers argue that they do NOT BELIEVE the facts and evidence against Dr. Ivins, but they cannot provide any BETTER facts or evidence in support of their own theories. So, they just endlessly argue and demonstrate that they do not understand facts and evidence. Example:
"Does it make a lick of sense to then try to persuade r.rowley via an 'explanation' that assumes that it was a 1-man job? (Hint: no, it does not!)"
The facts and evidence ASSUME NOTHING. The facts and evidence SHOW that Dr. Bruce Ivins was the anthrax killer beyond a reasonable doubt, and that he acted alone. All that is needed to SHOW that Ivins was NOT the lone anthrax killer is better facts and evidence.
The Truthers just cannot provide better facts and evidence because they BELIEVE something else and they ASSUME their BELIEFS are correct.
Ed
"DXer" (a.k.a. "Anonymous") just attempted another post that I probably should simply delete and ignore. But, it shows very clearly how he distorts things to create arguments, so I'll post it in its entirety. Here it is:
Delete------------------
[Ed wrote,] "There is no evidence that anyone knowingly assisted Ivins in committing the crime."
Finally, Ed seems to agree a First Grader didn't knowingly assist Ivins write the letters of Fall 2001!
Richard, our work here is done.
-----------------------
Note that I wrote: "There is no evidence that anyone knowingly assisted Ivins in committing the crime."
And DXer changed that to "Ed seems to agree a First Grader didn't knowingly assist Ivins write the letters of Fall 2001!"
The child almost certainly didn't know he was assisting Ivins in committing a crime. The postal employees who delivered the mail to Tom Brokaw and the others also didn't know they were assisting Ivins in committing a crime. Ivins manipulated the postal system just the way he manipulated the child into UNKNOWINGLY assisting him in committing a crime.
Distorting things to create an argument just shows that DXer isn't interested in any kind of intelligent discussion. He only wants to argue his beliefs.
Ed
"DXer" (a.k.a. "Anonymous") just attempted another long post to this blog. It mostly just repeats the same nonsense he endlessly argues: that Adnan El-Shukrijumah was the anthrax mailer.
ReplyDeleteDXer has no meaningful evidence to support such a claim. He just BELIEVES his own wild interpretations of vague events are better evidence than the solid case the FBI and DOJ have against Bruce Ivins.
Here are the first two sentences from DXer's post:
---------------
Ed says Ivins has no alibi because he could have travelled instead of sleeping that night. The same logic applies to anyone.
--------------
Total nonsense, of course. Ivins and his wife slept in different bedrooms. Ivins told the FBI how he could and did travel long distances at night to commit crimes without his wife and family knowing about it. Other people could PROVE they had alibis.
Here's the next sentence from DXer's attempted post:
--------------------
Ivins' attorney explains Dr. Ivins' alibi but Ed apparently has not listened to his filmed presentation which is online.
-------------------
I've watched those videos at least a half dozen times. Ivins' attorney explains no such thing. IVINS HAD NO ALIBI. PERIOD.
DXer is just playing word games. He's once again arguing that if Ivins had "an alibi" for a couple hours in the evening, that means he "had an alibi." It is a MEANINGLESS ARGUMENT, since Ivins COULD HAVE driven to New Jersey at some other time during that evening. And he had NO ALIBI for those other times.
Ed
"DXer" (a.k.a. "Anonymous") just attempted yet another post to this blog. The post said only, "Ed has failed to address my argument on the merits because he has no response on the merits. I address the merits on Lew's blog."
ReplyDeleteHis arguments have no "merits." What he posts to Lew's blog is the same irrelevant blather he attempts to post here. He cannot explain anything, so all he does is endlessly post irrelevant comments and documents without explanation.
Unless he starts to EXPLAIN things here, I'm not going to waste time responding to DXer's attempted posts. I'll just delete any attempted post that obviously requires an explanation but includes no explanation.
Ed
"DXer" (a.k.a. "Anonymous") just attempted another childish post to this blog, attacking me personally and rambling on about irrelevant matters. As an example of how meaningless the post is, it began with this sentence:
ReplyDelete"Ed, for example, has never corrected his mistakes about Al Qaeda anthrax scientist Rauf Ahmad."
I did a search through my web site for "Rauf Ahmad" and found I mentioned him only once in the past 7 years. And that was only in a quote from Lew's site. What mistake did I make? DXer is evidently incapable of explaining. So, as usual, there's nothing in his post that is of value. It's just another waste of time.
Ed
This morning, probably after reading my Sunday comment on my web site, "DXer" (a.k.a. "Anonymous") sent me an email that said only, "how does the 'Anthrax Inventory' that the USAMRIID provided the FBI in February 2002 square with your theory about the Fall 2001 anthrax mailings?"
ReplyDeleteAs usual, "DXer" makes no sense. What does one have to do with the other? DXer needs to explain.
Ed
From the November 25th column: (partial)
ReplyDelete-------------
This could be viewed as an "on topic" problem, since the "problem" involves dealing with "experts." Each "expert," like everyone else, has his own unique view of the world and his own history of past experiences. And, like most "experts," the "experts" at the computer store deal with dozens or maybe hundreds of different problems every day. They tend to view problems as patterns, i.e., similar to past problems they've seen, while my problem may not fit any pattern or past problem.
----------------------
So, in Amerithtrax (ie a criminal investigation) who are the 'experts'? The members of the Task Force! And do we have confirmation that these experts saw Amerithrax in terms of one or more patterns from past investigation(s)? You betcha! The stink of the UNABOMB Case hung over the Amerithrax investigation from October, 2001 onwards. "Lone wolf perpetrator". That bias led to both the Hatfill fixation of 2002 to 2006, AND the Ivins fixation of 2006 to 2008. See, among other things,:
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/history/famous-cases/anthrax-amerithrax/linguistic-behavorial-analysis-of-the-anthrax-letters
The actual pattern (of the crime(s) and related matters) "may not fit any pattern or past problem."
Way to go, Mister Lake! (Cue Lake to repudiate own insight!)
R. Rowley wrote: "That bias led to both the Hatfill fixation of 2002 to 2006, AND the Ivins fixation of 2006 to 2008."
ReplyDeleteTotal nonsense, of course. The initial theory was that Al Qaeda did it, since they had just attacked America in a different way.
Then conspiracy theorists who considered themselves "experts" started pointing at Hatfill as the culprit. And so did the media.
Gradually, the EVIDENCE began pointing to it being the work of a "lone wolf."
The fact that you BELIEVE it was a conspiracy doesn't make it a conspiracy. You're just following the pattern of conspiracy theorists by only looking at things you can twist and distort to fit your beliefs.
Ed
The above goes with your following comment:
Delete-----
November 26, 2014 - Yesterday's comment got a couple interesting reactions. An Anthrax Truther on my interactive blog twisted and distorted something I wrote in the comment in order to argue once again his pet theory that the anthrax attacks of 2001 were a criminal conspiracy led by a criminal mastermind who he cannot name.
============================
Reread my above comment. Did I once mention MY HYPOTHESIS? I did not. And if I didn't mention it even in passing, you can be certain I didn't "argue" it. Did I mention the word 'conspiracy'? I did not. Did I mention any "mastermind"? I did not. That's you responding, not to what I WROTE, but to what you THOUGHT I 'must mean'! This for the umpteenth time! Stop distorting what I write! It merely makes YOU look bad.
I IMPLIED that more than one person was involved (because I was taking the Task Force's 'lone wolf' hypothesis and showed how it distorted the entire investigation------the 4 1/2 years that they had Hatfill as that 'lone wolf', then the 2 or 3 years that Ivins was the 'lone wolf' before he died).
In fact what I wrote in that previous post is PERFECTLY compatible with:
1) lone wolf + child printer (cause if you're using someone else to commit a subtask of the crime you aren't a true 'lone wolf' in the way that that term is generally understood). IOW what I wrote in my previous post is 100% compatible with Lake's OWN hypothesis of how the Amerithrax crimes were committed, but he's too prejudiced a reader to be able to see that!
(And he's never explained why, if his theory is backed by multiple 'facts' and the Task Force was going by facts, the Task Force didn't see that same 'hand of a child' as he did! Or any subordinate 'fact' leading in that direction.)
2) any and every foreign-agency theory (state terrorism; Al Qaeda; any other organization from outside the US). That I don't hold to any such theory doesn't mean that the gist of my previous post isn't compatible with any and all such theories/hypotheses. They are non-lone-wolf theories/hypotheses, therefore they are compatible with what I wrote in the previous post.
3) Domestic (ie home-grown) groups of various sorts. Too numerous to give a full account of but including obviously religious cults, anarchists, Tim McVey/Terry Nichols types etc.
Back to Lake:
----------------------
Total nonsense, of course. The initial theory was that Al Qaeda did it, since they had just attacked America in a different way.
--------------------------
That was MEDIA and POLITICAL speculation, there's no evidence whatsoever that that was the primary focus of that Task Force from late 2001 onwards and the link I ALREADY gave to the linguistic and behavioral analysis indicates that(it's here:
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/history/famous-cases/anthrax-amerithrax/linguistic-behavorial-analysis-of-the-anthrax-letters
. The profile was PUBLICLY released November 9th, 2001, about a month after the first victim died (Stevens) and the through-the-mail vector was recognized. I see no evidence that Al Qaeda was a guiding force in the investigation in the years 2002-8.
R. Rowley's lengthy, rambling post above is mostly just an argument that, because he cannot explain his theory, I should not try to figure out what he's saying. When I do try to figure things out, he just argues that he never said any such thing. It's a pointless argument that no response to his claims is valid.
DeleteR. Rowley also wrote: "And he's never explained why, if his theory is backed by multiple 'facts' and the Task Force was going by facts, the Task Force didn't see that same 'hand of a child' as he did!"
I don't know that they didn't. They said that Ivins acted alone, and the post office's handwriting expert said the handwriting on the documents was NOT Dr. Ivins' normal handwriting. So, the FBI and I are in agreement. I've often said that the child may not remember the incident, or his parents might not allow the FBI to talk to the child. So, the FBI would have to make the best case they could. Their case does NOT say that a child did NOT write the letters. It just says Ivins disguised his handwriting in some way.
Lastly, R. Rowley again twists things to make an argument. I wrote that the FBI's INITIAL theory was that al Qaeda did it. And Mr. Rowley argues:
"I see no evidence that Al Qaeda was a guiding force in the investigation in the years 2002-8.
I explained very thoroughly that the al Qaeda "guess" didn't pan out and was soon replaced by the "lone wolf" "guess." So, why would al Qaeda be a "guiding force" in the Amerithrax investigation after that point?
Mr. Rowley makes no sense.
Ed
R. Rowley also wrote: "And he's never explained why, if his theory is backed by multiple 'facts' and the Task Force was going by facts, the Task Force didn't see that same 'hand of a child' as he did!"
DeleteI don't know that they didn't. They said that Ivins acted alone, and the post office's handwriting expert said the handwriting on the documents was NOT Dr. Ivins' normal handwriting. So, the FBI and I are in agreement.
======================================
Huh????????????????
1) you say a child printed the letters. And that multiple features ('facts') attest to this.
2) the TASK FORCE (not the entire FBI) says Ivins printed the letters.
That's "agreement"?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?
There's more agreement on the printing issue here on the Internet where Lake, DXer, and I ALL agree that Ivins didn't print those letters: no one, to my knowledge, on the Internet has EVER (August 2008 to present) alleged ANY resemblance between Ivins' printing and that of the Amerithax letters; it's a subhypothesis of the case that is an orphan: no one really backs it, even the Task Force/DoJ is just going through the motions. And they hid the actual professional evaluation (comparison) of Ivins' printing to facilitate going through the motions.
I explained very thoroughly that the al Qaeda "guess" didn't pan out and was soon replaced by the "lone wolf" "guess." So, why would al Qaeda be a "guiding force" in the Amerithrax investigation after that point?
DeleteMr. Rowley makes no sense.
============================
No, you make no sense. Because you are talking about
1) the chronology of the development of the investigation yet GIVE NO DATES (chronology=dates). Not just no days or weeks, but no: months years etc. A 'chronology' without dates is a contradiction in terms.
2) EVIDENCE of what the Task Force was thinking at any given time.
Evidence=documentation. I gave the linguistic/behavorial document, and I gave the time that that was issued (November 9th 2001).
Lake gave no evidence(documents of any sort), only his spin on the past.
Lastly, R. Rowley again twists things to make an argument. I wrote that the FBI's INITIAL theory was that al Qaeda did it.
Delete===================================
And provided no evidence of that!
R. Rowley's lengthy, rambling post above is mostly just an argument that, because he cannot explain his theory, I should not try to figure out what he's saying.
Delete==========================================
Why on EARTH should I spend each and every thread (let alone each and every post!) 'explaining' my "theory"?!?!?!?!?!?
From December 2008 onward I discussed Amerithrax on the Internet WITHOUT discussing my personal hypothesis.
I began here:
http://www.bloggernews.net/118931
NONE of my posts there discussed my hypothesis.
I posted at Meryl Nass's blog for the longest time without discussing what my hypothesis was. Etc.
The one thing does not require the other: Senator Leahy, were he posting on the Internet about Amerithrax, would poke holes in the DoJ's case against Ivins, but without necessarily having any personal theories about who did the crimes. The one thing does not require the other. In the slightest.
The ORIGINAL subject of this thread was: evidence. How it was evaluated?
We've seen that:
1) the Task Force/DoJ got 'evidence' that Ivins wasn't the printer, and HID that evidence. For years. Then released the info in a document dump.
2) the Task Force saw Ivins pass two polygraph* tests, and subsequently administratively overturned those results.
3) the Task Force overstated the scientific certainty of their conclusions, as the NAS report made clear:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/16/us/16anthrax.html?_r=0
4) the DoJ hid the notebook(s) that elucidated what Ivins was doing at night in the lab(s) in fall, 2001. More hidden evidence. Guess why?
5) Montooth eventually admitted (in 2011) that he had no idea of Ivins' (putative) motivation(s), that the stuff the Task Force put out was merely 'place-holder' information. Some 'evidence'!
http://www.wired.com/2011/03/anthrax-redux-fbi-admits-to-holes-in-its-biggest-case-ever/
*polygraph tests. Naturally, they are inadmissible, but here we are talking about generic evidence presented to the public, the DoJ focus from August of 2008 onwards.
In his first of four posts above, R. Rowley wrote: "2) the TASK FORCE (not the entire FBI) says Ivins printed the letters."
DeleteMr. Rowley, show me where the TASK FORCE (or anyone) said that.
The Summary report says that they have witnesses who will testify that the handwriting on the anthrax letters appeared similar to DISGUISED handwriting that was on letters Ivins sometimes sent to the witnesses. (The best way to disguise your handwriting is to trick someone else into doing the writing for you.)
In his second and third posts above, Mr. Rowley asked for evidence that the FBI initially thought that al Qaeda was behind the anthrax attacks.
Good point. Of course I cannot prove what "the FBI" initially thought. And, the FBI wouldn't publicly speculate on such a thing. All we know is that they searched everywhere the 9/11 hijackers went looking for traces of anthrax. So, they WERE looking for evidence that the 9/11 hijackers were responsible for the anthrax letters. What they told the public was:
The authorities said that there was ''no indication'' that the exposures were related to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, but that they would not rule out that possibility. SOURCE.
When did the FBI start looking for a "lone wolf"? I cannot show any exact date, but once it became clear that the Ames strain was involved, and it was a RARE strain used in American labs, the focus of the investigation would logically shift away from al Qaeda. That happened around January 2002.
In this fourth post above, Mr. Rowley indicates he won't discuss his personal theory. All he'll discuss is why he doesn't believe the FBI's case against Bruce Ivins. He uses his screwball interpretations as evidence. That's not worth discussing.
Ed
"DXer" (a.k.a. "Anonymous") just attempted another post to this blog. Here it is in its entirety:
ReplyDelete-------------------
Why didn't you apply the scientific method to your theory a First Grader wrote the Fall 2001 anthrax letters?
--------------------
Once again, "DXer" needs to explain. What makes him think I didn't use the "scientific method"? Because the result didn't agree with his beliefs?
Except for some witness testimony that the writing looks like Ivins' disguised handwriting, ALL THE FACTS AND EVIDENCE say that a child just starting first grade wrote the letters.
I've listed the facts and evidence DOZENS of times. NO ONE has even attempted to prove the finding wrong. Just just argue that they don't believe it, because (1) they have a different theory, or (2) because the TYPICAL criminal wouldn't do things that way.
If the facts and evidence say a child wrote the letters, then that is the finding using the "scientific method." PERIOD. It doesn't matter one bit who believes it and who doesn't, or how many people disbelieve it.
The only thing that can change the solution is BETTER facts and evidence that say something else. THAT'S the "scientific method."
Ed
Just to dot all the i's and cross all the t's, the Linguistic and Behavorial Analysis gives the linguistic stuff first, then switches to the 'behavorial': (beginning of that second part):
ReplyDelete---------------
Behavioral Assessment
Based on the selection of Anthrax as the “weapon” of choice by this individual, the offender:[Note: the presumption of the entire document is that there is ONE 'offender', and this is super-early in the case].
-----------
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/history/famous-cases/anthrax-amerithrax/linguistic-behavorial-analysis-of-the-anthrax-letters
Mr. Rowley,
DeleteI explained in my Sunday comment that it is NOT LOGICAL to begin with an assumption of a conspiracy.
It's not only NOT LOGICAL, it's STUPID. It's something only conspiracy theorists do.
You first have to find some individual who you can PROVE was involved. And, THEN, if that investigation leads to others being involved, you build a conspiracy case.
Ed
I explained in my Sunday comment that it is NOT LOGICAL to begin with an assumption of a conspiracy.
Delete=========================================
I didn't do that myself. I thought from my beginning investigation (late 2005 to mid 2007) that it was one person. But the St Pete letters (in mid-2007) and the Town of Quantico letter (in 2009) made me realize that (an) accomplice(s) was/were a necessity. But the Task Force was able to do NOTHING with either the St Pete letters or the Town of Quantico letter, despite the fact that an early forensic linguistic consultant (Don Foster) told them that the St Pete letter was likely connected (see, for the umpteenth time, Foster's article of 2003:
http://www.ph.ucla.edu/epi/bioter/messageanthrax.html
Mr. Rowley,
DeleteUnless you can conclusively PROVE that the "St Pete letters or the Town of Quantico letter" had something to do with the anthrax mailings of 2001, this is not worth discussing. Don Foster's opinions are NOT proof of anything.
There's no reason to believe those letters were connected to the anthrax letters. The fact that they were mailed about about the same time is NOT a connection. It's not even a coincidence, since there were many hoax letters being sent around at that time.
Ed
Unless you can conclusively PROVE that the "St Pete letters or the Town of Quantico letter" had something to do with the anthrax mailings of 2001, this is not worth discussing.
Delete==========================================
I brought it up not to 'discuss', but to dispel your erroneous notion that I immediately (ie as soon as I started studying Amerithrax in late 2005) interpreted the mailings as the production of two or more persons. Nothing is further from the truth. I DID NOT bring it up to try to convince you that the St Pete/ Town of Quantico letter(s) were from the same person(s) as the Amerithrax letters proper. That will eventually be understood by those with an open mind. In 2020, or 2022. Or whenever. With any 'luck' at all, Mister Lake won't live to see it.
R. Rowley wrote: "With any 'luck' at all, Mister Lake won't live to see it."
DeleteThat's the kind of stupid remark that can get you banned from this blog. It also vaguely and stupidly implies a threat to my life.
Ed
The only thing that can change the solution is BETTER facts and evidence that say something else. THAT'S the "scientific method."
ReplyDelete=======================================================
The evaluation of handwriting-evaluation professionals, hidden by the Task Force and DoJ for YEARS, an evaluation that ruled Ivins printing a probable non-match to the Amerithrax letters printing, was indeed 'better facts and evidence'. Which is why it was hidden for years.
I imagine Ivins' notebook(s), likely showing his late-night activities in the lab in fall 2001, would be better on that score than all the reminiscences of all persons who worked in the Bacteriology Division in that timeframe. It too was withheld from the public. By the same bodies. Inexplicably so. For if the notebook(s)' contents were consistent with Ivins' time in the lab being "unexplained", then we can be sure they
would have released the notebook(s) to the general public as part of their anti-Ivins PR blitz of August 2008 to February 2010.
Ed Montooth's admission to Noah Schachtman (previously linked by me in other threads: http://www.wired.com/2011/03/anthrax-redux-fbi-admits-to-holes-in-its-biggest-case-ever/ ) that the Task Force didn't even know WHEN the spores were made, is a back-handed admission of what's in that notebook/those notebooks:
(From the linked WIRED article):
---------
But in an interview with WIRED, agent Edward Montooth, who headed up the anthrax investigation, acknowledges that he’s still unsure of everything from Ivins’ motivation to when Ivins brewed up the lethal concoction. “We still have a difficult time nailing down the time frame,” Montooth says. “We don’t know when he made or dried the spores.”
--------------------
So much for 'unexplained late night hours' in the lab!
If they had leveled with the American people in 2008 to 2010, the case would likely not have been closed.
Mr. Rowley, your interpretations are interesting but have nothing to do with reality.
DeleteAll the handwriting expert said was that the handwriting was not Ivins' NORMAL handwriting.
Ivins' notebooks showed he did NOT have an explanation for what he was doing during those "unexplained" hours in his lab. Your belief that Ivins might have been able to find something in them to explain his "unexplained" hours is just conjecture. Ivins STATED that he just went into his lab to get away from a guard who annoyed him. He had no other reason for being there for any length of time.
The FBI is CERTAIN that Ivins had the MEANS to dry the attack spores in various different ways. The fact that they cannot state with absolute certainty WHICH means he used is not relevant in court. All that is necessary is that the government can prove that he had the MEANS.
The same with OPPORTUNITY. Ivins had the OPPORTUNITY. The fact that he could have made the spores any time within a period of MONTHS or WEEKS does not change the FACT that he had the OPPORTUNITY.
Mr. Rowley is just playing word games and spinning things to create a bogus argument where he has no valid argument.
Ed
Ivins' notebooks showed he did NOT have an explanation for what he was doing during those "unexplained" hours in his lab
Delete=====================================
If that were the case then they would have released the CONTENTS of the notebooks years ago. You're not paying attention!
R. Rowley wrote: "If that were the case then they would have released the CONTENTS of the notebooks years ago. You're not paying attention!"
DeleteI don't pay attention to nonsense. The notebooks were "confidential research documents" which belong to USAMRIID. Such things are not released just for the hell of it. You need a solid reason. Plus, they apparently had nothing to do with the case against Bruce Ivins (although you may BELIEVE otherwise) and there was, therefore, no REASON to release those notebooks. Pacifying conspiracy theorists was not sufficient reason.
Ed
"DXer" (a.k.a. "Anonymous") sent me two emails yesterday afternoon. The first had the subject "you are massively confused"" and contained three arguments;
ReplyDeleteArgument #1:
1. The hijacker who had the leg lesion had just come from Kandahar, where the anthrax lab was located.
So, what? First, it wasn't a "lesion." It was a GASH in his leg that he got from bumping into the corner of a a suitcase. Second, there's no reason to believe that the hijacker or the lab had anything to do with the anthrax attacks. THE FACTS AND EVIDENCE say Bruce Ivins sent the letters.
Argument #2:
2. The FBI did not in fact swab where Atta's accomplices had been -- the FBI did not know where Adnan El-Shukrijumah entered the country when he came some time after September 1, 2001.
And neither does DXer. There is no meaningful evidence that Adnan El-Shukrijumah had anything to do with the anthrax mailings. DXer just argues his beliefs, he makes bizarre interpretations of news reports, and he asks questions that no one can answer - including himself. That's not evidence of anything.
DXer then added:
These mistakes have previously been pointed out. You never correct your mistakes.
WHAT MISTAKES? Please explain.
DXer's third argument:
3. As for your theory a First Grader wrote the Fall 2001 anthrax letters, it is evident that you do not understand what the scientific method involves.
No, it's obvious that DXER does not understand the scientific method. All he can argue are his beliefs and opinions against the facts and evidence.
DXer's second email consisted only of this subject line:
are you really so stupid that you can't address the merits, Lake?
The "merits" of what? Of DXer's absurd arguments? His arguments have no "merits." As usual, DXer is incapable of explaining anything.
Ed
"DXer" (a.k.a. "Anonymous") just attempted another post to this blog. Here it is in its entirety:
ReplyDelete--------------------------------
Notice the pattern: Ed's makes the claim it wasn't a lesion without linking either Dr. Tsonas notes or the Johns-Hopkins memo. He just invents whatever facts he thinks suits him.
Hijacker treated in June for lesion found in skin anthrax
March 24, 2002|By William J. Broad and David Johnston, New York Times News Service.
The two men identified themselves as pilots when they came to the emergency room of Holy Cross Hospital in Ft. Lauderdale in June.
One had an ugly, dark lesion on his leg that he said he developed after bumping into a suitcase two months earlier. Dr. Christos Tsonas thought the injury was curious, but he cleaned it, prescribed an antibiotic for infection and sent the men away with hardly another thought.
But after Sept. 11, when federal investigators found the medicine among the possessions of one of the hijackers, Ahmed Al Haznawi, Tsonas reviewed the case and arrived at a new diagnosis: The lesion, he said in an interview last week, "was consistent with cutaneous anthrax."
Tsonas' assertion, first made to the FBI in October and never revealed publicly, has added another layer of mystery to the investigation of last fall's deadly anthrax attacks, which has yet to focus on a specific suspect.
---------------------------------------------------------
DXer constantly uses old old news reports as gospel, as if there never was anything that was learned after that.
The old nonsense about the "lesion" was examined in my web page about other theories: http://www.anthraxinvestigation.com/AlQaeda.html The article DXer cites is quoted and DEBUNKED in detail on that page.
Click on this link http://www.ph.ucla.edu/epi/bioter/memoroilsanthraxprobe.html for news about people who disputed what the NY Times wrote.
-----------------
"Although law enforcement officials said they have not ruled out anthrax as a possibility, they said there was not enough information to draw a specific conclusion. That view was shared by Thomas W. McGovern, the leading authority on anthrax for the American Academy of Dermatology's bioterrorism task force, who said it was "highly unlikely" for someone to contract cutaneous anthrax on his lower leg.
"McGovern said Al Haznawi's infection -- described as a one-inch black lesion with raised red edges -- could have been anything from an encrusted boil to a common scrape that received improper medical attention."
----------------------
Since the FACTS AND EVIDENCE say that Dr. Ivins was the anthax killer, the SPECULATION that Al Haznawi had an anthrax lesion is wildly unlikely. End of story.
Ed
At MOST, all that DXer has is an OPINION that Al Haznawi's leg COULD HAVE had an anthrax lesion.
DeleteThere is NO EVIDENCE OF ANY KIND WHATSOEVER to support that OPINION. No biopsy was done.
Ed
"DXer" (a.k.a. "Anonymous") attempted another post to this blog yesterday evening. It begins with more nonsense about the "lesion" or "gash" on Al Haznawi's leg. It's opinion versus opinion, and not worth pasting here nor worthy of a response.
ReplyDeleteThe last half of his post was as follows:
-----------------------------
It cracks me up that it has been public record that Al Qaeda's anthrax scientist briefed Porton Down and USAMRIID audience on how he made virulent anthrax in 2000 -- killing animals no less -- and yet you've only mentioned his name once! (And that is when quoting me!) You didn't just not google the name -- you didn't even mention it! That is because you are totally unable to address the merits -- and you never correct your mistakes. You do all you can to maintain your fantasy about a First Grader -- while not even addressing the anthrax lab set up in Kandahar where Al-Haznawi was coming from.
--------------------------------
This, too, is without merit and not worth a response since DXer clearly doesn't understand that "virulent anthrax" means NOTHING to the case if it isn't the Ames strain WITH the morphs. But, I'll write a response anyway:
The lab in Kandahar has been discussed countless times. I've shown detailed reports on it. Here's part of a comment I wrote on my site on May 26, 2013:
-------------------------
A major part of the beliefs of the Anthrax Truthers who argue that al Qaeda was behind the anthrax attacks is their claim that al Qaeda had an anthrax lab in somewhere in Afghanistan. This belief is based upon some apparent "false positives" encountered during tests for anthrax in 2004 in a lab near Kandahar, Afghanistan. Those tests found absolutely NO ANTHRAX OF ANY KIND in the lab. The tests just found pieces of DNA that were supposed to be unique to the Ames strain of anthrax. The positive results were noted in one swab taken from the outside of an unopened medicine dropper package, one swab taken from a sink, and one swab from a drain hose.
I wrote about this in my comment for June 3, 2012 and on my blog on May 4, 2013.
When the FBI returned to the lab to check and attempt to verify what had been found, they dismantled much of the lab and took the parts back to the U.S. for thorough testing. According to page 12 of the FBI field report on the subject:
1254 samples were taken from these 528 items and submitted to the NBFAC for analysis. All 1254 samples were negative for the presence of Ba via culture analysis at the NBFAC and PCR at NMRC.
So, there is NO "evidence" about any anthrax in any al Qaeda lab in Afghanistan, it's all just wild interpretations of rumors and speculation by "insiders" and reporters who didn't know what they were talking about.
And the fact that Bruce Ivins created trillions of Ames anthrax spores and was in charge of the murder weapon isn't evidence at all to "DXer." Nor is the fact that, at the time of the mailings, Ivins had more than enough anthrax spores to make the powders for the letters. And those spores were a perfect match for what was found in the letters.
-----------------------------
End of story.
Ed
"DXer" (a.k.a. "Anonymous) just attempted another post to this blog. Here it is in its entirety:
ReplyDelete--------------
Lake says there is no evidence about anthrax in any al Qaeda lab in Afghanistan without mentioning the bottle of "anthrax spore concentrate" harvested by Rauf Ahmad in April 2001 that I've uploaded on the internet. He is remarkably uninformed and poorly read on the subject given the time he spends. Ed doesn't address the merits because he simply is totally unaware of them.
Nor does he address Rauf Ahmad's paper explaining his culturing virulent anthrax in 2000 and killing the mice with injections of 100 spores. He never even bothered to obtain the paper to see who he thanked.
--------------------
Perhaps I should have said there is no evidence of Ames anthrax being found in ANY lab in Afghanistan, much less Ames anthrax with the four morphs.
Without such evidence, the rest of DXer's comment is irrelevant. Who gives a damn about who thanked who?
Ed
"DXer" (a.k.a. "Anonymous") just attempted a response to my post above. It's just repetition of his beliefs. Here's part of what he wrote:
ReplyDelete---------------------------
Ed's lack of interest in the second lab that Rauf Ahmad lab visited marks him as supremely unqualified to be engaged in true crime analysis, which centrally involves potential access to the Ames strain of anthrax
---------------------------
If he thinks I'm unqualified to have an opinion, then he needs to explain why HE believes he is so supremely qualified. The evidence indicates he has no comprehension of "true crime analysis." He doesn't look at the evidence. He has a belief, and he's only interested in arguing that his belief is sufficient to override what the facts and evidence say.
Unless he can explain how he has BETTER evidence for his case than the FBI has against Bruce Ivins, he's just wasting his time attempting to post here. This blog is for discussing facts and evidence, not for arguing unsupported beliefs.
Ed
"DXer" (a.k.a. "Anonymous") just sent me an email with this as the subject:
ReplyDeleteEd, you are remarkably uninformed and poorly read for someone who has spent 14 years arguing a First Grader wrote the Fall 2001 anthrax letters
That would seem to be a perfect example of why I do not allow him to post here.
His attachment was an image of a jar of "spore concentrate" obtained from an al Qaeda lab. But it is NOT the Ames strain, so it has no relevance. And DXer, of course, cannot explain what relevance he thinks it may have.
Ed
"DXer" (a.k.a. "Anonymous" attempted another post to this blog. Here it is in its entirety:
ReplyDelete-----------------------------
Ed,
Yazid Sufaat and his assistants had been working with virulent anthrax for a half year by the time of the second mailing. I have sent you a picture of the anthrax spore concentrate harvested by Rauf Ahmad, who set up the Kandahar lab for them. Rauf Ahmad in turn had been working with virulent anthrax (and killing animals with it) since at least 2000. You never correct your mistakes.
------------------------------
Again DXer fails to explain anything. He doesn't explain what significance the claim that "Yazid Sufaat and his assistants had been working with virulent anthrax for a half year by the time of the second mailing" has to do with anything.
There's no argument that al Qaeda may have been thinking about developing anthrax as a biological weapon. The argument is that they did NOT use anthrax as a weapon in any attack upon the U.S. Bruce Ivins was responsible for the anthrax attacks of 2001, not al Qaeda or Yazid Sufaat. That's what the facts and evidence clearly shows.
DXer presents meaningless and irrelevant information and doesn't explain what point he is trying to make with such blather.
And then he claims I don't correct my mistakes without explaining what mistakes he is talking about.
So, as always, his posts are just a waste of time and probably should just be deleted. But, I keep showing them as examples of his inability to explain or understand anything.
Ed
"DXer" (a.k.a. "Anonymous") just attempted another post to this blog. Here it is in its entirety:
ReplyDelete----------------------
Ed says it is NOT the Ames strain. Ed, what is your source as to the testing of the "anthrax spore concentrate" at this anthrax lab under Taliban control in Kabul. Can you link it? Thanks. Why do you make unsupported assertions rather than cite to evidence?
---------------------------
There's NO EVIDENCE that it WAS the Ames strain. The EVIDENCE indicates it was NOT the Ames strain. The "evidence":
1. If it was the Ames strain, DXer would be telling everyone in the world about it instead of just endlessly referring to "virulent anthrax" as if it was significant.
2. If it was the Ames strain, all the others who believe al Qaeda was behind the anthrax attacks would be making a BIG deal about it.
3. The FBI made a big deal of how they thought they had a few swabs that were positive for segments of the Ames strain when they checked a lab in Kandahar. But, it was a "false positive," probably the result of lab contamination in the U.S. They checked over 1,200 other places in the Kandahar lab and couldn't find anything like the Ames strain anywhere.
4. The FBI determined that there were just three countries outside of the US which had received the Ames strain, and Afghanistan was NOT one of them.
5. Finding the Ames strain in Afghanistan would have been MAJOR news. There was no such news.
Ed
"DXer" (a.k.a. "Anonymous") just attempted another post to this blog. Here it is in its entirety:
ReplyDelete------------------------------
Ed,
What evidence do you have to cite that this bottle of "anthrax spore concentrate" was ever seized and tested? You appear to just be assuming it without basis. Given that the lab director urgently shushed up the scientists when asked about it, why don't you just as readily assume that he or some Taliban official or lab scientist walked out of the lab with it? Your analysis should be evidence-based with citation to the record and not resting on uninformed assumptions. Indeed, the overseas testing was and is still classified -- so you don't even know what labs were tested. Heck, you don't even know how many anthrax labs there were. This is not the lab you are discussing in Kandahar. Cite the record evidence or shut the fuck up.
------------------------------
DXer, of course, doesn't explain where he got the screwball I idea that I ever wrote anything about the bottle of spore concentrate being "siezed and tested." All I'm trying to do is decipher his incoherent babbling about irrelevant matters.
He brought up the subject, IMPLYING something about the bottle of "anthrax spore concentrate." But, with him everything is just vague insinuations and implications, so there's no way to make certain what he's trying to say. He probably doesn't know himself.
He attempts to post irrelevant stuff here, and when I guess wrong about what he's trying to say, he says I should "Cite the record evidence or shut the fuck up."
What I can do is just DEMAND that he EXPLAIN what he means, instead of me trying to guess.
I'll see if I can do that from now on.
Ed
From today's comment:
ReplyDelete----
In another discussion with a different Anthrax Truther yesterday, the Truther argued that the FBI is using arguments that are "not falsifiable." He quoted me:
"Not falsifiable" means it is NOT POSSIBLE to prove false.
And then he wrote:
IOW the Ivins-is-guilty hypothesis is independent of any chronology/set of circumstances. And hence unfalsifiable.
I really had a laugh over that one[...]
===================================
Lake then proceeds to IGNORE (not refute) that:
1) Task Force head Montooth ADMITTED in that WIRED article of 2011 that he (Montooth) had no idea when the purifying/drying was done (ie, it wasn't necessarily during the so-called 'unexplained' Sept-Oct period when Ivins' off-hours spiked), so any 'explanation' of those long hours wouldn't falsify the hypothesis. The hypothesis would merely 'migrate' chronologically to a still-earlier period. And, if need be, migrate and migrate and migrate. Unfalsifiability city!
http://www.wired.com/2011/03/anthrax-redux-fbi-admits-to-holes-in-its-biggest-case-ever/
2) Montooth and the Task Force/ DoJ withheld from first Ivins, then the general public, the very notebooks that could potentially 'explain' those 'unexplained' off-hours in Sept-Oct, something you wouldn't do if the notebooks backed your scenario. THIS item also makes it unfalsifiable.
----------
Instead of talking about those things, Lake ignores them and instead makes some generalization about my personal hypothesis (, not the thrust of my postings here (in general, and certainly not in this thread, as I observed in my post of December 1, 2014 at 8:23 PM upthread).
-------------------------
I really had a laugh over that one. The Truther believes he knows who sent the anthrax letters, and it was NOT Dr. Ivins. In the real world, that should mean that he can prove someone other than Bruce Ivins did it.
----------------------------------
I have no idea what you mean by the 'real world' here. There are cases, some as old as Jack the Ripper (ie, 1 1/4 century old) that are never (officially) solved. That hardly means that either 1) whatever person they suspected was guilty (it is the INDIVIDUAL suspect's purported guilt that must be 'falsified') 2) no one knows who committed the crime(s) in question. KNOWING who did crime X (which a spouse of a perpetrator sometimes knows) isn't the same as presenting admissible evidence of that in a court of law. Let alone getting a conviction from that evidence.
But this is all in accord with Lake's general take: Ivins is guilty until proven innocent ('and the Truthers can't do that because we've got the notebooks! Ha, ha, ha!')
Mr. Rowley again shows that he does not understand the "scientific method," particularly the concept of "unfalsifiable" claims.
DeleteHe writes: "(Montooth) had no idea when the purifying/drying was done (ie, it wasn't necessarily during the so-called 'unexplained' Sept-Oct period when Ivins' off-hours spiked), so any 'explanation' of those long hours wouldn't falsify the hypothesis. The hypothesis would merely 'migrate' chronologically to a still-earlier period. And, if need be, migrate and migrate and migrate. Unfalsifiability city!"
What "hypothesis"? I assume it's an "hypothesis" that Ivins dried the spores during those "unexplained" overtime hours in his lab. However, Agent Montooth made no such hypothesis. Agent Montooth says that he doesn't know when Ivins dried the spores. He does NOT hypothesize that it was done during the "unexplained" hours.
Agent Monthooth's "hypothesis" is that Dr. Ivins had the MEANS and OPPORTUNITY to dry the attack spores. That "hypothesis" can be shown to be false by proving that Ivins did NOT have the means OR opportunity to dry the spores. Ivins' friends have tried to do that, but their arguments are BOGUS and can be proved to be BOGUS.
It is part of Mr. Rowley's "hypothesis" that the notebooks contain information that shows Ivins could not have dried the spores during those "unexplained" overtime hours. But, the FBI has not claimed that Ivins was drying spores during those hours.
Mr. Rowley wants the FBI to disprove his "hypothesis" by releasing the notebooks. The FBI has no authority or reason to release confidential research data just to satisfy the demands of Anthrax Truthers.
Mr. Rowley is saying that because the FBI will not do as he demands, the FBI's claim that Ivins had no explanation for his suspicious overtime hours is "not falsifiable." It IS falsifiable. It's just that the FBI has no reason to try to show Mr. Rowley that he is wrong.
Mr. Rowley also wrote: "I have no idea what you mean by the 'real world' here."
What I meant was the "real world" we live in, not the fantasy world where an Anthrax Truther believes he can prove Dr. Ivins was innocent by proving that someone else did it. Or the fantasy world where the FBI is required to do as Truthers demand.
Ed
More by Lake about yours truly:
ReplyDelete-----------------
The Truther's claim that the FBI is lying is "unfalsifiable." The Truther cannot prove the FBI is lying, and no evidence the FBI could ever provide would convince the Truther that they are not lying.
=================================
Well, they lied about the handwriting comparison(s), but I'd be willing to believe them on the off-hours if they merely showed Ivins' notebook(s). No INNOCENT person could possibly be hurt by the release of the notebook(s).
R. Rowley wrote: "Well, they lied about the handwriting comparison(s)"
DeletePlease show where the FBI "lied about the handwriting comparison(s)."
R. Rowley also wrote: "No INNOCENT person could possibly be hurt by the release of the notebook(s)."
It's not about some "innocent person" being hurt by the release of the notebooks. It's about releasing confidential research information for no purpose other than to quell complaints from conspiracy theorists who will just find something else to complain about.
Ed
"DXer" (a.k.a. "Anonymous") sent me two emails overnight. The first had this as the subject: "I never once suggested Rauf Ahmad wrote the anthrax letters - you liar
ReplyDeleteAnd the text said:
---------------------------
I never once suggested Rauf Ahmad wrote the anthrax letters - you liar
If you cannot make your argument without intentionally lying, Ed, it reveals the weakness of your argument.
And if you are not intentionally lying, it just reveals you to be incredibly stupid.
You never correct your mistakes -- you just constantly proliferate additional mistakes.
-----------------------------------
DXer is correct in that he didn't say he wanted to compare the handwriting on the label of a bottle of concentrated anthrax spores to the handwriting on the anthrax letters. I've corrected my web site.
It wasn't a lie, however. It was a mistake resulting from DXer's inability to make anything clear.
I was looking at DXer's comment about the handwriting at the link HERE.
The image at the top of that thread does NOT include the OTHER handwriting sample DXer wants to use for a comparison. And in the comment DXer doesn't say to what he wants to compare the handwriting on the label. The image with the other handwriting sample is HERE.
Instead of writing about one subject in one thread, DXer posts comments on the same subject in various threads and then expects the reader to put the pieces together.
It's just another reason I should ignore his emails and attempted posts unless he explains what means. I've got a kazillion other things to do, and I can't be bothered attempting to decipher his irrelevant ramblings.
DXer's second email said, in its entirety:
-----------------------
Notice that you don't dispute that the handwriting on the bottle matches the handwriting on Rauf Ahmad's letters, which is what the post on Lew's blog explained (contrary to your butchered characterization).
-----------------------
Right. Why would I dispute it? It means nothing and appears to have nothing to do with the Amerithrax investigation, although I realize that to DXER, everything relates to the Amerithrax investigation until proved otherwise (and maybe still even then).
Ed
"DXer" (a.k.a. "Anonymous") attempted another post to this blog this afternoon. It began with this question:
ReplyDeleteEd, what was the lab that Rauf Ahmad visited and obtained virulent anthrax?
Why ask me? I'm only interested in facts and evidence that relate to the anthrax attacks of 2001. Meaningless questions about "virulent anthrax" are a waste of time. If DXer has the answer, he doesn't need me to provide it, he needs to EXPLAIN WHY it is important to the Amerithrax investigation and to the readers of this blog.
DXer also wrote:
Wasn't it the lab that is making international news today?
Is it? Why not PROVIDE LINKS links and EXPLAIN WHY it should be of interest to people reading this blog?
DXer also wrote:
And didn't that lab have virulent Ames?
Did they? Why don't you EXPLAIN WHY people reading this blog should care?
DXer also wrote:
Why do you assume answers to the questions you don't know?
and
And why do you perpetuate new mistakes daily?
Do I? Why don't you EXPLAIN WHERE I assumed answers and WHERE I made mistakes?
Ed
"DXer" (a.k.a. "Anonymous") just sent me an email in which he claims to be pointing out a "mistake" I made. Here is his email in its entirety:
ReplyDelete--------------------------------
Ed asks me to provide examples where he hasn’t corrected his mistakes.
For example, Ed writes under “The Al Qaeda Theory":
" (But records show that the first sample taken from flask RMR-1029 which was removed in Sept. 1998.) “
http://www.anthraxinvestigation.com/The-al-Qaeda-Theory.html
That’s not what the records show. The records show that the first known sample taken from Flask RMR-1029 were from March 1998. The inventory he relies upon has been noted by Ivins to not reflect all the transfers and yet Ed relies on it because of a lack of mastery of the documents.
I have uploaded and linked the FBI’s expanded log of known withdrawals from Flask 1029 (based on the documents that the FBI was able to obtain).
https://caseclosedbylewweinstein.wordpress.com/2011/04/20/the-fbi-should-produce-all-the-documents-relating-to-the-aerosolization-studies-cited-on-this-expanded-log-done-by-the-fbi-reflecting-the-use-of-ames-from-flask-1029-2/
We have seen there is much documentation that was destroyed and never provided to the FBI pursuant to its subpoena and requests for information.
So the question is: Why doesn’t Ed correct his mistakes when they are pointed out?
Why does he persist in filling the internet with factual misstatements that he refuses to correct?
As he has noted today, I suggest two possibilities.
--------------------------------
First of all, if that IS a mistake, I don't recall DXer ever pointing it out before, and he almost certainly never EXPLAINED it before.
Even so, it will take some deciphering. It appears to be a statement of his BELIEFS & ASSUMPTIONS, rather than an explanation of any actual "mistake" I made.
Second, he is WRONG in claiming that the "records" do not show what I said they show. The RMR-1029 inventory form clearly DOES show that the first sample taken from the flask was removed on Sept. 17,1998. Click HERE to view that inventory form.
Third, he is making a screwball assumption that some inventory was taken out flask RMR-1029 before Sept. 17, 1998, because Ivins said that the inventory sheet did not "reflect all transfers." In reality, the form says that the contents of flask were first CREATED on Sept. 17,1998. How can a sample be taken out of the flask before it was created?
Fourth, he provides a document (HERE) which he claims is an "expanded log" that shows there were samples taken from RMR-1029 before Sept. 17, 1998. But he gives no information about the source of the document, so it is going to require some research to determine what the document really is.
It seems so far that DXer is the one making the mistakes.
Ed
Okay. I searched through my notes file HERE and found that the document DXer cites appears to be from page 8 of FBI file "#24 of 59." Click HERE to go to that file. The actual FBI document begins on page 6.
DeleteIt indicates that in the process of assembling the contents of RMR-1029 Ivins did do some tests on the raw materials, which - in theory - could have contained the four morphs.
I'm not sure how that affects what I wrote, but it seems to be a matter of wording - rather than an actual mistake.
I'm about to shut down operations for today. So, I'll study it more in detail tomorrow morning. Maybe it will make an amusing comment for my web site.
Ed
This morning, I found another email in my inbox from "DXer" (a.k.a. "Anonymous'). Here's his entire email (excluding an image of the top of form RMR-1029):
ReplyDelete--------------------------------------------
I have pointed out that Ed does not correct his mistakes and proliferates new mistakes daily. This is yet another example. On Sunday, he claimed without factual basis that Flask 1029 was created in 1998 -- when in fact it was created in 1997 as the Reference Material Receipt Record states on its face.
Ed doesn't correct his mistakes -- and instead merely strives to rationalize his false claims while proliferating additional mistakes.
Relatedly, Ed doesn't even realize that the expanded log relates to WITHDRAWALS from FLASK 1029. The people like David Relman who he calls truthers actually simply are scientists who take a fact-bounded, evidenced-based approach.
Ed's errors yesterday are as fundamental to analysis as they come.
-----------------------------
Dxer seems to think that he just has to state something and that automatically makes it a fact. He doesn't realize that statements have to be supported by evidence (usually in the form of links and quotes).
Form RMR-1029 has CONFLICTING information. There is a "Received at USAMRIID" line with the date "22 Oct 97." But then it also shows "Amount In" as "1000 ml" on 9/17/98.
It's known that it took awhile to get all the batches from Dugway and from Ivins' own work. Plus the spores had to be purified before they were ready to be put into inventory.
It appears that 22 Oct. 1997 is the date the PROJECT began and the date the 1029 number was assigned. And the project wasn't fully done until the finished product was divided into two 500 milliliter flasks and put into inventory on Sept. 17, 1998.
I concede that it looks like three samples were removed before the inventory actually began. What those three samples contained is unclear. But, the FBI seems to think they would have contained all the morphs that were in the final flask RMR-1029.
So, I've changed my web page about "The illogical al Qaeda Theory" accordingly.
Exactly what this means to the illogical al Qaeda theory is unclear. DXer makes a lot of claims, but he doesn't supply any solid evidence that the claims fit together.
So, nothing has really changed - other than that I made a minor error that has now been corrected.
Ed
"DXer" (a.k.a. "Anonymous") sent me another email this afternoon. It contained only an image from Lew's blog (click HERE to view it), a link, and this comment:
ReplyDelete"Ed still refuses to acknowledge that RMR-1029 was created in October 1997; in fact, he ignores the date it was registered in Building 1412 as #7737"
At the link there are only some meaningless questions:
"RMR-1029 was registered as #7737 in Building 1412 ; what were particulars of #7736? Was it from same seed stock? Did it have a silicon signature?"
How can I "acknowledge that RMR-1029 was created in October 1997" if DXer doesn't supply some EVIDENCE to prove it. What were the dates of the shipments from Dugway? When did Ivins make his part of the supply? Is DXer claiming that all this happen in October 1997? I can't say that it didn't, but I'd like to see some EVIDENCE. It seems like a lot of work to be done so quickly.
Plus, DXer needs to EXPLAIN what difference it makes? Why should anyone CARE when the contents of RMR-1029 were actually made?
It's been known for years that it was originally planned that RMR-1029 was going to be stored in Building 1412. The fact that they gave it a number has no clear significance. If DXER thinks it does, he needs to EXPLAIN.
What does #7736 have to do with anything? DXer needs to EXPLAIN.
Wasn't it established that the seed stock for RMR-1029 came from the stock of "ancestor Ames"? I don't recall the specifics of things that are basically irrelevant, but if DXer thinks this means something, he needs to EXPLAIN.
What does the "silicon signature" have to do with any part of this? DXer needs to EXPLAIN.
All DXer is doing is showing why it's generally a waste of time trying to decipher what he's talking about. He is incapable of EXPLAINING anything.
Ed
Overnight, "DXer" (a.k.a. "Anonymous") sent me an email with the subject "let's move on, Ed, to the mistake in the #2 under your "Al Qaeda Theory" section and the reason Dr. Ayman Zawahiri would have used the extremely virulent Ames strain"
ReplyDeleteHere's the body of the email in its entirety:
-----------------------------------------
Zawahiri seeks his justifications in the hadiths — which is why he would have used the extremely virulent Ames strain of anthrax. The hadiths commanded that one use the weapon of one’s enemy. Dr. Ivins’ email that I uploaded shows that he thought a 1996 study pointed to the extreme virulence of Ames, which is why — Dr. Ivins explained in the uploaded email — it was chosen for the DARPA project and the creation of Flask 1029 in October 1997.
I obtained and had uploaded (in two parts) a 2001 Battelle proprietary study of Ames comparing it to two weaponized strains. See also the 2013 study of its virulence in guinea pigs that noted its extreme virulence in humans. The extreme virulence of Ames was also noted by speakers at the Porton Down-sponsored conferences attended by the infiltrator sent by Dr. Zawahiri.
Now it is true that the Al Qaeda scientist Rauf Ahmad was already killing mice in 2000 by injecting 100 spores using a strain that had been isolated in the wild. World renown anthrax expert Hugh-Jones last month explained to me this question of the virulence of wild strains generally:
“There is a natural variance in the virulence, depending essentially on the genomic repeats for pX02 and capsule thickness; see:
Coker, Pamala R., Kimothy L. Smith, Patricia F. Fellows, Galena Rybachuck, Konstantin G. Kousoulas, & Martin E. Hugh-Jones, 2003
Bacillus anthracis virulence in guinea pigs vaccinated with anthrax vaccine adsorbed is linked to plasmid quantities and clonality. Journal of Clinical Microbiology, 41: 1212-1218
By definition any strain recovered from a case is pathogenic. But if you recover spores from the soil you will find some 35-5% are apathogenic having lost the pX02 plasmid. This happens progressively after 4-5 years. The same can apply to archival collections if you aren’t careful.”
Dr. Ayman Zawahiri thinks half the battle is in the PR department. His book on October 7, 2001 helps understand him and motives. Dr. Ayman Zawahiri was framing Western biodefense by using infiltrator Rauf Ahmad — who reported to Dr. Ayman that he had learned processing tricks and made internet contacts at the Porton Down-sponsored conferences.
------------------------------------
That's just DXer's OPINION. If I made a mistake, it requires FACTS AND EVIDENCE to show that I am wrong.
What DXer's email shows is that he is STILL WRONG and doesn't understand anything.
The Ames strain was never used as a weapon because it makes a very poor weapon. Yes, it is "extremely virulent" if left untreated. But, it's easily treated. Just about any antibiotic can kill it. Vollum is still the anthrax strain of choice for making bioweapons. And there are MANY other anthrax strains that would make a better weapon than Ames. Ames was selected for use in making vaccines because it killed a vaccinated cow and because it reproduces very rapidly.
DXer has argued that same misunderstanding in the past, and still hasn't corrected his mistake. When it's pointed out to him that the anthrax mailer took several precautions to prevent anyone from being harmed by the anthrax in the letters (taping the letters shut, wrapping the spores in the pharmaceutical fold, including warnings in the letter, etc.), DXer will just argue that "the hadiths" also include reason for doing that. He demonstrates that he does not use the scientific method, he instead argues only opinions, and he has an opinion that fits any counter-argument.
Ed
In another email sent by "DXer" (a.k.a. "Anonymous") overnight, he provided an image of page 068 from Ivins' notbook #4040. Click HERE to view the image.
ReplyDeleteWhile his purpose for sending it was to show that I was still wrong about when flask RMR-1029 was created, he also showed me solid evidence that flask RMR-1029 was never stored in Building 1412.
Previously in this thread he wrote:
"Ed still refuses to acknowledge that RMR-1029 was created in October 1997; in fact, he ignores the date it was registered in Building 1412 as #7737"
and
"RMR-1029 was registered as #7737 in Building 1412 ; what were particulars of #7736? Was it from same seed stock? Did it have a silicon signature?"
But the page from the notebook says that on 22 Oct. 1997 Ivins wrote this about the creation of flask RMR-1029:,
'The spores were then dispensed into 2 equal lots, 500ml/lot, in polycarbonate screw-capped flasks (sterile). They were stored in the B3 cold room at 2-8 C."
So, in addition to Ivins' statement to the FBI, we also have his handwritten statement from his notebook saying that flask RMR-1029 was stored in Suite B3 in Building 1425, and NOT in Building 1412 as DXer constantly tries to argue.
So, I was wrong about an irrelevant piece of information regarding when flask RMR-1029 was created, but DXer was WRONG about what he seems to think is an IMPORTANT piece of information: where RMR-1029 was initially stored. He's been arguing that it was stored in Building 1412. The FACTS say it was stored in Building 1425 in Suite B3.
Ed
This afternoon, "DXer" (a.k.a. "Anonymous") attempted another post to this blog. Here it is in its entirety:
ReplyDelete----------------------------------
Once again, Ed, you have failed to correct your mistake and proliferated new errors. You have not posted the cited authorities on the issue that I described in the email (to include an email by Ivins, the 2001 Battelle proprietary study on Ames virulence, the 2013 study of its virulence etc.) because you realize that they demolish your claim. Meryl Nass, over a decade ago published the data comparing the lethality rate of Ames to Vollum. As Ivins described, there was a 1996 study. Then the 2001 Battelle study discussed confidence levels. Ivins explained that it was chosen for the DARPA project precisely because of its extreme virulence. But you apparently did not read the documents even though I urged them on you and posted them.
Then you proliferate this new error — which I have tried to get you to correct no fewer than 7 times.
The Al Qaeda manual on mailing poisonous letters EXPRESSLY advises to take care to seal the contents so as to not kill the mailman. You don’t cite and link the authority, because once again it demolishes your claim. You are all about schtick and have no mastery of the documentary evidence — to include the procedure in the AQ manual on Poisonous Letters requiring that care be taken not to kill the mailman. Indeed, study the chapter for guidance on the pharmaceutical fold. Oh, wait, you don’t read the documentary evidence that does not relate to your theory a First Grader wrote the letters.
---------------------------
So, DXer is arguing that the spores were wrapped in the pharmaceutical fold to prevent killing the mailman, but he doesn't provide a link to the material. But, even if someone believed that al Qaeda would worry about killing an American mailman, it wouldn't explain why an al Qaeda operative would include MEDICAL ADVICE in the letter with the anthrax.
As for DXer's rambling comments about "virulence," no one is arguing that Ames isn't "virulent." The argument is that it had never been used as a weapon because just about any anti-biotic will kill it.
He wants me to cite sources. I don't have anything at my fingertips, so I'll have to search for it. It's well-known information -- to everyone but DXer.
I'll add it as a reply to this comment when I find a source.
Ed
It's unclear exactly what DXer needs to have clarified. But, here are some sources:
DeleteThe virulent Ames strain, which was used in the 2001 anthrax attacks in the United States, has received the most news coverage of any anthrax outbreak. The Ames strain contains two virulence plasmids, which separately encode for a three-protein toxin, called anthrax toxin, and a polyglutamic acid capsule. Nonetheless, the Vollum strain, developed but never used as a biological weapon during the Second World War, is much more dangerous.
SOURCE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthrax
Because of its virulence, the Ames strain is used by the United States as something of a gold standard for development of vaccines and testing their effectiveness, starting in the 1980s, after work on weaponizing the Vollum 1B strain ended and all weaponized stocks were destroyed after the end of the U.S. biological warfare program in 1969
SOURCE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ames_strain
In working with their new isolate, the scientists discovered something remarkable about it: the Ames strain excreted an especially potent toxin. Ames became known as a "hot," or highly virulent, strain, and by the late nineteen-eighties it had become the gold standard for anthrax strains. "It's hot, so people like to challenge their animals with the Ames to determine how well their vaccine or their treatment modality is working," [William] Patrick says.
SOURCE: http://www.ph.ucla.edu/epi/bioter/theamesstrain.html
In guinea pigs, immunization with PA1 or PA2 vegetative cells or PA7 spores protected greater than or equal to 95% from an intramuscular spore challenge with the virulent, "vaccine-resistant" B. anthracis Ames strain.
As demonstrated in other investigations, immunization with MDPH-PA provided better protection against challenge with the Vollum 1B strain than with the Ames strain, although vaccine efficacy against the Ames strain was better than previously reported.
SOURCE: http://www.ph.ucla.edu/epi/bioter/detect/antdetect_ivinspub.html
British and American scientists discovered that Ames was one of the strains that defeated the licensed U.S. and British anthrax vaccines. Quite simply, it killed vaccinated guinea pigs. (Before you get too scared, antibiotics successfully kill the Ames strain).
SOURCE: http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=92318&page=1
http://www.nytimes.com/1998/02/14/world/gene-engineered-anthrax-is-it-a-weapon.html
http://www.ph.ucla.edu/epi/bioter/anthraxmuddytrail.html
This is from a December 15, 2003 email I received from Martin Hugh-Jones:
Vollum was first isolated in 1937 and then went on to be used in the British trials at Porton and Guinard Island. It is of poor virulence; i.e. it makes any vaccine look good.
Ames was isolated in 1981, I think, and became the routine challenge strain at USAMRIID. It is virulent and good at its job, but there are others even more virulent.
At the bottom end there are some pussy cats. The spectrum of B. anthracis virulence is wide. By definition all are pathogenic[i.e., "virulent"], unless they have lost both plasmids.
Full Definition of VIRULENT
1 a : marked by a rapid, severe, and destructive course (a virulent infection)
b : able to overcome bodily defensive mechanisms : markedly pathogenic (virulent bacteria)
2 : extremely poisonous or venomous
If DXer needs something beyond this, he'll have to EXPLAIN and be specific.
Ed
"DXer" (a.k.a. "Anonymous") attempted another post to this blog in response to my comment above. Here is DXer's attempted post in its entirety:
Delete--------------------------
Ivins understood it to be extremely virulent in 2001 (based on a 1996 study), but of course there are more recent studies such as the 2013 study I mentioned. See Battelle 2001 study that I uploaded and obtained.
As for the Al Qaeda chapter on "Poisonous Letters" I've linked it numerous times and you refuse to make the correction. But who cares what you think? You don't know anything at all about Al Qaeda and anthrax.
I appreciate you favor Wikipedia over peer-reviewed literature -- but you might at least turn to Ivins' email for evidence of what he understood. He said it was precisely Ames' extreme virulence that prompted it to be used in the DARPA project.
see, e.g.,
“Additionally, the Ames strain is highly virulent in humans (36) and is most likely to be the basis of any weaponized strain (37, 38).”
"Pathology and pathophysiology of inhalational anthrax in a guinea pig model."
Savransky V, Sanford DC, Syar E, Austin JL, Tordoff KP, Anderson MS, Stark GV, Barnewall RE, Briscoe CM, Lemiale-Biérinx L, Park S, Ionin B, Skiadopoulos MH.
Infect Immun. 2013 Apr;81(4):1152-63. doi: 10.1128/IAI.01289-12. Epub 2013 Jan 28
---------------------------
As usual, DXer has forgotten what the discussion was about. The fact that the Ames strain is highly "virulent" (poisonous) is NOT IN DISPUTE. The dispute ( as I recall it) was over why al Qaeda would seek out Ames when there are so many other virulent anthrax strains around. DXer wrote:
"Zawahiri seeks his justifications in the hadiths — which is why he would have used the extremely virulent Ames strain of anthrax. The hadiths commanded that one use the weapon of one’s enemy."
Ames has never been used to make weapons.
So, now DXer presents a comment that says,
“Additionally, the Ames strain is highly virulent in humans (36) and is most likely to be the basis of any weaponized strain (37, 38).”
So, are we to believe that al Qaeda sought out the Ames strain NOT because they wanted to "use the weapon of one’s enemy," as DXer originally claimed, but because it was a strain that America MIGHT use in some future weapon? That seems to be very silly logic.
As for DXer's preposterous argument that al Qaeda would have taken precautions to avoid harming any AMERICAN mailmen when they supposedly send anthrax through the mails because that's what some al Qaeda manual on the subject says, that falls into the category of BELIEFS and OPINIONS. I have no interest in arguing about preposterous beliefs and opinions. Al Qaeda had no problem killing thousands of innocent people when they flew into the World Trade Center, so there's no reason to believe they would adhere to some "manual" when sending out letters filled with anthrax.
Ed
What "DXer" considers to be "errors" are mostly just differences of opinion. I disagree with his absurd opinions, and he considers me to be in error in doing so. I find that amusing, but it doesn't help resolve issues.
DeleteThe facts still say that Bruce Ivins was the anthrax killer. In over 13 years of trying, DXer has never presented ANY convincing facts or evidence which support his BELIEF that Islamic terrorists were behind the anthrax attacks of 2001.
Ed
"DXer" (a.k.a. "Anonymous" just sent me another email. The subject was "Ed, I am sending this email (unredacted for your convenience) identifying who did the study showing the particular virulencee of the Ames strain."
ReplyDeleteAnd below is the entire text of the email, without the image he also attached:
----------------------------------
You may recall this email — it was USAMRIID’s official explanation to the New Yorker journalist’s query about the Ames strain.
I once again ask you to correct your #2 so that we can move on to the next error. Bruce Ivins and Arthur Friedlander were fielding questions.
https://mrmc.amedd.army.mil/content/foia_reading_room/Email%20Attachments/%284%29%20email%20attachments%20Nov%207,%202001.pdf
----------------------
DXer appears to be arguing - once again - that Ames was a "virulent" strain. But, there is NO DISPUTE that Ames was a virulent strain.. Vollum is ALSO a virulent strain and HAS been used in making bioweapons.
DXer needs to EXPLAIN why he persists in arguing something about which there IS NO DISPUTE.
Ed
"DXer" (a.k.a. "Anonymous") just sent me another email. The subject was: "If you need to conceal the documents to make your argument, that's an indication that your argument is contrary to the documentary evidence'"
ReplyDeleteAnd the entire body of the email was as follows:
---------------------------------
CNN.com – Transcripts
edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0111/15/ltm.01.html
Nov 15, 2001 … Target: Terrorism: Look at Al Qaeda’s Dreadful Recipe Book … and was given three chapters of the manual, in order to prove it’s existence. … The poisonous letteris the title of one section no poison inks. … “Wipe the envelope from the inside with silicone sealant,” it goes on, “so it would not kill the mailman.
-----------------------------------
I'm not sure what his point is or what documents he thinks I want to conceal. The link HERE does say as follows:
--------------------------
The poisonous letter is the title of one section no poison inks. "Write a letter to the victim mentioning very exciting and very interesting news," it reads. "Wipe the envelope from the inside with silicone sealant," it goes on, "so it would not kill the mailman."
-----------------------------------
Note what DXer omitted from his version: "Write a letter to the victim mentioning very exciting and very interesting news,"
That is NOT what the letter writer did. So, the theory that al Qaeda was responsible for sending the anthrax letters and followed a "guide book" is already DEBUNKED, since the letter was a THREAT and NOT a letter about "very exciting and very interesting news."
Since DXer omitted that sentence from his version of the CNN article, it's clear he KNOWS that it DEBUNKS his beliefs.
And there's a second sentence with also DEBUNKS the al Qaeda theory: "Wipe the envelope from the inside with silicone sealant." The sender of the letter did NOT do that, either. So, he was NOT following any guide book. Instead of acknowledging that his theory is totally DEBUNKED, DXer argues that taping the envelope shut is the same thing as "wiping the envelope from the inside with silicone sealant. IT IS NOT. If the inside of the letters had been wiped with silicone sealant, they would not have leaked spores and KILLED POSTAL EMPLOYEES.
So, contrary to DXer's claims, NO GUIDE BOOK WAS FOLLOWED. The text does not match the guide book. The way the envelopes were sealed does not match the guidebook. The letter killed postal employees, which is just the opposite of what the guidebook says.
Once again DXer shows his theory is a total crock.
Ed
"DXer" (a.k.a. "Anonymous") just attempted another post to this blog. Here it is in its entirety:
ReplyDelete-----------------
Can you quote the email rather than provide a URL without hyperlinks? Thanks.
“Regarding the discovery of the virulence of the Ames strain (isolate, as you will), you tell me that it was the work of Little and Knudson that recognized the particular virulence of the Ames strain. I’m guessing that their work was done at/in association with USAMRIID? And, what was the context of their study (looking for a virulent strain to use in vaccine challenges, etc)?
*********************************************************************
Yes, it was done at USAMRIID. They were doing studies with strains of B. anthracis at USAMRIID in an attempt to determine if any strains/isolates, in the guinea pig model, would overcome vaccination with the human vaccine.”
------------------------------------
I have no idea what DXer is trying to say. I think it refers to the comment at 10:29 AM this morning. But, it makes no sense to me.
Ed
"DXer" (a.k.a. "Anonymous") sent me three emails overnight. The subject of the first one was "your refusal to correct mistakes" and is shown below in its entirety:
ReplyDelete------------------------
Ed, one of the most wild misstatements that you have refused to correct relates to Franklin Park.
First, I never said that Adnan worshipped at the mosque across from Franklin Park in New Jersey. That is a lie.
Second, I never said that the Franklin Park across from the park was at the Point “B” on your map. I explained that it was at Point A.
Indeed, it was Padilla who first identified Adnan El-Shukrijumah to the FBI.
I have repeatedly pointed that out but you have refused to correct it.
That’s because you never correct your mistakes and simply proliferate additional mistakes.
That fact that you have an entire page devoted to an Al Qaeda theory and yet never mention Rauf Ahmad — and the fact that he was working with anthrax killing animals in 2000 — illustrates well that you are not credible.
-------------------------
The problem is that DXer writes incoherently. I was referring to what he wrote on the web page HERE:
On the return address, Greendale School purported to be in Franklin Park where fugitive Adnan El-Shukrijumah worshipped along with others who now have been indicted. The pilot El Shukrijumah is said to be at the level of Mohammed Atta and is thought to have been associated with Aafia Siddiqui, an MIT-trained biologist. Mohammed Atta lived 11 miles away from this mosque across from Franklin Park.
The first sentence IMPLIES that the mosque is in the same town in New Jersey where "On the return address, Greendale School [is] purported to be." DXer doesn't explain that there is a PARK called "Franklin Park" inside the TOWN of Franklin Park, Florida. It's a muddle that I didn't bother to spend enough time on to decipher.
It's also totally irrelevant to anything. The OPINION that the town in the return address has to do with a place in Florida and NOT with the town near where the letters were mailed is just an OPINION bordering on being illogical. But, it's just an opinion and DXer will never change his opinion. So, it's a waste of time.
I have corrected my web page about the illogical al Qaeda theory to reflect my current understanding of what DXer was trying to say.
I can't write about the other two emails without going over the 4,096 character limit. So, I'll write about them in the next post.
Ed
In DXer's second email overnight, he attempted to clarify things. Here's that email in its entirety:
ReplyDelete---------------------------
Padilla is the one who first identified Adnan El-Shukrijumah.
Padilla worshipped with Adnan El-Shukrijumah at the mosque across from “Franklin Park."
Franklin Park [though in NJ] was listed as the return address on the letters to Senator Leahy and Senator Daschle. On the return address, Greendale School purported to be in Franklin Park.
The mosque was at 2542 Franklin Park Dr. in Fort Lauderdale. The address of the county park, Franklin Park, is across the street. 2501 Franklin Dr., Fort Lauderdale, FL 33311
“Franklin Park” refers both to the locality and a county park across from the mosque.
http://www.broward.org/Parks/FranklinPark/Pages/Default.aspx
El-Shukrijumah stayed at KSM’s house. El-Shukrijumah was a close affiliate of Hawsawi who had the anthrax processing documents on his laptop, and he was an associate of a man who helped set up Yazid Sufaat’s anthrax lab in Kandahar in May 2001. While in Pakistan, Padilla had reported to KSM, the al Qaeda’s No. 3 leader who had anthrax production documents on his laptop when he was arrested.
A federal undercover agent repeats that he saw Atta and El-Shukrijumah together at mosque.
Remember: Given that using the same address helped the second recipient receiving the letter to identify it and avoid opening it, the mailer would have no reason to use the same address unless he was communicating something to insiders and wanted to draw attention to it.
El-Shukrijumah may have been announcing by the address who the sender was — speaking in a code as he taught his colleagues (like Binyam) plotting with Padilla to do.
-----------------------------
While I appreciate DXer's attempt to clarify the confusion over the town of Franklin Park in Florida and PARK called "Franklin Park.'," he seems unable to avoid going off into another incomprehensible part of his theory.
I highlighted the section about helping "the second recipient receiving the letter to identify it and avoid opening it" because it shows how DXer twists things to fit his beliefs.
BOTH letters with the Franklin Park return address were mailed AT THE SAME TIME. The sender would logically have expected them to be opened at the same time. He had no way of knowing that one would be opened on October 15, causing a shutdown of the mail system, and the second would not be located and opened until over a month later. DXer replaces the FACT that the letters were mailed near Franklin Park, New Jersey with pure speculation about some mysterious code.
DXer's second email contained no text and consisted only of the message in the subject part of the email: "you apparently did not know that Padilla and Shukrijumah had worshipped at more than one mosque".
He does not explain why on earth I would care about such a thing. My interest is in the anthrax attacks of 2001, and the FACTS AND EVIDENCE say Muslim terrorists had NOTHING to do with those attacks. The anthrax attacks were perpetrated by Dr. Bruce Edwards Ivins. Period. End of story.
Ed
"DXer" (a.k.a. "Anonymous") just sent me two identical emails, both with the same subject:
ReplyDeleteWhy don't you address Yazid Sufaat in your page on the Al Qaeda theory? Are you unfamiliar with Yazid Sufaat like you are Al Qaeda anthrax scientist Rauf Ahmad?
The body of the email was some image of a document that I can't reproduce here.
My web page about "The illogical al Qaeda Theory" is just an overview of the jumble of different Anthrax Truther theories that al Qaeda was behind the attacks. I didn't want to waste time explaining details about every theory, which people can get from the web sites and blogs operated by the various Anthrax Truthers.
When debunking a bogus theory, it's best to hit just the main points. If you go on and on and on about minor details, no one is going to read it.
I hope that answers DXer's question.
Ed
This afternoon, "DXer" (a.k.a. "Anonymous") sent me yet another mail. This one had this as the subject: "In its statement this week, the CIA discusses "learning important information about al-Qa'ida anthrax plotting and the role of Yazid Sufaat"
ReplyDeleteThe body of the mail contained a few words of text and an image. The text said, "You appear uninformed and uninterested about that information."
It's not that I'm "uninterested," I'm just not rabidly obsessed with the subject as DXer appears to be, and I've got a thousand other things that are of far more interest to me.
The image in the email contained more text. Here is what it said (with the bold type being the section that DXer highlighted):
-------------------------------------
Finally, we note that our review showed that the Study failed to include examples of important information acquired from detainees that CIA cited more frequently and prominently in its representation than several of the cases the authors chose to include.
In the same set of documents from which the authors of the Study selected their examples, some of which CIA only represented once, the Agency cited the disruption of Gulf shipping plot seven times; learning important information about al-Qa'ida's anthrax plotting and the role of Yazid Sufaat seven times; and the detention of Abu Talha al-Pakistani seven times.
------------------------------
DXer seems unable to understand that there is NO DISPUTE that al Qaeda had an interest in developing anthrax as a weapon.
The DISPUTE is over who sent the anthrax letters in 2001. THE FACTS AND EVIDENCE say that Bruce Ivins sent the anthrax letters, NOT al Qaeda.
Until DXer can provide BETTER FACTS AND EVIDENCE showing that it was really al Qaeda who sent the anthrax letters instead if Dr. Ivins, he's just making noise and wasting everyone's time. In 13 years he hasn't been able to find any meaningful evidence at all to support his theory.
And there is CERTAINLY nothing meaningful in this latest email. It's just same-old same-old. Al Qaeda was working with anthrax.
Dr. Ivins was also working with anthrax. The FACTS and EVIDENCE say Dr. Ivins sent the anthrax letters. Period.
Ed
"Dxer" (a.k.a. "Anonymous") attempted another post to this blog overnight. It's just same-old same-old blather. Here it is in its entirety:
ReplyDelete-------------------------------------
Ed didn't even know that Al Qaeda's scientist Rauf Ahmad was working with virulent anthrax in 2000 even though it was in the public domain and available upon a google.
Ed still doesn't even know the second lab that Rauf Ahmad visited in 1999 where he obtained the pathogenic samples. Or the samples that reportedly were pulled from his luggage by the MI5 in 2000.
The reason your theory that a First Grader wrote the letters is not credible, Ed, is that there is no evidence to support your theory and you remain willfully ignorant of the theory that Yazid Sufaat processed the anthrax and that Adnan El-Shukrijumah mailed it.
You have falsely claim that there was no evidence that he travelled in September 2001 to the United States.
But you simply refuse to correct your mistakes.
-----------------------------------------------
His post is just plain silly. How can he argue "you remain willfully ignorant of the theory that Yazid Sufaat processed the anthrax and that Adnan El-Shukrijumah mailed it" when DXer has been repeating that claim over and over and over and over for years. I am totally aware of that DXer's THEORY. There is just no meaningful evidence to support his THEORY. The FACTS and EVIDENCE clearly say that Dr. Bruce Ivins made the attack anthrax and mailed the anthrax letters.
And how ridiculously silly is it for DXer to claim "The reason your theory that a First Grader wrote the letters is not credible, Ed, is that there is no evidence to support your theory"? I provide EVIDENCE on YouTube (just click HERE) and on my web page HERE. DXer just refuses to accept the evidence and appears incapable of even discussing the evidence.
And most ridiculous of all, DXer claims "you simply refuse to correct your mistakes."
Within the past few days, I corrected my mistake about the two "Franklin Parks" caused by my misunderstanding his nearly undecipherable argument, and I corrected my mistake in thinking that the contents of flask RMR-1029 were completed on Sept. 17, 1998 instead of Oct. 22, 1997. It's not I who refuses to correct his mistakes. It's DXer. He endlessly claims there is "no evidence" to support my handwriting theory; I show him the evidence; and he just repeats his mistake and makes the same bogus claim again and again.
Ed
"DXer" (a.k.a. "Anonymous") attempted FOUR more posts to this blog today (so far). All they do is demonstrate that he has no meaningful evidence to support his BELIEF that al Qaeda was behind the anthrax attacks.
ReplyDeleteTogether, the four posts take more than 4,096 characters. So, I'll post 3 in one post, and the fourth in another post, where I'll also add my comments.
Here are the first three emails in their entirety:
-------- 1 --------------
On his Al Qaeda page, Ed nowhere discloses that Al Qaeda's anthrax scientist Rauf Ahmad was intercepted leaving the Dangerous Pathogens with anthrax samples.
The Associate Press in an October 5, 2009 article reported:
“The book [an authorized biography of MI5] says that in 2000, MI5 — without realizing it at the time — foiled a plot by Al Qaeda to obtain biological weapons when it found samples and equipment in the luggage of a Pakistani microbiologist, Rauf Ahmad, who had attended a conference on pathogens in Britain. U.S. intelligence later revealed that Ahmad had been in touch with Al Qaeda’s No. 2, Ayman al-Zawahiri.’
Rauf Ahmad already had also attended the Dangerous Pathogens conference in 1999 — and relatedly he visited a second lab for the purpose of obtaining a pathogenic laboratory strain of anthrax. After that second visit, he wrote Ayman Zawahiri that he had successfully obtained the targets.
Government accountability and transparency requires that Rauf Ahmad’s known and potential sources of the virulent pathogens be identified.
This Dangerous Pathogens 2000 Conference was sponsored by Bruce Ivins’ Les Baillie, who then worked for the FBI on Amerithrax at the NMRC in Maryland. That is where the Ames strain samples were kept in a repository.
It is important that in addition to the second lab visited by Rauf Ahmad, the samples that were intercepted in 2000 should be identified — along most importantly the name of the person who gave them to him.
If it was Bruce Ivins, for example, then one can ask whether he gave Rauf Ahmad virulent Ames at the previous year’s conference. If it was Les Baillie, he can be asked the same. Same for any of the other researchers with access to the Ames strain.
------------ 2 ---------------
A 2014 Gregory Koblentz GMU PhD thesis on the Amerithrax forensics explains:
"Working with the US Intelligence Community (IC), the FBI explored another potential connection to Al Qaeda. The FBI reports multiple collection missions by the FBI and/or IC to exploit an undisclosed overseas location, which was identified based on intelligence concerning Al Qaeda’s potential interest in anthrax and information of a production facility. The alleged Al Qaeda anthrax site was searched multiple times with swabs, swipes, and other samples being collected. In each instance, no viable B. anthracis was recovered that could be cultured in a US laboratory. However, there were strongindicators of the presence of anthracis at this location. In the first collection mission, samples were found to be positive for the presence of Bacillus anthracis based on molecular signatures. No further typing was conducted on these samples. During the second collection, additional samples were collected from target areas identified in the initial collection. The results of the analyses from the second collection yielded the presence of Bacillus anthracis and indications of the Ames strain. However, these results were complicated by the fact that not all replicates yielded consistent results."
------------ 3 --------------
At page 93 of the thesis:
"The FBIR was limited in the fact that donor labs self-reported the data on what they provided and even in the samples that were sent."
-----------------------
End of part 1
Part 2 of 2:
ReplyDeleteAnd here's DXer's fourth attempted post:
------------ 4 ----------------------
Page 95 of the 2014 GMU PhD Thesis:
"The reporting suggests that B. anthracis consistent with Ames strain was identified from this location. However, without full disclosure of the scientific data, one cannot ascertain whether these results are reliable. If reliable, did these results indicate the presence of Ames strain in an Al Qaeda lab from a laboratory
transfer or is there an isolate of B. anthracis that is located in the undisclosed region of the world that developed similar markers to the Ames strain through parallel evolution."
--------------------------------
In the first post, DXer wrote: "On his Al Qaeda page, Ed nowhere discloses that Al Qaeda's anthrax scientist Rauf Ahmad was intercepted leaving the Dangerous Pathogens with anthrax samples."
If he was intercepted with the anthrax,that implies that he didn't get away with it. And, even if he did get away with it, SO WHAT? There's no evidence to indicate it had anything to do with the anthrax attacks.
If I put all of DXer's illogical logic on my al Qaeda web page, it would be a full time job. I've got better things to do.
DXer's second, third and fourth posts are about a thesis someone wrote rehashing things that were argued long ago. There's nothing in the thesis worth discussing again. The al Qaeda lab in Kandahar did NOT prove to have had anthrax. There were some false positives, but massive testing showed NO ANTHRAX.
And the issue in post #3 rehashes the same-old argument (only this time less coherently) "The FBIR was limited in the fact that donor labs self-reported the data on what they provided and even in the samples that were sent."
Every lab that was known to have received Ames anthrax from USAMRIID was tracked down, they were sent a subpoena to supply a sample of the Ames that they had received. The Truther argument is that a culprit wouldn't supply a valid sample. But, the subpoena wasn't sent to an individual. It was sent to an organization. Therefore EVERYONE at the organization would have to be "in on it" if they didn't honestly respond. And, all that was proved was that flask RMR-1029 (controlled by Ivins) provided seed material to grow the attack spores.
Is it "possible" that everyone at some lab lied the to the FBI and didn't provide an honest sample. Yes. It's also "possible" that aliens from outer space sent the anthrax letters. But, that is NOT what the facts and evidence say.
Citing a college thesis just shows that DXer has no MEANINGFUL evidence to support his BELIEFS. That's been known for over a decade.
Ed
"DXer" (a.k.a. "Anonymous") just attempted a FIFTH post to this blog for today. Here it is in its entirety:
ReplyDelete------------------------------
Ed,
Remember that picture of the bottle with Rauf Ahmad's handwriting? The one that said "anthrax spore concentrate" The one harvested April 2001? The above passages indicate that it was removed and not available for testing by the time the folks the people doing the testing arrived.
The same passages above indicate that, as between possible strains, it was Ames.
----------------------------
SO WHAT? Who cares what some guy writing a college thesis thinks? It is NOT EVIDENCE OF ANY KIND. It means NOTHING. It's a WORTHLESS OPINION. It's NOT WORTH DISCUSSING.
If DXER cannot EXPLAIN what his posts have to do with the anthrax attacks and WHY they are BETTER evidence than what the FBI has against Bruce Ivins, he's just wasting everyone's time here.
Ed
"DXer" (a.k.a. "Anonymous") just attempted a SIXTH post to this blog for today. Here it is in its entirety:
ReplyDelete------------------------------
Ed,
The author of the graduate PhD thesis is Michael P. Garvey, former longtime head of forensic science of the Philadelphia Police Department.
For approximately fourteen years after obtaining his Master of Science in Forensic Science, the author Michael P. Garvey, Jr. was employed with the federal government in various scientific and managerial roles. In 2011, he returned home to Philadelphia to serve as the Director of Forensic Science for the Philadelphia Police Department. (Prior to all that, he worked as forensic investigator for the DC Medical Examiner.)
-----------------------
What difference does that make? He's still just an OUTSIDER giving and OUTSIDER'S OPINION. He doesn't provide any new facts or evidence that would change anything.
Ed
In a SEVENTH attempted post to this blog today, "DXer" a.k.a. "Anonymous") wrote: "Ed, that is a PhD thesis directed by Gregory Koblentz -- not a "college thesis."
ReplyDeleteOkay. I stand corrected. But it still means NOTHING as evidence.
Ed
Dear Mr. Lake,
ReplyDeleteIt's not my intention to troll your site-be discourteous-or argumentative. You have certainly put a lot of work into the site, and as such, having never read anything your wrote before today (nor anything by your critics, who you list), I will give you my opinion.
I am in agreement with about 20 percent of your opinions. Frankly, I do not believe that logic is your forte. Your attempt to 'flip the script'--the presumption of innocence is somehow a WORTHLESS OPINION--is completely unpersuasive.
I once heard someone comment on your [sic] journalistic style, and I can paraphrase it for you:
"The first person to raise his/her voice, or hurl an insult... has already lost the argument!"
-WG Wilson
"Anonymous" (or is it Mr. Wilson?),
DeleteYou begin with insults ("I do not believe that logic is your forte') and then do your own "flipping of the script."
No one said that the presumption of innocence is a "worthless opinion." The presumption of innocence is NOT an opinion. It's a legal necessity if a JUROR is to look at evidence impartially.
As I recall, the argument was that because there has been no trial, Mr. Ivins must be FOREVER PRESUMED TO BE INNOCENT. That is NONSENSE.
That is saying that no amount of evidence can mean anything, because we MUST all presume the innocence of someone who can never be brought to trial.
We are all still capable of evaluating evidence and coming to our own conclusions. Those conclusions might not mean anything legally, but there's no law that says people cannot view the evidence and decide for themselves whether a dead person was guilty or not.
And once a decision is made, if the person is open-minded, all that is needed is BETTER EVIDENCE to reverse that decision. Opinions are worthless. Opinions can't change what the evidence says.
Ed