1. They all believe the government is wrong in saying Bruce Ivins was the anthrax killer.
2. They all believe that they know "the truth," which is that someone other than Bruce Ivins did it.
3. They cannot make any kind of meaningful case against whomever they think did it.
4. They cannot provide evidence which proves their theory is better than the government's.
5. They can only argue that the evidence against Ivins is not convincing to them.
6. They do not seem to understand circumstantial evidence.
7. They claim that the evidence against Bruce Ivins "isn't really evidence."
8. They do not fully agree with any other "truthers" about details of their own beliefs.
9. Many "truthers" totally disagree with other "truthers" about who sent the anthrax letters.
10. They endlessly seem to argue that beliefs and opinions are more important than facts.
11. When presented with evidence that they are wrong, they ignore it and continue to just believe what they want to believe.
12. They believe their standards for evidence are the only acceptable standards for the world.
"Anonymous" has recently claimed once again HERE that the T in "NEXT" in the media letter was not highlighted. Here is what he wrote:
It is a FACT that the "T" in next has not been shown to have been double-lined and so the entire code was crock.
Here is an enlargement of the T in "NEXT" in the media letter:
Can there be any dispute that the horizontal line in the T in NEXT is traced over in way that is virtually identical to the T in the second TO in the image above? Isn't it perfectly clear that the horizontal lines in the T's in DEATH are NOT traced over the way the other T's are traced over?
In a post HERE, R. Rowley quoted my point #5 in an earlier post and wrote his response:
5. It's a FACT that the message in the media letter CAN be decoded to be either "PAT" or "FNY" or both.In other words, unless there is only one way to interpret "PAT" and "FNY," and that evidence points directly to Bruce Ivins, then the evidence is worthless.
And literally hundreds of thousands(if not millions) of other things, rendering it worthless.
In a post HERE, "Max" wrote this about the decoding of the hidden message in the media letter:
The FBI found nothing. There is no message.What is Max's reasoning? Try to make sense of this:
PAT is not a message.
FNY is not a message.
If you want to claim otherwise, then you need to show that you expected to find PAT before the "decoding". Of course, nobody did.He appears to be saying that a person needs to expect to find "PAT" is the decoded message before they decode the message, otherwise "PAT" is not the decoded message? Who but a "Truther" would think that kind of reasoning makes sense?
13. When you attempt to get a "truther" to explain what he means, he either disappears or he changes the subject.