tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post1279364650046949735..comments2023-05-06T02:39:25.916-07:00Comments on Debating the Anthrax Attacks of 2001: Subject: Facts vs EvidenceEd Lakehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00517078636884309733noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-255558344901877512017-02-03T07:21:34.938-08:002017-02-03T07:21:34.938-08:00It's kind of difficult to follow what you are ...It's kind of difficult to follow what you are saying, but there is no evidence that any kind of stencil was used to write the letters. <br /><br />All the letters were mailed in Princeton, NJ, so they all went through the Hamilton Distribution Center in Trenton.<br /><br />Only one letter was delayed, and it wasn't because of the slope of the address - it was because the 1 in the zip code 20510 was read as a 2 by the scanning equipment which changed the zip to 20520. <br /><br />The letters were Xerox copies. <br /><br />The W in NOW and the M in America may look identical, but NONE of the other characters do. So the case for using a stencil is bogus.<br /><br />I can't make sense of much else of what you wrote, so I don't know how to respond.<br /><br />EdEd Lakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00517078636884309733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-53250078581711289152017-02-02T17:52:16.876-08:002017-02-02T17:52:16.876-08:00So, as man who's been around the block longer ...So, as man who's been around the block longer than I, let me bounce somethings I consider facts, see what you think-<br /><br />1-There's no evidence Sadam-Bin-Cheney was involved ;). Fact?<br />2-The writer used a stencil to assist/write the letter. I've done it, did 2 more 'double blind' tests. Can't mimic, but can the same strike marks. Fact? Just opinion(s). <br />3-All letters had a slope in the city state zip. Fact?<br />4-The slope in the city state zip lead to it going through the DCBS twice. Fact? <br />5-The Hamilton Disto Center was the only target engaged with both sets letters. Fact? <br /><br />Now the hard stuff (drumroll)<br />1- To the Brokaw letter- The extra strike mark in the 2nd "A" in "All(A)h" is similar both strike marks in the "To"..Fact or Opinion? I'm going with opinion, but its worth a look. I hope you know where I'm going with that one. Stencils are a pain in the keister, but you learn....<br />2- The "W" in "No(w)" is the exact same character as the "M" in A(M)erica. Not similar, the same. Photoshop it, I'm going fact. Supports the stencil, but its subjective enough to ask. There's bunch more just like that, I've made the "B" in "NBC" but the w/m is the easiest. <br />3- There was very lethal agents lying around labs. See the Small Pox find at NIH. Fact? - no proof lyopholized B.a. was laying around. But hey, if lyopholized Small Pox was.....<br />4- A vast majority of victims were in the mail service. Fact? <br /><br />And finally, (Drumroll)<br />5- The primary target does not have to be the addressees. I mean, Conway got hit when Kennedy was killed....Fact? <br /><br />I have more, but lets see what think on those...its cool stuff too, the NYC Post was written before the Brokaw...why the writer shifted pens (and why I did)......the only DoD lab that worked with B.a. and B.s. in MD.....but, its either Ivins or a wide-left field answer (not a scientist).....but not a global conspiracy..not Sadam Bin Cheney...but lets see if I'm on the right path first. <br /><br />Let me know.....<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-84434956762226302202015-01-14T11:52:51.575-08:002015-01-14T11:52:51.575-08:00"DXer" (a.k.a. "Anonymous") ju..."DXer" (a.k.a. "Anonymous") just attempted another post. Here it is in its entirety: <br />--------------------------<br /><i>There are no facts whatsoever indicating that the Loch Ness Monster wrote the letters either.<br /><br />Do I really need to explain? Really? Why, Ed?<br /><br />Don't you have any common sense?<br /><br />Among grown-ups, it is a non-starter.</i><br />---------------------<br /><br />In other words, <b>DXer cannot argue against the facts and evidence.</b> So, he just ridicules the hypothesis and says that no explanation is needed.<br /><br />Among grownups, that is "acting like an obnoxious 12-year-old."<br /><br />He demonstrates for the umpteenth time that he cannot participate in any kind of intelligent conversation. And that's why he's not allowed to post here. <br /><br />And there's probably no good reason to even <b>show</b> his posts when they say nothing of value.<br /><br />EdEd Lakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00517078636884309733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-17747155565256103192015-01-14T09:23:33.074-08:002015-01-14T09:23:33.074-08:00In another totally absurd attempted post, "DX...In another totally absurd attempted post, "DXer" (a.k.a. "Anonymous") just attempted to post this comment: <i><b>'There are no facts whatsoever indicating that a First Grader wrote the letters."</b></i><br /><br />He provides no explanation, of course. It's just another mindless statement of belief.<br /><br />What explanation does he have for the FACT that the writer apparently learned the proper way to draw the letters R and P between writing the Brokaw letter and addressing the Brokaw envelope?<br /><br />He won't address that FACT. <br /><br />Nor will he attempt to explain the FACT that the writing on the second letter was about half the size of the writing on the first letter. It's a FACT. What is his explanation for that FACT?<br /><br />And what about the FACT that the writer used no punctuation in the first letter mailed in September, but used punctuation in the second letter mailed in October? How does DXer rationalize that FACT?<br /><br />Isn't it a FACT that the anthrax letters were mailed at about the time students (including first graders) were just starting a new school year?<br /><br />Isn't it also a FACT that children just starting first grade are taught the correct way to draw characters of the alphabet? And isn't it a FACT that they are also taught to write smaller by making the use lined paper? And isn't it a FACT that are also taught about punctuation?<br /><br />Are those FACTS all just coincidences? What is DXer's alternative explanation for these FACTS?<br /><br />EdEd Lakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00517078636884309733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-38107820187001250402015-01-14T07:58:31.477-08:002015-01-14T07:58:31.477-08:00FWIW, I got onto my old computer this morning and ...FWIW, I got onto my old computer this morning and tried viewing the Tara O'Toole question and answer there. It worked fine. <br /><br />The question asked was about a "national security breakdown" at USAMRIID when they allowed an employee to make powdered anthrax there.<br /><br />Tara O'Toole responded, <i>"First of all, there are remaining questions as to whether or not the anthrax in the letters came from Ft. Detrick. That has not been proven conclusively. That is the working hypothesis. <b>There are not a lot of other active hypotheses</b>, but the National Academy report is the place to go for the more definitive analysis of the science behind the FBI's supposition."</i> <br /><br />She's just taking the "science-line" and arguing that it has not been conclusively proven - to a scientific certainty - that the spores came from USAMRIID. It is "<b>POSSIBLE</b>" that some other unknown lab could have produced an IDENTICAL batch with IDENTICAL morphs. Therefore, we shouldn't go on a witch hunt to find people at USAMRIID who were responsible for ALLOWING Dr. Ivins to do what he did. <br /><br />I agree that there's no need for a "witch hunt." And, from a PURELY "scientific" point of view, I agree that it can be argued that the evidence that the attack powders came from USAMRIID is not "definitive" or "conclusive." <br /><br />However, from a law-enforcement point of view, I do not see any <b>reasonable doubt</b> that the spores came from USAMRIID or that Dr. Ivins made them.<br /><br />If others have doubts, I'm always available to <b>examine the evidence</b> to help them determine whether their doubts are "reasonable" or not.<br /><br />Ed<br />Ed Lakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00517078636884309733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-6515870646840444392015-01-13T14:38:32.710-08:002015-01-13T14:38:32.710-08:00I had some spare time this afternoon, so I hunted ...I had some spare time this afternoon, so I hunted for the link that DXer failed to provide for Tara O'Toole's controversial comments. The video is at this link: https://www.americanprogress.org/events/2011/10/13/17158/anthrax-revisited-the-outlook-for-biopreparedness-in-the-united-states/<br /><br />Or just click <a href="https://www.americanprogress.org/events/2011/10/13/17158/anthrax-revisited-the-outlook-for-biopreparedness-in-the-united-states/" rel="nofollow">HERE</a>.<br /><br />The video is <b>2 hours and 50 minutes long.</b> Unfortunately, when the video on my computer reached the 2:29:36 mark, it just went into a wait state, as if 2 1/2 hours is the maximum allowable size for a video. Nothing I could do would cause the rest of the video to load and play.<br /><br />So, while I accept that Tara O'Toole said what DXer claims she said, I have no way to see the context. It would appear that such comments in that setting would be off topic and irresponsible, but it would certainly depend on the context.<br /><br />Ed Ed Lakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00517078636884309733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-4107387864735740362015-01-13T09:01:07.406-08:002015-01-13T09:01:07.406-08:00"DXer" (a.k.a. "Anonymous") ju..."DXer" (a.k.a. "Anonymous") just attempted another long, rambling post to this blog. Here it is in it's entirety:<br /><br />---------------------------<br /><i>Ed, the video has long been linked on Lew's website. She says it was just the FBI's "working hypothesis" and its supposition. (See video starting at 2:34:05.)<br />She says that there are other "active hypotheses."<br /><br />It is not hearsay as you claim. I have linked the video. She gives her answer on the stage while sitting along with Tom Ridge, the Homeland Security Director at the time of the attacks and Senator Tom Daschle, who was one of the Senators who received the mail. Senator Daschle referred the question to her. (Someone from MIT, Jean G., asked the question).<br /><br />Note that Dr. O'Toole explains that NBACC does the science these days for the FBI. She explains that NBACC is under her purview and at the time was suggesting that the FBI pay for the NBACC's work on these issues.<br /><br />So I appreciate that the Homeland Security biodefense honcho and the Senator who received the anthrax have an opinion that differs than yours. But it is their opinion that merits weight. She urges that all members of Congress ask to receive a classified briefing on the anthrax threat.<br /><br />If you can't get the facts right about what she said when she is quoted and the linked video is provided, why do you think we should count on you to have a reliable opinion about whether a First Grader wrote the anthrax letter sent to Senator Daschle? Note that the program was sponsored by the Center for American Progress. Tom Daschle is the Chair of the CPA's Board of Directors and a Distinguished Senior Fellow there.<br /><br />I have corresponded with Dr. O'Toole extensively but rely only on the linked video. Indeed, I linked it several years ago and it was discussed on your blog. You just don't read things or view things that don't square with your First Grader theory.<br /><br />http://www.amerithrax.wordpress.com </i><br />---------------------------<br /><br />Of course, he once again provides no link (except to Lew's entire blog). And, I don't have the time to hunt for it. So, all I can say is that it appears that Tara O'Toole <b>did</b> express her opinion, and that her OPINION is still of <b>NO VALUE</b> here. Others in the DOJ and FBI who have a better knowledge and understanding of the evidence have a different OPINION.<br /><br />OPINIONS ARE <b>IRRELEVANT</b>. EVERYONE HAS ONE. THEY MEAN <b>NOTHING</b> WHEN DISCUSSING AN ISSUE.<br /><br />This blog isn't for arguing opinions. It's for examining facts and evidence to determine what is true. <br /><br />EdEd Lakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00517078636884309733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-139993291334928282015-01-13T06:21:02.931-08:002015-01-13T06:21:02.931-08:00"DXer" (a.k.a. "Anonymous") at..."DXer" (a.k.a. "Anonymous") attempted a post to this blog which only said, <i>"It is a fact that Tara O’Toole, the undersecretary for biosecurity at Homeland Security Department, says that the FBI did not establish that the anthrax came from USAMRIID but that it was merely the FBI’s “working hypothesis” and a “supposition.”</i><br /><br />If it were a fact, DXer should be able to cite and provide a link to the source. He didn't do so. Instead, it appears to be PURE HEARSAY. Someone supposedly HEARD her say that at a seminar in 2011.<br /><br />But, it's still just one person's OPINION. Therefore, it is OF NO VALUE in determining what is fact.<br /><br /><b>The only way to intelligently resolve a debate is through an objective analysis of the facts and evidence.</b><br /><br />Ed Ed Lakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00517078636884309733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-1392400683110538782015-01-06T07:21:09.738-08:002015-01-06T07:21:09.738-08:00"DXer" (a.k.a. "Anonymous") at..."DXer" (a.k.a. "Anonymous") attempted a post to this thread last evening. Here it is in its entirety:<br />-------------------------------<br /><i>FACT 1:<br /><br />Senator Daschle’ states his understanding in a 2013 book. In 2013, in his book discussing the anthrax mailings, he concludes: “To this day, authorities have not conclusively figured out who mailed those letters.”<br /><br />FACT 2:<br /><br />Senator Daschle's initial view on August 13, 2008 had been based on the US Attorney’s numerous false claims and mistaken premises outlines at an August 8, 2008 press conference and at a private briefing.<br /><br />FACT 3:<br /><br />Senator Leahy has said not too long ago that the case was not closed. </i><br />---------------------------------<br /><br />Fact #1 is that Sen. Daschle stated "his understanding in a 2013 book" and Sen. Daschle has OPINIONS about the Amerithrax case. No one disputes those facts. But <b>Sen. Daschle's OPINIONS are NOT FACTS.</b><br /><br />Fact #2 is NOT A FACT but just <b>Dxer's FANTASIES</b> about Sen. Daschle's thought processes.<br /><br />Fact #3 is that Sen. Daschle has an OPINION about the closing of the anthrax case. Anyone can have an opinion. Opinions mean NOTHING. This case IS closed. Sen. Daschle's OPINION can't change that.<br /><br />So, DXer's post is just about his misunderstanding of what facts are. <br /><br />EdEd Lakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00517078636884309733noreply@blogger.com