tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post4188661232299878324..comments2023-05-06T02:39:25.916-07:00Comments on Debating the Anthrax Attacks of 2001: Apr. 22, - Apr. 29, 2012 DiscussionsEd Lakehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00517078636884309733noreply@blogger.comBlogger46125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-28509886734184082942013-11-29T18:57:43.431-08:002013-11-29T18:57:43.431-08:00Even after the documents were linked and uploaded,...Even after the documents were linked and uploaded, Ed would disregard what they said.<br /><br />I wrote:<br /><br />"You should not be addressing things beyond your ken and obtain and read the relevant documents. For example, I obtained a couple dozen documents showing what Dr. Ivins was doing in the laboratory when the FBI incorrectly claimed he had no reason to be in the lab. You don't cite those 25 or so documents relating to the 52 rabbits in his B3 lab for good reason. Because, without more, they destroy all of the case there ever was against Dr. Ivins. As for the genetics, they winnowed things from 700-1000 to 200-300. Are you really that inexperienced in true crime analysis that 200-300 is not the sort of number that constitutes a prosecutable case? The folks at USAMRIID regularly had access to both the strain that was matching and the strains the Ames that were not. It did not point to Dr. Ivins in the east any more than 200+. There is no other science that in any way points to Dr. Ivins. Not hair, fiber, ink, paper, isotopes, culture medium, processing, etc. You rely on hearsay regarding events from the early 1980s -- which would not even be admissible for a variety of reasons. But of course you are not qualified to address the federal rules governing criminal prosecutions either.<br /><br />As for discussing the evidence, I regularly address the dozens of pieces of documentary evidence -- most of which I obtained from FOIA over the course of the past two years from USAMRIID.<br /><br />http://caseclosedbylewweinstein.wordpress.com/2012/04/27/chemical-and-physical-signatures-for-microbial-forensics-2012-excerpt-from-preface/#comments<br /><br />You are the one who makes no attempt to obtain the relevant documents."<br /><br /><br />Ed Lake wrote:<br /><br />"The FACTS say that a child wrote the anthrax letters. Therefore, it is reliable until proved otherwise.<br /><br />Opinions like yours, that the facts mean nothing because you do not believe the facts, are irresponsible."<br /><br />http://anthraxdebate.blogspot.com/2012/04/apr-22-apr-29-2012-discussions.htmlAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-63976577924621645372012-04-30T13:37:28.613-07:002012-04-30T13:37:28.613-07:00Anonymouse wrote: "Ed, you refer to Atta, Mou...Anonymouse wrote: <i>"Ed, you refer to Atta, Moussaoui and Marwan Al-Shehhi were the operatives who recently learned English?"</i><br /><br />Nonsense. I did no such thing. I referred to them as the 9/11 terrorists whose handwriting I'd compared to the handwriting on the anthrax letters. <br /><br />Since the FACTS say the anthrax letters were written by a child in Ivins' wife's day care center, there was no reason to hunt for samples of any other 9/11 terrorists' handwriting. <br /><br />EdEd Lakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00517078636884309733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-71641934423038442202012-04-30T12:34:10.030-07:002012-04-30T12:34:10.030-07:00Ed, you refer to Atta, Moussaoui and Marwan Al-Sh...Ed, you refer to Atta, Moussaoui and Marwan Al-Shehhi were the operatives who recently learned English? On what basis? You apparently don't even know which operatives learned English recently and which were fluent. By all means, if you think there is reliable evidence that the writer recently learned evidence, then obtain writing exemplars of the Al Qaeda operatives in the US who recently learned English. You haven't done that.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-77522704299503303962012-04-29T08:11:27.739-07:002012-04-29T08:11:27.739-07:00Anonymous wrote: "Do you agree that contempor...Anonymous wrote: <i>"Do you agree that contemporaneous emails are very good evidence of who did what when?"</i><br /><br />I agree. But, the email you cite was written at 10:20 a.m. on the morning of the 17th of September, 2001. And the in-out logs show that Ivins was at work that morning, so <b>the email adds nothing of significance</b>. <br /><br />Your argument appears to be that, if the government doesn't produce documents as fast as you want, they are not living up to your standards. Yet, <b>you never seem to be able to find anything that means anything.</b> You demand documents, the documents are produced, and you just complain they weren't produced fast enough. It's the only argument you seem to have. You never seem to find anything that has any significance in the case. Or, if you do, you never seem to be able to EXPLAIN what the significance is.<br /><br />Anonymous also wrote: <i>"Ed, I definitely agree with you that the GAO should obtain the FBI all handwriting analyses and disclose them."</i><br /><br />I don't think I've ever said anything even remotely like that.<br /><br />However, it would be interesting to see all the different "expert" opinions about the handwriting in one place, even if it wouldn't mean anything. The FBI as already pointed out that the handwriting findings are <b>inconclusive</b>. Showing the details would only <b>confirm</b> that the handwriting experts don't agree on much of anything.<br /><br />Anonymous also wrote: <i>"You don't know anything about ANY of the Al Qaeda operatives. "</i><br /><br />I compared handwriting samples from Mohammed Atta to the anthrax handwriting in my January 25, 2012 comment, showing <b>how dramatically and conclusively different Atta's handwriting was</b>.<br /><br />On August 6, 2006, I created a supplemental web page where I examined the handwriting of Zacarias Moussaoui and Marwan Al-Shehhi. The page is here: http://www.anthraxinvestigation.com/handwriting2.html<br /><br />Anonymous also wrote: <i>"You are not even writing on the same subject as the GAO. You have been dwelling on First Graders for the past 10 years -- ignoring the actual true crime and intelligence analysis implicated by Amerithrax investigation."</i><br /><br />I reality, of course, it makes no difference to me what subjects the GAO is covering. My analysis is MY analysis, not the GAO's.<br /><br />And, the actual "true crime and intelligence analysis implicated by the Amerithrax investigation" has been my focus for 10 years. The FBI and I just don't believe as "Anonymous" believes. We work with facts. "Anonymous" works only with beliefs. <br /><br />EdEd Lakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00517078636884309733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-36618942432043543972012-04-28T18:05:19.029-07:002012-04-28T18:05:19.029-07:00" The terrorists' handwriting is ADULT ha..." The terrorists' handwriting is ADULT handwriting and shows the confidence an adult has when writing, even when writing in a language that is not his native language. " <br /><br />Really? Which of the terrorists who recently learned english from KSM are you referring to? You don't know anything about ANY of the Al Qaeda operatives. You have never even mentioned Yazid Sufaat or Rauf Ahmad's name. You are not even writing on the same subject as the GAO. You have been dwelling on First Graders for the past 10 years -- ignoring the actual true crime and intelligence analysis implicated by Amerithrax investigation.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-14608694240856028682012-04-28T15:19:19.269-07:002012-04-28T15:19:19.269-07:00On the subject of handwriting analysis, Ed, I defi...On the subject of handwriting analysis, Ed, I definitely agree with you that the GAO should obtain the FBI all handwriting analyses and disclose them. Handwriting regarding matches are admissible under Daubert. Moreover, I think the FBI's handwriting analysis from 2001 would also readily meet Daubert standards.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-89358876368582759652012-04-28T14:26:20.691-07:002012-04-28T14:26:20.691-07:00Ed, this email from September 17 was withheld for ...Ed, this email from September 17 was withheld for 4 years.<br />http://caseclosedbylewweinstein.wordpress.com/2012/03/01/doj-for-4-years-withheld-this-email-message-0438-written-by-bruce-ivins-on-the-date-of-alleged-mailing-of-deadly-anthrax-gao-should-obtain-a-full-set-of-emails-from-doj-including-those-that-doj/comment-page-1/#comment-17526<br /><br />The DOJ and FBI directed John P of USMRC to pull certain emails. They vetted the production in batches over the course of two years. Numerous emails from September and October 2001 still need to be produced. Do you agree that contemporaneous emails are very good evidence of who did what when?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-62827027232686942892012-04-28T13:18:29.583-07:002012-04-28T13:18:29.583-07:00Anonymous wrote: "Not only did you not adequa...Anonymous wrote: <i>"Not only did you not adequately sample children's handwriting or submit it to any controlled (blind) test, you didn't collect samples from new ESL students."</i><br /><br />You continue to misrepresent and/or ignore the evidence instead of trying to understanding it.<br /><br />The evidence is NOT about whether the handwriting matches some other child's handwriting or how the average first grader writes. So, comparisons to other children's handwriting would mean little or nothing at all. <br /><br />I attempted to get some children's handwriting samples, but the school teachers I talked with were afraid that they'd get into some kind of trouble with the school board if they went along. The only meaningful handwriting samples would have to include samples on the first day of first grade versus samples from the same child a month into first grade. I've looked for such samples, but I've not been able to find them. <br /><br />Besides, the main facts of the hypothesis are not altered by handwriting samples:<br /><br />1A. <b>The writer changed the size of his handwriting between the first letters and the second. His lettering in the second mailing was roughly HALF the size of the lettering in the first mailing.</b> <br /><br />1B. Adults to not change the size of their handwriting one month versus the next when writing on the same size envelopes and paper.<br /><br />1C. In kindergarten children write on blank paper, and they write BIG. In first grade, children are taught to write smaller by writing on lined paper. <br /><br />2A. <b>The writer didn't use punctuation in the first letter but did use punctuation in the second letter.</b> <br /><br />2B. Adults do not suddenly start using punctuation when they previously did not.<br /><br />2C. Children are taught about punctuation in first grade.<br /><br />3A. <b>Between mailings, the writer learned the proper way of drawing certain letters of the alphabet</b> <br /><br />3B. Adults write from experience, they are not constantly learning how to properly write characters of the alphabet.<br /><br />3C. In kindergarten, children are taught to write by copying what they see on the blackboard. In first grade, they are instructed on the PROPER way to draw each character of the alphabet. <br /><br />The handwriting differences are clearly explained by the differences between kindergarten and first grade writing. The handwriting samples we have of the 9/11 terrorists clearly do NOT match the anthrax letter handwriting in any way. The terrorists' handwriting is ADULT handwriting and shows the confidence an adult has when writing, even when writing in a language that is not his native language. <br /><br />EdEd Lakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00517078636884309733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-65578790438371543852012-04-28T12:47:04.084-07:002012-04-28T12:47:04.084-07:00Anonymous,
It's really not that hard to under...Anonymous,<br /><br />It's really not that hard to understand. You just let your fantasies confuse you.<br /><br />At one time, everyone in the world believed the earth was FLAT. That didn't make it flat. The number of people who believe in something has <b>NOTHING</b> to do with whether it is true or not.<br /><br />The FACTS say that a child wrote the anthrax letters. The number of people who do not believe the facts has <b>NOTHING</b> to do with whether the hypothesis is true or not.<br /><br /><b>If the hypothesis is wrong, it must be proved wrong with FACTS. In ten years, no one has even <i>attempted</i> to do so.</b><br /><br />And, you're wrong when you say, "Not a single person has found the argument persuasive." Over the years I've received emails from a number of people who found the argument persuasive. I just didn't mention it because it means nothing. It's not about how many people believe this or that, it's about what the facts say.<br /><br />Anonymous also wrote: <i>"responsible commentary addresses evidence that is reliable -- not opinions that are not"</i><br /><br /><b>Exactly!</b> The <b>FACTS</b> say that a child wrote the anthrax letters. Therefore, it is reliable until <b>proved</b> otherwise.<br /><br />Opinions like yours, that the facts mean nothing because you do not believe the facts, are irresponsible.<br /><br />EdEd Lakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00517078636884309733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-74594645446761222852012-04-28T12:42:18.711-07:002012-04-28T12:42:18.711-07:00Not only did you not adequately sample children...Not only did you not adequately sample children's handwriting or submit it to any controlled (blind) test, you didn't collect samples from new ESL students. Thus, immediately, your hypothesis that the block writing was done by someone who just learned to write English runs afoul of testing the related (more common sense) hypothesis -- that the person who just learned to write English was an adult part of a well-established plan to use anthrax against US targets. You don't even know that the person with the leg lesion had just learned to write English.<br /><br />This wouldn't pass as a 5th grader's science fair project because there was no blind testing at all. <br /><br />You seem to care about the issue very much -- one would think you would spend an hour or two seeking to develop the argument. Rather than writing essays about hyphenation. <br /><br />I strongly encourage you to pursue the hypothesis. Collect samples. Submit for blind testing.<br /><br />Eyeballing the exemplars you have chosen, the suggestion doesn't pass the giggle test.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-20166653756223985602012-04-28T12:18:06.301-07:002012-04-28T12:18:06.301-07:00You are explaining the theory to "whoever wan...You are explaining the theory to "whoever wants to read it." <br /><br />Your argument had been firmed up in 2002 and yet you never even collected additional samples of children. So in those 10 years, no one who read it found it persuasive. It is time for a reality check. If you want to be published, you should read the literature and the documents -- and then stay current upon issuance of the GAO report. Putting in book form what not a single person found persuasive in 10 years is not the way to get published.<br /><br />10 years ago you wrote:<br /><br />"I realize that people find it hard to accept that a child might have been used to write the anthrax letters, and I'm not actually stating that is true. "<br /><br />Your argument in 2002 is the same as today.<br /><br />http://web.archive.org/web/20020301105702/http://www.anthraxinvestigation.com/writing1.html<br /><br />Not a SINGLE person has found the argument persuasive. Except as we discussed, the fellow who made the suggestion first.<br /><br />Ed, it is time for a reality check. No expert agrees finds your argument. No lay person -- no potential person that would serve on a jury -- finds your argument persuasive.<br /><br />And your opinion evidence would not be admissible under Daubert. And responsible commentary addresses evidence that is reliable -- not opinions that are not.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-84744622057658444582012-04-28T10:39:07.501-07:002012-04-28T10:39:07.501-07:00Anonymous just sent me a personal email which stat...Anonymous just sent me a personal email which stated: <i>"Ed, you've made yourself irrelevant to the matter by not addressing the issues being addressed by the GAO</i><br /><br />If I'm irrelevant, why are you arguing with me?<br /><br />Is it because you do NOT think I'm irrelevant?<br /><br />And what issues being addressed by the GAO haven't I addressed? Or did you mean to say that I haven't addressed the nonsense you endlessly ask the GAO to address?<br /><br />EdEd Lakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00517078636884309733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-27029715247884449032012-04-28T10:32:31.800-07:002012-04-28T10:32:31.800-07:00Anonymous wrote: "Is it that you don't un...Anonymous wrote: <i>"Is it that you don't understand how Daubert applies to opinion testimony re the handwriting?"</i><br /><br />You <i>still</i> do not understand. <b>I am NOT - repeat NOT making a legal case to take to court.</b> To suggest I am is totally preposterous. YOU are trying to re-investigate the case, not me.<br /><br /><b>The FBI and DOJ were responsible for taking the case to court, NOT ME.</b><br /><br />All I'm doing is presenting my analysis of the case to whoever wants to read it. Nothing more. I'm filling in details to help people understand the case, not because I plan to use those details in court. <br /><br />You just endlessly confuse me with the FBI and with the DOJ. I am not responsible for things you think the FBI did wrong. I am not responsible for taking the case against Ivins to court.<br /><br />You really NEED to try to understand that.<br /><br />EdEd Lakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00517078636884309733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-53219778623979444532012-04-28T10:21:43.239-07:002012-04-28T10:21:43.239-07:00Is it that you don't understand how Daubert ap...Is it that you don't understand how Daubert applies to opinion testimony re the handwriting? what you call your "hypothesis" i.e., your opinion?<br /><br />Oh, yes. I remember. You haven't read the 2012 article about how Daubert applies to opinion testimony re the handwriting in the letters.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-86520996311484103432012-04-28T07:46:49.389-07:002012-04-28T07:46:49.389-07:00Anonymous wrote: "You are the one who makes n...Anonymous wrote: <i>"You are the one who makes no attempt to obtain the relevant documents."</i><br /><br />That's the biggest laugh of the week. <br /><br />Right now, I'm in the process of putting together the "Notes & Resources" section of my new book. That means I'm working every day to add the tiny footnote numbers in the text and then add an entry in the "Notes & Resources" section explaining where the information in the text came from.<br /><br />Some of the information came from the DOJ Summary Report.<br /><br />Some of the information came from 2,720 pages of FBI documents released with the DOJ Summary Report.<br /><br />Some of the information came from The National Academy of Sciences' "Review of the Scientific Approaches Used During the FBI's Investigation of the Anthrax Attacks of 2001."<br /><br />Some of the information came from the 9,600 pages of supplementary information released with the NAS review.<br /><br />Some of the information came from the Expert Behavioral Analysis Panel report.<br /><br />Some of the information came from USAMRIID's files of Bruce Ivins' emails and other documents related to the case.<br /><br />Some of the information came from the UCLA's Department of Epidemiology's web site about the case.<br /><br />Some of the information came from the hundreds of scientific articles I read that relate to the case.<br /><br />Some of the information came from the thousands of newspaper articles I've read about the case.<br /><br />Some of the information came from David Willmans' book, from Richard Preston's book or from Marilyn Thompson's book. <br /><br />And you ridiculously argue that I make "no attempt to obtain the relevant documents."<br /><br /><b>You are looking for documents which you can distort to make them fit your own theory. You are <i>re-investigating</i> the case in an attempt to DISPROVE the FBI's findings. But, all you really do is restate your belief that the FBI is wrong.</b><br /><br />The FACTS say that the FBI was right. Ivins WAS the anthrax killer. The only additional material I need to obtain via FOIA requests is <b>detail information</b> to fill in the blanks. And I've done that by talking with people who have the FACTS and by submitting FOIA requests.<br /><br />Your arguments are just getting more and more ridiculous.<br /><br />But they <b>are</b> amusing and they do provide <b>a good laugh</b> from time to time.<br /><br />EdEd Lakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00517078636884309733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-42836249888895376302012-04-28T07:23:29.943-07:002012-04-28T07:23:29.943-07:00Anonymous wrote: "You say it is FACT a First ...Anonymous wrote: <i>"You say it is FACT a First Grader wrote the letters."</i><br /><br /><b>NONSENSE</b>. I have <b><i>NEVER</i></b> said that. <br /><br />I've said that the <b>FACTS</b> say that a first grader wrote the anthrax letters.<br /><br />And I ask people to provide <b>FACTS</b> which say otherwise. No one has.<br /><br />It's an <b><i>hypothesis</i></b> that I put forward for challenge. No one has provided any FACTS to challenge it. There are only people like you, who have other theories and who do not believe the facts.<br /><br />Anonymous also wrote: <i>"I obtained a couple dozen documents showing what Dr. Ivins was doing in the laboratory when the FBI incorrectly claimed he had no reason to be in the lab. You don't cite those 25 or so documents relating to the 52 rabbits in his B3 lab for good reason. Because, without more, they destroy all of the case there ever was against Dr. Ivins.</i> <br /><br /><b>MORE NONSENSE.</b> You present <b>irrelevant</b> documents and <b>CLAIM</b> they have a meaning they do not have. That's been your argument for the past ten years: presenting meaningless information and CLAIMING it means something.<br /><br />If you have information that the FBI is wrong, <b><i>EXPLAIN</i></b> how your information <b>PROVES</b> that the FBI is wrong. Don't just post irrelevant material and CLAIM that it means something.<br /><br /><b>You demonstrate again and again and again and again that you are INCAPABLE of EXPLAINING anything because you UNDERSTAND NOTHING.</b> You only have beliefs. And you <b>believe</b> that everything the FBI has not fully explained somehow proves what you believe. It doesn't. The FBI didn't fully explain it because it was IRRELEVANT.<br /><br />Furthermore, your arguments are clearly with the FBI, not with me. You point out that <b>the FBI</b> "winnowed things from 700-1000 to 200-300" and then accuse <b>me</b> of being so inexperienced that I don't know that "200-300 is not the sort of number that constitutes a prosecutable case". In your fantasy world, at what point does what the FBI did become <i>my</i> fault?<br /><br />Your arguments are nonsense and preposterous. They are nonsense because they are nonsensical <b>claims</b> about irrelevant materials, and they are preposterous because you blame me for everything the FBI did. <br /><br />But, you are doing one thing correctly: You are showing people who view this blog that your arguments are <b>totally ridiculous</b>.<br /><br />EdEd Lakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00517078636884309733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-66730521983784976212012-04-28T07:06:14.859-07:002012-04-28T07:06:14.859-07:00As for discussing the evidence, I regularly addres...As for discussing the evidence, I regularly address the dozens of pieces of documentary evidence -- most of which I obtained from FOIA over the course of the past two years from USAMRIID.<br /><br />http://caseclosedbylewweinstein.wordpress.com/2012/04/27/chemical-and-physical-signatures-for-microbial-forensics-2012-excerpt-from-preface/#comments<br /><br />You are the one who makes no attempt to obtain the relevant documents.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-4284618457557782662012-04-27T15:18:08.826-07:002012-04-27T15:18:08.826-07:00Okay, Ed. You say it is FACT a First Grader wrot...Okay, Ed. You say it is FACT a First Grader wrote the letters.<br /><br />You are wrong. You are True Believer to persist for 10 years when not even a single person on the planet has agreed.<br /><br />BTW, Dr. Boyle of course has a doctorate in political science. And I have never relied on on Dr. Spertzel, Dr. Boyle or Dr. Jahrling. But getting basic facts right is not your strong point.<br /><br />With respect to questions of processing, I rely on people who have actually made aerosolized virulent anthrax or anthrax simulant, to include the FBI's expert JE, who made a dried powder out of Ames provided from Flask 1029. I interviewed him on film. <br /><br />Dr. Kiel, who headed a military lab making aerosolized simulates, conducted controlled experiments as he and his labs noodled over the possible cause of the silicon signal and provided me the images. <br /><br />You should not be addressing things beyond your ken and obtain and read the relevant documents. For example, I obtained a couple dozen documents showing what Dr. Ivins was doing in the laboratory when the FBI incorrectly claimed he had no reason to be in the lab. You don't cite those 25 or so documents relating to the 52 rabbits in his B3 lab for good reason. Because, without more, they destroy all of the case there ever was against Dr. Ivins. As for the genetics, they winnowed things from 700-1000 to 200-300. Are you really that inexperienced in true crime analysis that 200-300 is not the sort of number that constitutes a prosecutable case? The folks at USAMRIID regularly had access to both the strain that was matching and the strains the Ames that were not. It did not point to Dr. Ivins in the east any more than 200+. There is no other science that in any way points to Dr. Ivins. Not hair, fiber, ink, paper, isotopes, culture medium, processing, etc. You rely on hearsay regarding events from the early 1980s -- which would not even be admissible for a variety of reasons. But of course you are not qualified to address the federal rules governing criminal prosecutions either.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-83965543002447426252012-04-27T13:54:27.416-07:002012-04-27T13:54:27.416-07:00Anonymous wrote: "Ed, I regularly consult the...Anonymous wrote: <i>"Ed, I regularly consult the top scientists (e.g., Kiel) and then I quote them."</i><br /><br />You still do not understand. Consulting "top scientists" and then quoting them is <b>meaningless</b> if those scientists are just giving <b>opinions</b>.<br /><br />The anthrax case was <b><i>plagued</i></b> by "top scientists" giving <b>STUPID opinions based upon ignorance of the facts</b>. It appears that there is no idea so stupid that you can't get a "top scientist" to say something quotable in favor of it.<br /><br />Some of the most ridiculous quotes in the case have come from:<br /><br />1. Dr. Barbara Hatch Rosenberg<br />2. Dr. Richard Spertzel<br />3. Dr. Francis A. Boyle<br />4. Dr. Peter Jahrling<br />5. Dr. Stuart Jacobsen<br /><br /><b>You demonstrated that when you quoted Dr. Relman.</b><br /><br />Quotable nonsense from scientists who have <b>opinions</b> that agree with your opinions is worthless. It's worse than worthless. It's counter-productive.<br /><br />Arguing opinions against opinions is a STUPID waste of time. That's why I concentrated on the facts. <br /><br />When I consult with scientists, <b>I do so to check the facts, NOT to get their opinions.</b> I've consulted with everyone from Paul Keim to Joe Michael to Matthew Meselson to Ken Alibek to FBI scientists. I could go on and on. <b>William Patrick III endorsed and provided a review for my first book.</b> <br /><br />If my facts are wrong, tell me where they are wrong. Don't just claim they must be wrong because you don't like my credentials. That is <b><i>asinine</i></b>. It confirms you do not understand the facts and cannot discuss the facts, you can only attack people who disagree with your OPINIONS.<br /><br />But, that's what you've been doing for the past ten years, so I don't expect you to change now.<br /><br />EdEd Lakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00517078636884309733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-55692611308637708502012-04-27T09:57:47.090-07:002012-04-27T09:57:47.090-07:00Ed, I regularly consult the top scientists (e.g., ...Ed, I regularly consult the top scientists (e.g., Kiel) and then I quote them. You are the fellow who presumes to address science even though you have no qualification to do so.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-66532711355706235122012-04-27T09:51:35.518-07:002012-04-27T09:51:35.518-07:00Anonymous,
If you've read the articles, it...Anonymous,<br /><br />If you've read the articles, it's clear you do not comprehend what is in them since you cannot discuss them. All you can discuss is <b>how many</b> articles you've read.<br /><br />Who cares if "an Ivins Theory garners no support" from X, Y or Z? <br /><br /><b>It's not about theories, it's about what the facts say. And the facts say that Ivins was the anthrax mailer beyond any reasonable doubt.</b><br /><br />EdEd Lakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00517078636884309733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-65491045770536336312012-04-27T09:44:36.861-07:002012-04-27T09:44:36.861-07:00You haven't even read Laurie Garrett's 201...You haven't even read Laurie Garrett's 2011 book on Amerithrax!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-4830360816431127252012-04-27T09:44:10.189-07:002012-04-27T09:44:10.189-07:00Yes, I have Ed. You'll recall that I give you...Yes, I have Ed. You'll recall that I give you the articles and book chapters. You haven't stepped foot in a library in the past decade. For example, I sent you the copy of the last scanned Microbial Forensics book that you otherwise would never have seen.<br /><br />On the subject of "elemental signatures," if you were to read the 2012 article, which you won't, you would see that an Ivins Theory garners no support from:<br /><br />Developing an integrated proteo-genomic approach for the characterisation of biomarkers for the identification of Bacillus anthraces.<br /><br />Journal of Microbiological Methods; Feb2012, Vol. 88 Issue 2, p237-247, 11p<br />Document Type:<br />Article<br />Subject Terms:<br />*BACILLUS anthracis<br />*ANTHRAX<br />*BIOCHEMICAL markers<br />*METHODOLOGY<br />*MASS spectrometry<br />*SILICON<br />*LIQUID chromatography<br />*BIOINFORMATICS<br />*PEPTIDESAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-91811432474932833662012-04-27T09:38:51.695-07:002012-04-27T09:38:51.695-07:00Anonymous,
FYI, I just uploaded a list of .pdf fi...Anonymous,<br /><br />FYI, I just uploaded a list of .pdf files related to the case that I tried to maintain for years. It's currently 67 pages long and is at this link: http://www.anthraxinvestigation.com/PDF-Directory-new.pdf<br /><br />I read and save every scientific article related to the anthrax attacks of 2001 that I can find. The list may contain some duplications, since articles sometimes appear in different places with different pdf file names. Plus, I probably have <b>many dozens</b> that aren't on the list because I gave up on trying to keep the list up-to-date. It was just too much work, and my time was better spent on things other than maintaining the list. <br /><br />Have you read all the articles on this list? I have.<br /><br />EdEd Lakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00517078636884309733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-82784985726086582032012-04-27T09:24:03.886-07:002012-04-27T09:24:03.886-07:00Anonymous,
I read the literature. More important...Anonymous,<br /><br />I read the literature. More importantly, I <b>understand</b> the literature.<br /><br />You clearly do not understand anything in Amber Dance's article, since you do not cite anything from it, you just return to your <b>ridiculous, nonsensical argument</b> that you have a bigger stack of articles, but even though you do not comprehend what is in the articles, <b>the size of the stack</b> somehow means you are more knowledgeable about the case than I am.<br /><br />If there is something in the article that is of value, why don't you cite it instead of merely asking if I've read it? Your description says it is another <b>irrelevant</b> article.<br /><br />I've read countless articles about the case and about the science used in the case. <b>Understanding is not about how <i>MANY</i> articles a person has read, it's about how much one <i>COMPREHENDS</i>.</b> And, I tend to read <b>RELEVANT</b> material.<br /><br />You obviously comprehend nothing, since you cannot argue about anything other that that you believe you have <b>looked at</b> articles I haven't looked at.<br /><br />You're wasting my time with these <b><i>asinine</i></b> questions about what I've read and what I haven't read. I've got better things to do.<br /><br />EdEd Lakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00517078636884309733noreply@blogger.com