tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post4205436555852837880..comments2023-05-06T02:39:25.916-07:00Comments on Debating the Anthrax Attacks of 2001: Subject: Double Standard for EvidenceEd Lakehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00517078636884309733noreply@blogger.comBlogger97125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-7863150549944840732013-05-02T08:38:31.909-07:002013-05-02T08:38:31.909-07:00R. Rowley wrote: "your highly defensive respo...R. Rowley wrote: <i>"your highly defensive response is ample proof that it isn't."</i><br /><br />That's the same kind of reasoning Professor Tracy uses: If the government has evidence that disproves Tracy's beliefs, Tracy sees that as proof that the government is faking evidence to disprove his beliefs.<br /><br />R. Rowley also wrote: <i>"The RELEVANT_TO_THE_CRIMES evidence (spores at home or in vehicle, proof that Ivins did surreptitious drying/purifying of spores, evidence that he made at least one of the trips to Princeton in the right timeframe etc.) is conspicuously absent."</i><br /><br /><b>TOTAL NONSENSE.</b> You list things that were NOT used as evidence and argue that no evidence was found, while IGNORING all the SOLID evidence that says Ivins was the anthrax mailer.<br /><br /><b>You have a double standard for evidence,</b> just as the title of this thread states.<br /><br />If it's "evidence" to support your own theory, anything goes - even ridiculous assumptions. If it's evidence proving Ivins did it, you say it's not the kind of evidence you require and therefore it isn't evidence. <br /><br />The FACTS say that Bruce Ivins was the anthrax mailer.<br /><br />All you have to argue your case is a disbelief in the real facts and a bizarre theory based upon conjecture and a belief in your own unique ability to analyze linguistics - a belief that no one else shares. <br /><br />EdEd Lakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00517078636884309733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-54708907852298759922013-05-02T08:23:01.965-07:002013-05-02T08:23:01.965-07:00R. Rowley wrote: "And where and HOW did you e...R. Rowley wrote: <i>"And where and HOW did you establish that it was "doodling" in the first place?"</i><br /><br />I did <b>NOT</b> "establish" that. <br /><br /><i>"You assumed that if an "adult" did it, it was doodling."</i><br /><br />NOT TRUE.<br /><br />The FACTS said that a child did the writing on the letters and envelopes. That was my first observation -- based upon what Brother Jonathan had written about first grade writing. The facts were clear and made perfect sense. People who disagreed weren't looking at the facts.<br /><br />The tracing over of the A's and T's didn't have any obvious explanation. <br /><br />I couldn't visualize a terrorist "doodling" on a threat letter. That didn't make any sense to me at all.<br /><br />But, since the FACTS said that a child wrote the letters, I just had to try to figure out an explanation for why a child would trace over the A's and T's. (The idea that it was a HIDDEN CODED MESSAGE didn't even occur to me.)<br /><br />One idea was that the child was "doodling" by tracing over the two letters of the alphabet that were his <b>own initials</b>. <br /><br />Another idea was that the child had heard the name "Atta" on TV, thought it was an odd name, and he traced over the A's and T's as "doodling" while waiting for the anthrax mailer to check his work.<br /><br />I had no other ideas. Doodling was the only idea I had.<br /><br />There's no ASSUMPTION involved. I didn't "assume" that it was doodling. <b>I couldn't find any other explanation.</b> <br /><br />The only people providing other explanations were those who said that the letters spelled out "ATTA," and that was proof that the letters were written by an adult terrorist. But, the FACTS said that the letters were written by a child, and it didn't make any sense that a terrorist would highlight Atta's name by tracing over <b>3 T's</b> before tracing over an A. Why wouldn't they just trace over four letters: A, T, T, and an A?<br /><br />I was trying to UNDERSTAND what the existing facts said. There were no assumptions. It was just an analysis of the facts.<br /><br />Ed Ed Lakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00517078636884309733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-72924547540309035462013-05-01T20:07:22.429-07:002013-05-01T20:07:22.429-07:00Department of Redundancy Department:
-------------...Department of Redundancy Department:<br />--------------------------<br />R. Rowley also wrote: "You took for a fact that it was "doodling" and said 'adults don't doodle' in that situation, but children might. THAT in and of itself eliminates any 'amino acid code'."<br /><br />Totally FALSE. I had no explanation for why the A's and T's were traced over, so I conjectured or hypothesized that they were doodling. <br />=================================================<br />No, you STILL don't get what I wrote above: I quoted the very thing YOU SUPPLIED:<br />--------------------------------------------------<br />"12. Adults generally do not doodle when writing death threats.<br />=================================<br />And where and HOW did you establish that it was "doodling" in the first place?<br /><br />You didn't. You failed to even recognize it was NECESSARY to establish that it was doodling. There's a word for that in English: assumption. You assumed that if an "adult" did it, it was doodling. That's why what you, at least occasionally, deem "word games" or mere "sematics" is, in reality, central to the way that human beings think about things: the labels they give things determine, to a great extent, HOW they think about such things.<br /><br />(And again, that's AT LEAST the third version of your document, the previous ones didn't even hedge to that degree)<br /><br />r rowleynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-137948832377347532013-05-01T15:43:39.124-07:002013-05-01T15:43:39.124-07:00R. Rowley wrote: "If fact the DoJ did EXACTLY...R. Rowley wrote: "If fact the DoJ did EXACTLY what Mister Lake accuses me of doing:<br />they developed a hypothesis (lone perp) and ignored all indications that it wasn't a lone perp: ignored the St Pete hoax letters, ignored the Quantico letter, ignored any and all indications that a group was behind Amerithrax. THAT'S why they 'liked' first Hatfill, then Ivins: they couldn't see outside the confines of their own interpretive matrix. Rationalization with a vengeance."<br /><br />That is total nonsense from beginning to end[...]<br />===========================================<br />No, it isn't and your highly defensive response is ample proof that it isn't.<br />----------------------------------------<br /> The culprit - Dr. Bruce Ivins - was found by collecting evidence.<br />-------------------------------------------------<br /><br />The "evidence" they collected has to do with (in no particular order)<br /><br />1)a fondness for women's underwear (unrelated to the crimes)<br /><br />2)establishment that Ivins broke into a couple sorority houses over the years (ditto)<br /><br />3)establishment that Ivins sometimes mailed GIFTS* from other cities, so as to conceal, at least momentarily, whom they were from. (ditto)<br /><br />4)establishment that Ivins had ANCESTORS who lived in New Jersey (ditto)<br /><br />5)establishment that Ivins was mentally ill. (ditto)<br /><br />Etc.<br /><br />The RELEVANT_TO_THE_CRIMES evidence (spores at home or in vehicle, proof that Ivins did surreptitious drying/purifying of spores, evidence that he made at least one of the trips to Princeton in the right timeframe etc.) is conspicuously absent.<br /><br />If there's a benefit to the current ricin case in Mississippi, it's that that case will give us a look at what REAL (ie relevant to the crimes alleged)evidence looks like. By the media reports, they already found ricin-contamination at the guy's work/home locations.<br /><br /><br />*in thinking over this bit about the gifts and how the DoJ thinks that this is EVIDENCE that Ivins committed Amerithax, I sometimes allowed myself to muse that maybe it's a pun, as the German word "Gift" means "poison", but then I catch myself and remember that line from MEN IN BLACK: 'We do not have any sense of humor that we are aware of'.r rowleynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-90842158560801219512013-05-01T09:35:06.591-07:002013-05-01T09:35:06.591-07:00R. Rowley wrote: "Unfortunately the ORIGINAL ...R. Rowley wrote: <i>"Unfortunately the ORIGINAL version of your child-hypothesis is no longer available (Quick, whose fault is that, yours or mine?). Come to that, I don't even think the SECOND version is available."</i><br /><br />More nonsense. This time it's the result of faulty research on your part.<br /><br />I rarely remove anything from my site. If I made a mistake, I usually go back and put something on the page that explains that I made a mistake.<br /><br />My first web page about the handwriting is here:<br /><a href="http://www.anthraxinvestigation.com/writing1.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.anthraxinvestigation.com/writing1.html</a><br /><br />It was created in 2002 and last updated in 2004.<br /><br />My "current" web page about the handwriting is here:<br /><a href="http://www.anthraxinvestigation.com/WritingFacts.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.anthraxinvestigation.com/WritingFacts.html</a><br /><br />It was created in 2009 after all the facts about Ivins started coming out. <br /><br />I don't recall there being any other page on the subject, but if there was, there still is. <br /><br />R. Rowley also wrote: <i>"You took for a fact that it was "doodling" and said 'adults don't doodle' in that situation, but children might. THAT in and of itself eliminates any 'amino acid code'."</i><br /><br />Totally FALSE. I had no explanation for why the A's and T's were traced over, so I conjectured or hypothesized that they were doodling. <br /><br />As it turns out, the FACTS say they were NOT doodling. They were a hidden code. And that code was developed by an adult who - the facts say - asked the child to copy by tracing over the characters.<br /><br />New facts changed the entire picture. I adapted to the new facts. That is what an intelligent analysis is SUPPOSED to do.<br /><br />The alternative is to stick with beliefs regardless of what the facts say, which is what you appear to do. <br /><br />EdEd Lakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00517078636884309733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-62358121765859229122013-05-01T09:21:02.446-07:002013-05-01T09:21:02.446-07:00R. Rowley wrote: "If fact the DoJ did EXACTLY...R. Rowley wrote: <i>"If fact the DoJ did EXACTLY what Mister Lake accuses me of doing:<br />they developed a hypothesis (lone perp) and ignored all indications that it wasn't a lone perp: ignored the St Pete hoax letters, ignored the Quantico letter, ignored any and all indications that a group was behind Amerithrax. THAT'S why they 'liked' first Hatfill, then Ivins: they couldn't see outside the confines of their own interpretive matrix. Rationalization with a vengeance."</i><br /><br />That is total nonsense from beginning to end. <b>The culprit - Dr. Bruce Ivins - was found by collecting evidence.</b> Hatfill became a "person of interest" because scientists were pointing at him as being a likely person to have done it, they were going to the media with their theory, they were accusing the FBI of covering up for the killer, and the FBI didn't have any better "suspect" at the time.<br /><br />Ed Ed Lakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00517078636884309733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-53272169351484360092013-05-01T09:16:14.235-07:002013-05-01T09:16:14.235-07:00R. Rowley asked: "Why are you substituting th...R. Rowley asked: <i>"Why are you substituting the word "opinion" for the word "hypothesis" or "theory"?"</i><br /><br />Because an opinion does not generally involve an <b>analysis</b> of the facts.<br /><br /><i>o·pin·ion /əˈpinyən/<br />Noun: A view or judgment formed about something, not <b>necessarily based on fact or knowledge</b>.<br /> The <b>beliefs or views</b> of a large number or majority of people about a particular thing.</i><br /><br />From <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothesis" rel="nofollow">Wikidpedia</a>: <br /><br /><i>For a hypothesis to be a scientific hypothesis, the scientific method requires that one can test it. <b>Scientists generally base scientific hypotheses on previous observations that cannot satisfactorily be explained with the available scientific theories.</b> Even though the words "hypothesis" and "theory" are often used synonymously, a scientific hypothesis is not the same as a scientific theory. <b>A scientific hypothesis is a proposed explanation of a phenomenon which still has to be rigorously tested.</b> In contrast, a scientific theory has undergone extensive testing and is generally accepted to be the accurate explanation behind an observation. A working hypothesis is a provisionally accepted hypothesis proposed for further research.</i> <br /><br />What you used as an example is a "PROFILE." That is NEITHER a hypothesis nor a opinion. It is a "tool" used by authorities when they have almost nothing else to go on. It tells the authorities the general TYPE of person who has committed such a crime in the past. That's all. The authorities fully understand that what happened in the past doesn't necessarily mean it has happened again. But, if you have nothing else to work with, it's a place to start.<br /><br />EdEd Lakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00517078636884309733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-25133997069590866502013-04-30T21:01:25.337-07:002013-04-30T21:01:25.337-07:00Way up the thread, Anonymous addressing Mister Lak...Way up the thread, Anonymous addressing Mister Lake:<br />--------------------------------<br />As for Mr. Rowley, while I think he's a nice guy and writes well, I have no idea why you spend your days arguing against a theory where the fellow Richard doesn't like [...]<br />----------------------------------------------<br />I never wrote to anyone that I "don't like" the person I suspect.<br />It's not the type of relationship that can be broken down into such simple terms as like/dislike. Certainly there were MANY months between the time I started studying Amerithrax (late 2005) and the time I concluded, even tentatively, that the guy I knew had done the writing of the letters. But that was all done via decipherment and linguistic sleuthing. As were subsequent determinations about the St Pete hoax letters, the Quantico letter etc.<br /><br />My primary emotional response was: astonishment (as opposed to malicious joy, which would have been the case had I had some grudge against the guy). He's very capable, a genius in fact and the tragedy of it when he's finally apprehended is: his crimes will overshadow the good he has done in his life....r rowleynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-71379300855462606412013-04-30T17:24:05.706-07:002013-04-30T17:24:05.706-07:00R. Rowley wrote: You didn't write "guess&...R. Rowley wrote: You didn't write "guess", you wrote that it was a "fact"."<br /> <br />When you claim something like that, you should cite a source.<br />====================================<br />Unfortunately the ORIGINAL version of your child-hypothesis is no longer available (Quick, whose fault is that, yours or mine?). Come to that, I don't even think the SECOND version is available. What we have is the THIRD version on this webstie, plus the video (which I watched again this evening). <br />------------------------------------------------------------<br />[Mister Lake] On my web site I wrote: <br /><br />"12. Adults generally do not doodle when writing death threats.<br /><br />Why the writer only traced over A's and T's is a good question."<br />----------------------------------------------------<br />Of course, saying 'adults don't doodle' ASSUMES that it is doodling to begin with.<br />"Assuming"=taking something for a fact, without the requisite testing, questioning, analysis etc.<br /><br />In my (now long-ago) correspondence to you (well, I think that that was a one-sided element of the correspondence: I wrote to you about your hypothesis but there was no return email) I scrupulously avoided that word ("doodling") since it is ALREADY an interpretation. I used 'tracing' 'retracing', extra-heavy strokes etc. How you label something channels what you think about it.<br /><br />You took for a fact that it was "doodling" and said 'adults don't doodle' in that situation, but children might. THAT in and of itself eliminates any 'amino acid code'.<br />------------------------------------------------------------------<br />I don't give a damn how many people disbelieve the hypothesis. At one time, nearly everyone on earth believed the earth was flat and no one believed that the shadow of the earth on the moon during a lunar eclipse was evidence that the earth was round. The number of people who believe in something has NOTHING to do with whether it is true or not. <br />-----------------------------------------------------------------<br />I agree. But we disagree about what hypothesis best fits Amerithrax. r rowleynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-11563912205443677462013-04-30T15:51:04.062-07:002013-04-30T15:51:04.062-07:00(Part 2)
■did not select victims randomly. He mad...(Part 2)<br /><br />■did not select victims randomly. He made an effort to identify the correct address, including zip code, of each victim and used sufficient postage to ensure proper delivery of the letters. The offender deliberately "selected" NBC News, the New York Post, and the office of Senator Tom Daschle as the targeted victims (and possibly AMI in Florida). These targets are probably very important to the offender. They may have been the focus of previous expressions of contempt which may have been communicated to others, or observed by others.<br />■is a non-confrontational person, at least in his public life. He lacks the personal skills necessary to confront others. He chooses to confront his problems "long distance" and not face-to-face. He may hold grudges for a long time, vowing that he will get even with "them" one day. There are probably other, earlier examples of this type of behavior. While these earlier incidents were not actual Anthrax mailings, he may have chosen to anonymously harass other individuals or entities that he perceived as having wronged him. He may also have chosen to utilize the mail on those occasions.<br />■prefers being by himself more often than not. If he is involved in a personal relationship it will likely be of a self serving nature.<br />Pre-Offense Behavior<br /><br />■Following the events of September 11, 2001, this person may have become mission oriented in his desire to undertake these Anthrax mailings. He may have become more secretive and exhibited an unusual pattern of activity. Additionally, he may have displayed a passive disinterest in the events which otherwise captivated the Nation. He also may have started taking antibiotics unexpectedly.<br />Post-Offense Behavior<br /><br />■He may have exhibited significant behavioral changes at various critical periods of time throughout the course of the Anthrax mailings and related media coverage. These may include the following;<br />1. Altered physical appearance. <br />2. Pronounced anxiety. <br />3. Atypical media interest.<br />4. Noticeable mood swings.<br />5. More withdrawn. <br />6. Unusual level of preoccupation.<br />7. Unusual absenteeism.<br />8. Altered sleeping and/or eating habits.<br /><br />These post-offense behaviors would have been most noticeable during critical times, including but not limited to: the mailing of the letters (09/18/01 and 10/09/01), the death of first Anthrax victim, media reports of each anthrax incident, and especially the deaths and illnesses of non-targeted victims.<br />---------------------------<br />http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/history/famous-cases/anthrax-amerithrax/linguistic-behavorial-analysis-of-the-anthrax-letters<br /><br />Of course those opinions were labelled by the FBI "analysis", "behavioral assessment" etc.<br />-----------------------------------------------<br />If fact the DoJ did EXACTLY what Mister Lake accuses me of doing:<br />they developed a hypothesis (lone perp) and ignored all indications that it wasn't a lone perp: ignored the St Pete hoax letters, ignored the Quantico letter, ignored any and all indications that a group was behind Amerithrax. THAT'S why they 'liked' first Hatfill, then Ivins: they couldn't see outside the confines of their own interpretive matrix. Rationalization with a vengeance. <br /><br /><br />r rowleynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-73871496796862748212013-04-30T15:49:54.396-07:002013-04-30T15:49:54.396-07:00R. Rowley,
All you are saying is that you started...R. Rowley,<br /><br />All you are saying is that you started with one OPINION and then developed another OPINION based upon what you see as "linguistic correspondences."<br />==============================================<br />Why are you substituting the word "opinion" for the word "hypothesis" or "theory"? (Answer: this is once again Mister Lake using words as polemical devices, yet blithely unaware that he is doing so).<br /><br />According to Mister Lake (and, for that matter, me)here is an 'opinion':<br />------------------------------<br />Based on the selection of Anthrax as the "weapon" of choice by this individual, the offender:<br /><br />■is likely an adult male.<br />■if employed, is likely to be in a position requiring little contact with the public, or other employees. He may work in a laboratory. He is apparently comfortable working with an extremely hazardous material. He probably has a scientific background to some extent, or at least a strong interest in science.<br />■has likely taken appropriate protective steps to ensure his own safety, which may include the use of an Anthrax vaccination or antibiotics.<br />■has access to a source of Anthrax and possesses knowledge and expertise to refine it.<br />■possesses or has access to some laboratory equipment; i.e., microscope, glassware, centrifuge, etc.<br />■has exhibited an organized, rational thought process in furtherance of his criminal behavior.<br />■has a familiarity, direct or indirect, with the Trenton, NJ, metropolitan area; however, this does not necessarily mean he currently lives in the Trenton, NJ, area.. He is comfortable traveling in and around this locale.<br /><br />r rowleynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-29634786327699748872013-04-30T08:52:01.225-07:002013-04-30T08:52:01.225-07:00R. Rowley wrote: You didn't write "guess&...R. Rowley wrote: <i>You didn't write "guess", you wrote that it was a "fact"."</i><br /><br />When you claim something like that, you should cite a source.<br /><br />On <a href="http://www.anthraxinvestigation.com/WritingFacts.html" rel="nofollow">my web site</a> I wrote: <br /><br /><b>"12. Adults generally do not doodle when writing death threats.<br /><br />Why the writer only traced over A's and T's is a good question."</b><br /><br />On page 32 of my 2005 book I wrote:<br /><br /><b>"This appears to be the idle doodling of a child. The most logical reason for this idle doodling is that it was done by a person waiting for someone to come and check what has been written."</b><br /><br />I may not use the word "guess," but I've made it clear everywhere that it is just <b>what the facts say</b>. And I look for new facts which would support or disprove what the facts currently say.<br /><br />That is <b>NOT</b> stating something as a fact. It is saying it is <b>an analysis of the facts</b>, and I am challenging everyone to find fault with my analysis by providing either a better analysis of the current facts or by providing NEW facts which are better than the old facts and show different results. <br /><br />I may not use "guess" or "surmise" or "suggest" or "theorize" in every sentence, but I make it clear that it is a <b>HYPOTHESIS</b> that I am seeking to verify with additional facts.<br /><br />I use "the scientific method": <br /><br />1. Formulate a question. <br />2. Develop an hypothesis.<br />3. Predict the consequences of the hypothesis<br />4. Test the hypothesis.<br /><br />I am in step #4. I am testing the hypothesis by presenting it to the world and looking for people who can disprove it. <b>So far, no one has even attempted to disprove it.</b> People may not believe it, but they have NO FACTS which prove the hypothesis to be incorrect.<br /><br />I formulated the question when I first got the idea from "Brother Jonathan." The question was: Could his hypothesis be true?<br /><br />I developed my own hypothesis by examined the evidence and finding ADDITIONAL FACTS which supported Brother Jonathan's hypothesis.<br /><br />I predicted the consequences of the hypothesis when I predicted that the anthrax mailer would have had to have access to a child. (At the time, I thought the anthrax mailer was a bachelor scientist who lived in New Jersey and had no access to a child. The facts said that he <b><i>had</i></b> to have had some access I couldn't find.) When it was learned that Bruce Ivins' wife ran a day care center in their home and that Ivins had access to other children as well, <b>the prediction was verified</b>.<br /><br />I don't give a damn how many people disbelieve the hypothesis. At one time, nearly everyone on earth believed the earth was flat and no one believed that the shadow of the earth on the moon during a lunar eclipse was evidence that the earth was round. The number of people who believe in something has <b>NOTHING</b> to do with whether it is true or not. <br /><br />EdEd Lakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00517078636884309733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-23524303922995721472013-04-30T08:22:35.285-07:002013-04-30T08:22:35.285-07:00R. Rowley,
All you are saying is that you started...R. Rowley,<br /><br />All you are saying is that you started with one OPINION and then developed another OPINION based upon what you see as "linguistic correspondences."<br /><br />I see no <b>meaningful</b> "linguistic correspondences." A misspelled word doesn't a case make - unless it's the same misspelled word done over and over. <br /><br />I think the idea that the St. Petersburg letters somehow match the anthrax letters or somehow match the Goldman Sachs letters or somehow match the Dallas hoax letters or somehow match the ricin letters is <b>bad rationalizing</b>. It is finding similarities to support a belief while ignoring the VAST differences which dispute the belief.<br /><br />EdEd Lakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00517078636884309733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-8013225287931148542013-04-30T08:15:17.615-07:002013-04-30T08:15:17.615-07:00The FBI says the Quantico letter is not connected ...The FBI says the Quantico letter is not connected to the anthrax mailings.<br /><br />Fox News may have a different <b>OPINION</b> and others may have different <b>OPINIONS</b>, but my <b>OPINION</b> is that the FBI is correct. I see no <b>FACTS</b> which disprove their findings.<br /><br />EdEd Lakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00517078636884309733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-11546964891433307242013-04-30T08:11:39.782-07:002013-04-30T08:11:39.782-07:00Anonymous wrote:
No, it doesn't. You know t...Anonymous wrote: <br /><br />No, it doesn't. You know the idea originally came from Brother Jonathan. Being the SECOND person to figure it out doesn't mean I think there can be only TWO of us. I get emails from others who agree. AND, I believe that "handwriting experts" would agree <b>IF they just looked at the facts.</b> Since they never mention the evidence which says that a child wrote the letters, the assumption has to be that the idea never occurred to them. (SOME people consider the idea to be preposterous, since they BELIEVE the culprit wouldn't leave a witness behind and would assume that the child would tell everyone that he wrote the letters. Ivins, being a sociopath, evidently saw things very differently.) <br /><br />I'm looking for the opinions of "handwriting experts" on how they interpret the 12 facts that I've spelled out.<br /><br />Until "experts" evaluate the facts, their opinions aren't worth spit.<br /><br />EdEd Lakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00517078636884309733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-30961933646534244962013-04-29T22:47:25.746-07:002013-04-29T22:47:25.746-07:00Why certain characters of he alphabet were traced ...Why certain characters of he alphabet were traced over in the media letter was a separate issue. There were NO FACTS which fully explained it. My best guess was that it was doodling.<br />------------------------------------------<br />You didn't write "guess", you wrote that it was a "fact".r rowleynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-51844094184236272792013-04-29T22:42:43.199-07:002013-04-29T22:42:43.199-07:00WAY up the thread:
-----------------
Ed Lake April...WAY up the thread:<br />-----------------<br />Ed Lake April 17, 2013 at 2:35 PM<br />R. Rowley wrote: "No, "rationalizing" means claiming your theory has no flaws."<br /><br />No, it doesn't. "Rationalizing" means you dream up an explanation for everything to make it fit your theory. That has nothing to do with "flaws." <br /><br />You dream up a theory, and then you make up ways everything you want to fit the idea can fit the idea.<br />=====================================================<br />No, no, and triple no. I've corrected you on this point DOZENS of times now but you seem incapable of learning.<br /><br />1)My original theory(late 2005 to early 2007): a lone perpetrator, American did Amerithrax. Period.<br /><br />2)Months to years later, when the linguistic correspondences between/among the Amerithrax texts proper and the St Pete hoax letters, and the Quantico letter were deciphered via intense linguistic analysis I realized that "a long perpetrator" was a non-starter: there had to be accomplices for spatio-temporal reasons.<br /><br />This is very simple: lone perp vs. group. They are OPPOSITES. And I have pointed this out to you countless times. But you don't get it.r rowleynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-80446752275711787092013-04-29T20:17:13.374-07:002013-04-29T20:17:13.374-07:00FACTS say a child wrote the letters. I listed 12 o...FACTS say a child wrote the letters. I listed 12 of those facts in a video you can view by clicking HERE or you can go to the handwriting thread in this blog by clicking HERE.<br />================================================<br />Been there, done that. Five or six years ago.<br />-----------------------------------------------<br />So, Mr. Rowley can argue his BELIEFS all he wants. They are just BELIEFS and have no value in any kind of intelligent discussion.<br />-----------------------------------------------<br />What nonsense. The intelligent reader of these scribblings can see that Mister Lake wrote on this thread above:<br /><br />"There is absolutely NO reason not to take the Assaad letter at face value."<br />----------------------<br />I then presented three (count 'em 3!) reasons not to take the Assaad letter at face value.<br /><br />Mister Lake COMPLETELY IGNORED the first two, which had to do with<br /> the historical fact that anonymous letters are notoriously unreliable (and I cited via copy and paste the horrendous situation with such letters in Vichy France), AND the readily discernible internal contradictions in the text of the Quantico letter itself (which is here:<br />http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,423081,00.html<br />(And by the way, even the headline of the story indicates the questionable nature of that letter: "FOX News Exclusive: Anonymous Note Casts Doubt on Anthrax Probe"<br /><br />Mister Lake only responded to the third point which was the observation by the authors of the Fox story that there were obvious correspondences (my word) between the Quantico letter and the Amerithrax texts proper.r rowleynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-74200093204006276872013-04-29T08:03:31.271-07:002013-04-29T08:03:31.271-07:00"I know I can be wrong about the handwriting ..."I know I can be wrong about the handwriting being that of a child, too. That's why I never said it was a 100% certainty."<br /><br />Right. You said it was a 99% certainty. It's time for a reality check, Ed. Take a deep breath. And realize that you fit this description. You should join the mainstream discussion and avoid the fringe. You write: "And, most absurd of all, Professor Tracy seems to believe he is the only human being on Planet Earth who is capable of figuring out what really happened." This fits you.<br /><br />As for Mr. Rowley, while I think he's a nice guy and writes well, I have no idea why you spend your days arguing against a theory where the fellow Richard doesn't like never even had access to Ames, was nowhere near the place of mailing etc. Such a theory is a non-starter. If Richard argues that the fellow -- who I know -- sent the powder just received by Quantico -- are you going to waste time debating that too? Do you think that discussing Richard's view or that other fellow's view makes your view seem reasonable? It doesn't. It just further demonstrates a lack of judgment.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-58118508943978559062013-04-29T07:57:17.805-07:002013-04-29T07:57:17.805-07:00Anonymous wrote: "Ed, you are the only one --...Anonymous wrote: <i>"Ed, you are the only one -- out of the many dozens of people who have studied Amerithrax and commented on it -- who thinks a First Grader wrote the letters."</i><br /><br />That is totally <b><i>FALSE</i></b> and you know it.<br /><br />When it suits your argument, you claim that I <b>stole</b> the idea from "Brother Jonathon." <br /><br />The idea did indeed originate with "Brother Jonathan." I state so on my web site. I just found a lot more FACTS to support his original hypothesis.<br /><br />(Anonymous now claims that Brother Jonathan no longer believes what he originally hypothesized, but I've seen no FACTS to support that claim.)<br /><br /><b>REALITY isn't determined by how many people BELIEVE something. REALITY is determined by the FACTS.</b> At one time, everyone on earth BELIEVED the earth was flat. That didn't make it flat. <br /><br />The FACTS say that a child wrote the anthrax letters. There are no better FACTS which say a child did NOT write the anthrax letters.<br /><br />The FACTS say that Professor Tracy is wrong. Professor Tracy just picks through the thousands of facts about the Boston Bombing and twists the few facts he can find that are vague enough to fit his BELIEFS and to make his arguments. He ignores all the SOLID FACTS which say he is wrong. <br /><br />And, of course, that is what "Anonymous" and "R. Rowley" do. They find a few facts that they can twist to make it appear they support their BELIEFS, and they ignore all the facts which show their beliefs to be wrong. <br /><br />I'm going to create a new thread about the subject of "RATIONALIZING" using examples from Professor Tracy, from "Anonymous" and from "R. Rowley." They all ignore the facts when it suits their purposes.<br /><br />EdEd Lakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00517078636884309733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-9229363920285910392013-04-29T07:36:50.301-07:002013-04-29T07:36:50.301-07:00R. Rowley wrote: "The fact that the letter is...R. Rowley wrote: <i>"The fact that the letter is MORE than a provocation isn't immediately obvious to the inexperienced analyst, but that it doesn't come from a true co-worker of Assaad is clear."</i><br /><br />Nonsense. You are just rationalizing again.<br /><br />R. Rowley's other two posts are just incoherent babbling.<br /><br /><b>FACTS</b> say a child wrote the letters. I listed 12 of those facts in a video you can view by clicking <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=23lJYPbC2g0" rel="nofollow">HERE</a> or you can go to the handwriting thread in this blog by clicking <a href="http://anthraxdebate.blogspot.com/2013/03/subject-handwriting-evidence.html" rel="nofollow">HERE</a>.<br /><br />Why certain characters of he alphabet were traced over in the media letter was a separate issue. There were NO FACTS which fully explained it. My best <b>guess</b> was that it was doodling. My best <b>guess</b> about the spelling of "PENALICIN" was that it was copied wrong. I didn't state that those guesses were certainties. I knew there could be other explanations. I knew I could be wrong. <br /><br />I know I can be wrong about the handwriting being that of a child, too. That's why I never said it was a 100% certainty. But until I see solid <b>FACTS</b> which <b>PROVE</b> I'm wrong (as happened with the doodling and the spelling) I'm not going to be persuaded by silly arguments over someone else's <b>BELIEFS</b>.<br /><br />So, Mr. Rowley can argue his <b>BELIEFS</b> all he wants. They are just <b>BELIEFS</b> and have no value in any kind of intelligent discussion.<br /><br />Ed <br /><br /> Ed Lakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00517078636884309733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-15849939000967486842013-04-29T07:18:13.750-07:002013-04-29T07:18:13.750-07:00"And, most absurd of all, Professor Tracy see..."And, most absurd of all, Professor Tracy seems to believe he is the only human being on Planet Earth who is capable of figuring out what really happened."<br /><br />Ed, you are the only one -- out of the many dozens of people who have studied Amerithrax and commented on it -- who thinks a First Grader wrote the letters. What you say about this fellow Professor Tracy, whoever he is, in Amerithrax applies to you.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-27267940308414579422013-04-28T22:37:32.233-07:002013-04-28T22:37:32.233-07:00Way up the thread, Mister Lake:
--------------
Whe...Way up the thread, Mister Lake:<br />--------------<br />When I wrote that the child misspelled "penacilin" that was what I interpreted the facts to be at the time. I had no better explanation.<br /><br />The FBI's explanation came much later and makes infinitely more sense. <br />-------------------------------------------<br />Not to me it doesn't and, as I've noted before, the accolades the 'amino acid code' analysis has garnered are few and far between.<br />--------------------------------------------<br />When copying a word, I think a child will read the word and then spell it out phonetically in his mind as he writes it. He doesn't typically copy a word character by character.<br />--------------------------------------------<br />At 6 or 7?!!? I bet you're wrong. And what 6 or 7 year old would have a vocabulary that included "anthrax", "penicillin", and "Allah"?<br /><br />If somehow a 7 year-old spelled "anthrax" phonetically, it would likely come out "anthraks" or even "anthracs". If a 7 year-old spelled "Allah" phonetically, it would come out "Ala" since the 'h' is silent and the double 'l' is no more audible in "Allah" than it is in "penicillin".<br /><br />And, by the way, a child growing up in Maryland would be unlikely to reduce the second vowel of "penicillin" to a schwa or schwa-like sound (which is what the 'a' of 'penacilin' represents): that's something I hear a lot of here in the Midwest, but, to the best of my recollection, that's rare in the MidAtlantic state dialects.r rowleynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-25028825240830663642013-04-28T21:44:51.108-07:002013-04-28T21:44:51.108-07:00R. Rowley wrote: "Whether "penacilin&quo...R. Rowley wrote: "Whether "penacilin" was/is a deliberate mistake or not ISN'T a 'fact' (except to the person doing the printing), it is an interpretation (ie some effort by an analyst to figure out why the misspelling is there). But you cannot admit that because it doesn't fit in with your polemical typology."<br /><br />Nonsense. Do you even understand the words you use?<br /><br />It's not MY "polemical typology." For years, I thought the misspelling of "PENACILIN" was just a copying error, and I thought the highlighted characters were just a child's "doodling."<br />-------------------------------------------------------<br />No, you don't understand what I mean by "polemical typology" so I'll explain it:<br /><br />1)you compulsively divide people into sheep and goats.<br /><br />2)the 'sheep' (it's a metaphor) are people like....Ed Lake, surprise!<br /><br />3)the 'goats' are people like....whoever is disputing anything with Ed Lake at a given moment (but since they tend to be 'recidivist offenders' in that regard, the population isn't as large as it could be).<br /><br />4)and how does Mister Lake KNOW he's a sheep and not a goat? "FACTS", a word he compulsively uses and abuses, and will never STOP abusing till he meets his maker(I know because, now going back a few years, I've pointedly noted his overuse/abuse of the word to him to no good effect).<br /><br />5)he uses this word not just for polemical effect (ie to put his opponents at a disadvantage), but because he himself doesn't feel comfortable in acknowledging the NECESSITY of interpretation*: interpretation in: science, in history, and----to matters closer at hand-----in analysis of criminal cases.<br /><br />*in this instance "interpretation" is more or less synonyous with : "hypothesizing", "analysis", "making inferences": etc.<br /><br />So the point was NOT about whether, in the past, Mister Lake "thought the misspelling of "PENACILIN" was just a copying error, and I thought the highlighted characters were just a child's "doodling.""<br /><br />Rather the point is: how did Mister Lake ARGUE the point originally? (For polemics=argument style, manner etc.). He argued it (STILL argues it) in terms of him knowing "FACTS" (the perpetual capitalisation a sign of how this distinction-----I'm the factual guy, everyone who disputes me is afactual--------- is central to his world-view), and his opponents being indifferent to same (rather than interpreting those facts differently).<br />r rowleynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-38572196858768463222013-04-28T21:01:17.661-07:002013-04-28T21:01:17.661-07:00R. Rowley,
So, what's your point? You seem to...R. Rowley,<br /><br />So, what's your point? You seem to agree that the letter is just what it appears to be: a letter someone wrote to the authorities about someone they thought was a "potential terrorist." <br />=========================================================<br />Gee, THAT'S not a fair reading of my attitude, and for that matter, it's not compatible with your next two sentences:<br />--------------<br />Which is what you do. You look for ways to believe the letter is some kind of trick and something other than what it appears to be. <br />--------------------------------------<br />So now thinking that the letter is "some kind trick" (it is!) is the same as holding that it's simply 'a letter someone wrote to the authorities about someone they thought was a "potential terrorist."'?????? Not in my book.<br /><br />It's clear to me that you are incapable of understanding my position in the matter and that's why your characterizations of my<br />position are themselves wildly contradictory.<br />--------<br />And by the way, the part you have in italics here:<br />--------<br />"The opposite of "taking at face value" is to look for a hidden meaning or ulterior motives. Are they lying? Is this a trick?"<br />--------<br />(which I couldn't reproduce---the italics that is---- via copy and paste) wasn't me, it was the online source I cited, it is here and you can see it for yourself: <br />http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/20791/what-does-to-take-someone-at-face-value-mean<br /><br />So my view of what "at face value" means coincides with both sites I found.<br /><br />(And just to finish off that section of Mister Lake's post):<br />---------------<br />Which is what you do. You look for ways to believe the letter is some kind of trick and something other than what it appears to be.<br />-----------------<br />The only way to catch a trickster is to look a gift horse in the mouth and submit the text to a scrupulous scrutiny. That's how you pick up the contradictions in the text. The fact that the letter is MORE than a provocation isn't immediately obvious to the inexperienced analyst, but that it doesn't come from a true co-worker of Assaad is clear. r rowleynoreply@blogger.com