tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post4768198474874889519..comments2023-05-06T02:39:25.916-07:00Comments on Debating the Anthrax Attacks of 2001: Subject: Conspiracy Theorist PsychologyEd Lakehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00517078636884309733noreply@blogger.comBlogger112125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-68192058770452348212014-06-20T13:33:54.925-07:002014-06-20T13:33:54.925-07:00Spritz,
Google translates that to:
U.S. epidemi...Spritz, <br /><br />Google translates that to:<br /><br /><i>U.S. epidemic protectors schludern with anthrax bacteria<br /><br />June have now solved the disease guardian of the CDC Anthrax alert in their own ... it is possible to prepare the spores as aerosols and spread over a large area.</i><br /><br />I think you are probably saying what I wrote today on my web site at www.anthraxinvestigation.com:<br /><br />It's possible to aerosolize anthrax spores without any kind of "weaponization" using silica. The CDC just did it accidentally.<br /><br />Or, as Google would translate that:<br /><br />Ich denke, Sie werden wahrscheinlich sagen, was ich schrieb heute auf meiner Website unter www.anthraxinvestigation.com:<br /><br />Es ist möglich, Anthrax-Sporen ohne jegliche Verwendung von Silica "Militarisierung" vernebeln. Die CDC hat es nur versehentlich.<br /><br />Ed<br /><br />Ed Lakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00517078636884309733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-85431531952995200192014-06-20T11:22:27.933-07:002014-06-20T11:22:27.933-07:00Anthrax: US-Seuchenschützer schludern mit Milzbran...Anthrax: US-Seuchenschützer schludern mit Milzbrandbakterien<br />ZEIT ONLINE-by Sven Stockrahm-6 hours ago<br />Juni lösten nun die Seuchenwächter der CDC Anthrax-Alarm aus, im eigenen ... es gelingt, die Sporen als Aerosol aufzubereiten und grossflächig zu verteilen.Spritznoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-74522069387496358162014-06-12T09:16:23.122-07:002014-06-12T09:16:23.122-07:00Mr. Rowley,
Again you distort the facts. I don...Mr. Rowley,<br /><br />Again you distort the facts. I don't recall ever "begging" you to give me your hypothesis. I've repeatedly tried to get you to stop using other people's <b>ignorant opinions</b> to argue about Ivins' innocence and to instead show me how you have a BETTER case against your suspect than the FBI had against Bruce Ivins. For various reasons, you couldn't provide <b>any meaningful evidence</b> against your suspect, much less make a better case.<br /><br />Arguing opinions against opinions is a waste of time. I'm only interested in discussing FACTS AND EVIDENCE. The FACTS and EVIDENCE say Bruce Ivins was the anthrax mailer, regardless of whether the people on your list of doubters fully accept that or not. Apparently, you have NO FACTS or EVIDENCE that can convince anyone of the guilt of your suspect.<br /><br />So, once again, the FACTS and EVIDENCE say Ivins was the anthrax killer - regardless of how many people you can find who say they are not fully convinced because they are either <b>ignorant</b> of the evidence or simply <b>do not believe</b> the evidence.<br /><br />EdEd Lakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00517078636884309733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-887671658647773702014-06-12T08:04:43.565-07:002014-06-12T08:04:43.565-07:00R. Rowley wrote that I wrote: "I state that I...R. Rowley wrote that I wrote: <i>"I state that Ivins originally planned to use a BOMB with the anthrax letter, but changed his mind. The FBI makes no such statement."</i> and Mr. Rowley responded:<br /><i>"You certainly never made such a statement in 3 years (plus) of discussing Amerithrax HERE with me (and others). What sleeve did you pull THAT out of?"</i><br /><br />I pulled it out of my book "A Crime Unlike Any Other." The discussion of Ivins' "bomb plot" begins on page 33 with this:<br /><br /><b>In January of 2000, Ivins purchased ammonium nitrate,8 very likely for the purpose of constructing a "fertilizer bomb" similar to the one Timothy McVeigh used to blow up the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City in April of 1995, killing 168 people, including 19 children, and injuring over 800 others.<br /><br />Ivins wasn't a cold-blooded murderer, however, so his bomb would be much smaller, and his plan was very likely much more complex.</b><br /><br />It continues to the end of chapter 4 where Ivins tells a psychiatrist about the bomb.<br /><br />Also check my web site comment for June 26, 2011:<br /><br /><i>June 26, 2011 - For awhile now, I've been wondering: What was Bruce Ivins planning to blow up when he purchased "bomb making ingredients" early in 2000? According to page 50 of David Willman's book "The Mirage Man," Ivins had purchased ammonium nitrate to make a bomb sometime prior to his first session with Dr. David Irwin. It appears that Ivins called Dr. Naomi Heller when he began worrying about what he might do with the bomb. But, Dr. Heller had retired, and she referred him to Dr. Irwin. Page 238 of the EBAP report says that Dr. Irwin ("Dr. #2") treated Ivins from February 1, 2000 to July 24, 2000. So, Bruce Ivins told Dr. Irwin that he'd bought the ammonium nitrate to make a bomb, and Ivins had probably made the purchase in January. But, there's no hint of what Ivins planned to blow up.</i><br /><br />The link: http://www.anthraxinvestigation.com/Update-History2011-Pt-2.html<br /><br />Also check my web site comment for May 6, 2012:<br /><br /><i>The biggest mystery the emails might help solve is what Ivins was planning to do with the ammonium nitrate bomb he was thinking about making in January 2000. What was on his mind at that time when he first started seeing Dr. David Irwin, evidently because of his concerns about that bomb plan? His emails from that time might enable me to figure it out with greater certainty. For my book, I've already determined the most likely reason for making the bomb, but my reasoning was based upon very few very tenuous facts. I would like to have a lot more facts.</i><br /><br />Also check my web site comment for May 8, 2012:<br /><br /><i>On my interactive blog yesterday, "Anonymous" brought to my attention a question about the other subject I'll be looking for in Ivins' emails: What did Ivins plan to do with the ammonium nitrate bomb he was making in January 2000? David Willman's book "The Mirage Man" seems to make it clear on page 50 that Ivins mentioned the bomb plan to his psychiatrist Dr. David Irwin in February of 2000. But a newspaper article by Willman suggests that Ivins may also have mentioned the bomb plan to one of his mental health counselors in July 2000.</i> <br /><br />Also check my web site comment for May 20, 2012:<br /><br /><i>"I'm also waiting on the Ivins emails which are supposedly going to be released sometime soon. If they do get released, will they generate some new headlines? Will they contain clues as to what Ivins was thinking about blowing up with his ammonium nitrate bomb in January 2000? Will they contain clues as to what made him think about building an ammonium nitrate bomb in the first place?"</i><br /><br />The link: http://www.anthraxinvestigation.com/Update-History2012-Pt-2.html<br /><br />I also mention the bomb in my April 29, 2014 (A) comment. Here's the link: http://www.anthraxinvestigation.com/Update-History2014.html<br /><br />EdEd Lakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00517078636884309733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-67400075059283735002014-06-12T07:42:13.450-07:002014-06-12T07:42:13.450-07:00R. Rowley wrote: "In that other thread/venue ...R. Rowley wrote: <i>"In that other thread/venue you did NOT DENY that the 15 items were FACTS and FACTS related to anthrax/Amerithrax. And this time? You deleted the post (and its companion), saying that the contents implicated an 'innocent man'. That's a backhanded way of ADMITTING the listed items were FACTS, and FACTS"</i><br /><br />Ah! I see where you fail to understand facts and evidence!<br /><br /><b>1. When you look at facts, <i>you ALSO need to look at facts which show innocence.</i><br />2. When you look at facts, you ALSO need to look at the "strength" of those facts.<br /><br />Why did you fail to include the FACTS which showed Dr. Hatfill to be innocent?</b><br />He had an alibi for the time of one of the mailings. He was at a wedding.<br />He didn't have the required expertise needed to make the anthrax powders.<br />He didn't have access to the equipment needed to make the anthrax powders.<br />He didn't have access to the contents of flask RMR-1029, the "murder weapon."<br /><br />Example of a "weak" fact:<br /><br /><i>3) He FALSIFIED resumes, claiming at least one Ph.D that he hadn’t achieved.</i><br /><br />Yes, it's a "fact," but it has very little meaning regarding the anthrax attacks. It's a very "weak" fact.<br /><br />Five examples of STRONG facts:<br /><br />Ivins was in charge of the "murder weapon."<br />Ivins had no alibi for the times of the mailings.<br />Ivins had all the expertise necessary to make the anthrax powders.<br />Ivins had all the equipment needed to make the anthrax powders.<br />Ivins had no explanation for what he was doing alone in his lab at critical times.<br /><br />When I talk about "looking at the facts and evidence," I constantly say <b>you have to look at ALL the facts and evidence together.</b><br /><br />ONE strong fact showing innocence can easily outweigh a hundred weak "facts" showing guilt.<br /><br />One strong fact showing guilt for Suspect A can outweigh ten weak facts showing guilt for Suspect B.<br /><br />ALL the 15 facts you listed regarding Dr. Hatfill were relatively <b>WEAK</b> facts. <br /><br />During the early part of the FBI's investigation they repeatedly stated that they had a list of about 20 possible suspects. That almost certainly meant that they had WEAK facts and evidence to show that any one of the 20 <b>might</b> have done the crime, but they had no STRONG facts showing guilt and <b>no facts at all showing innocence.</b><br /><br />Gradually, they sorted out the people who had FACTS showing they were innocent, and they sorted out the people who only had WEAK FACTS suggesting they could be guilty. They eventually ended up with just one person with many VERY STRONG FACTS showing he was guilty, and NO FACTS SHOWING HE WAS INNOCENT. All together it would be enough strong facts to convince almost any jury. That person was Bruce Edwards Ivins.<br /><br />I hope this clears up your misunderstanding about facts and evidence. How you can ignore <b>facts showing innocence</b> is amazing to me. <br /><br />EdEd Lakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00517078636884309733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-59952156584355213392014-06-11T14:26:34.944-07:002014-06-11T14:26:34.944-07:00I state that Ivins originally planned to use a BOM...I state that Ivins originally planned to use a BOMB with the anthrax letter, but changed his mind. The FBI makes no such statement.<br />===================================<br />You certainly never made such a statement in 3 years (plus) of discussing Amerithrax HERE with me (and others). What sleeve did you pull THAT out of?<br />================================<br />I look at FACTS. The FACTS say Ivins was the anthrax mailer.<br />---------------------------------------------------------------------<br />I listed on this thread in one post 15 (count 'em 15! ) FACTS that say Hatfill did <br />Amerithrax*. It was a copy and paste from a previous thread (another venue).<br /><br />In that other thread/venue you did NOT DENY that the 15 items were FACTS and FACTS related to anthrax/Amerithrax. And this time? You deleted the post (and its companion), saying that the contents implicated an 'innocent man'. That's a backhanded way of ADMITTING the listed items were FACTS, and FACTS (gee, isn't capitalization fun?!?) related to Amerithrax, ones that implicated 'an innocent man' (Gee, just like the Amerithrax Investigative Summary!).<br /><br />Meaning your pretense that FACTS (notice the capitalization, Mister Lake?) are what is driving you is just that: a pretense.<br /><br /><br />*But once again, I don't think Hatfill did it; I, in contrast to Mister Lake, don't pretend that facts (lower case) interpret themselves. If I could write up a list of 300 FACTS that said that person X did Amerithrax, that would not prove that person did it. Facts need to be interpreted and interpreted in a credible manner, and, if you had understood TWELVE ANGRY MEN you would have realized that that's exactly what the Henry Fonda character does in that jury room: tears apart the prosecutor's case via reinterpretation of the facts presented during the trial. As the film wears on, the Fonda character is joined by first the elderly juror and then others who notice (interpretive ) weaknesses in skein after skein of 'evidence'........<br />====================================================<br />DXer will argue that Muslim terrorists did it. Why are your beliefs and opinions better than his?<br />--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br />Because I knew the Anthrax author years before I started studying Amerithrax (a coincidence) and I noticed some odd things about his writing style.<br />See Louis Pasteur :<br />http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/l/louispaste134068.html<br />-------------------------------<br />But you keep on making it out that I'm trying to convince YOU, Mister Lake, and <br />that's just not true. In fact NOTHING could be further from the truth: you BEGGED me to give my hypothesis, this a few years back and after I did in a general way, a few days later (like 2 days) suddenly you were into your Internetese jargon: I was making "claims" that I had to "prove" (Your words, your dopey Internet jargon).<br />I pointed out that you had begged me on that very thread (and I copy and pasted your request) to give my hypothesis. What I had feared happened: instead of talking about something you were fairly competent on you started TELLING me what my hypothesis was. And, as usual, you kept on screwing it up.<br />-----<br />The ONLY thing I'm trying to convince you of is: Ivins' innocence, which Paul Keim<br />Senator Leahy, Rush Holt, Claire Fraser-Liggett et alia., at a bare minimum, suspect..... Suspect, not on 'not knowing the science', not on 'not knowing how circumstantial evidence works', not on being 'truthers/conspiracy theorists', but on knowing that facts do not interpret themselves and the hard evidence (spores in Ivins' vehicle/domicile; printing style match; evidence of late-night driving to Princeton; evidence of spore drying/purifying) is conspicuously absent. r rowleynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-91301882919877961902014-06-10T13:40:45.716-07:002014-06-10T13:40:45.716-07:00R. Rowley wrote: "No, you just mindlessly glo...R. Rowley wrote: <i>"No, you just mindlessly glommed onto the Task Force's hypothesis, lock, stock and amino acid code!"</i><br /><br />Not so. The FBI just uses FACTS where you have only OPINIONS and BELIEFS.<br /><br />I strongly disagree with the FBI on who did the actual writing on the letters and envelopes. They have witnesses who say that the writing looks like how Ivins would write when sending anonymous letters to the women with whom he was obsessed. I say Ivins used a child from his wife's day care center to write the letters. <b>That is in total disagreement with the DOJ's case.</b><br /><br />I state that the powers were air dried. The FBI makes no statement about how they were dried, other than there were many ways Ivins could have done it.<br /><br />I state that the spores came from plates Ivins use to do dosage estimates. They FBI doesn't say anything about how the spores were made.<br /><br />I state that the silicon in the spores was the result of growing them at room temperature. They FBI says nothing about how the silicon got into the spores - other than it appears to be from some natural process. <br /><br />I state that Ivins originally planned to use a BOMB with the anthrax letter, but changed his mind. The FBI makes no such statement.<br /><br />I state that Ivins constructed the coded text for the media letter in early 2000, a year and a half before the actual anthrax mailings. The FBI says nothing about when Ivins devised the hidden message in the media letters.<br /><br />I state that there is evidence that Ivins also sent the "J-Lo letter," although the evidence is very inconclusive. The FBI says nothing about this.<br /><br />The FBI makes a <b>very</b> good case against Ivins. <b>You make no case at all against your suspect.</b> "DXer" also makes no meaningful case. You both just endlessly argue your beliefs and opinions. <br /><br />I look at FACTS. The FACTS say Ivins was the anthrax mailer. If you want to persuade me otherwise, <b>YOU NEED BETTER FACTS.</b> Simply arguing your beliefs and opinions over and over and over and over isn't going to persuade me. <br /><br />Other conspiracy theorists have different beliefs and opinions. DXer will argue that Muslim terrorists did it. Why are your beliefs and opinions better than his? Why don't you argue with him? Other conspiracy theorists will use beliefs and opinions to argue that the CIA did it. Why don't you argue with them? Or the conspiracy theorists who believe Jews sent the letters. Or the conspiracy theorists who believe Dick Cheney sent the anthrax letters. Why don't you argue with them? <b>Opinions and beliefs prove nothing.</b> <br /><br />If you cannot discuss the FACTS of the case, you have nothing worthwhile to say.<br /><br />End of story.<br /><br />EdEd Lakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00517078636884309733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-80638459848980097862014-06-10T13:15:36.290-07:002014-06-10T13:15:36.290-07:00R. Rowley wrote: "Mister Lake clings to the i...R. Rowley wrote: <i>"Mister Lake clings to the idea that the letter writer was sincere. His mistake and his problem."</i><br /><br />Your opinions have no value here. Arguing opinions against opinions is a <b>STUPID</b> waste of time.<br /><br />Mr. Rowley also wrote: <i>"The letter-writer was showing foreknowledge of the anthrax attacks"</i><br /><br /><b>NONSENSE.</b> The letter was sent AFTER 9/11 when MANY people were worried about a possible attack by terrorists using biological weapons. I just showed you where you can find comments by many people from 9/11 12 and 13 expressing concerns. <b>The Assaad letter said NOTHING about anthrax.</b> <br /><br />You state <i>"It was a red-herring letter. A provocation."</i> That is your OPINION. Stating it as if it were a fact doesn't make it a fact. It just shows you can't tell the difference between facts and opinions.<br /><br />EdEd Lakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00517078636884309733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-11565480697961985762014-06-10T12:40:27.736-07:002014-06-10T12:40:27.736-07:00R. Rowley wrote that Don Foster wrote: "the Q...R. Rowley wrote that Don Foster wrote: "the Quantico letter had already been declared a hoax and zero-filed as part of the 9/11 investigation."<br /><br />The Quantico letter was NOT a hoax.[...]<br />==========================================<br />It was a letter of denunciation. For that very reason it was (rightfully) viewed with skepticism. In going over this topic many many times, I realize that Mister Lake clings to the idea that the letter writer was sincere. His mistake and his problem. In previous exchanges on this topic, I repeatedly brought up historical instances of massive waves of anonymous letters that proved unreliable. I linked (and I think quoted from) a(n) (American) law enforcement official with 15 years experience who said that anonymous<br />letters were given little credence because typically the letter-writer has his/her own (usually hidden) agenda.<br /><br />Mister Lake's counter-evidence? There was none. Unless you think attitudinizing via extended gratuitous bold-face passages is evidence.<br />(See above, practically the whole thread).<br />--------------------------------------------------------------------------<br />There was no reason for the FBI to launch an investigation to find who wrote the Assaad letter.<br />-------------------------------------------------------------------------<br />Yes, there was. The letter-writer was showing foreknowledge of the anthrax attacks (it was postmarked September 21st, ie about 13 days before Stephens was diagnosed, about 12 days before he became ill). It was a red-herring letter. A provocation.<br />r rowleynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-3824817932807289192014-06-10T10:52:15.110-07:002014-06-10T10:52:15.110-07:00How Not To React To A Compliment 101, class taught...How Not To React To A Compliment 101, class taught by Prof. Ed Lake:<br />----------------<br />R. Rowley wrote: "How Mister Lake came up with such a brilliant analysis in ?2002? ?2003? ?2004?<br />I'm not sure. But my hat's off to you!"<br /><br />The difference between you and me is that I do not stick with an hypothesis when the FACTS show it to be wrong.<br />------------------------------------------------<br />Not true. I tried over the course of MANY MANY months to explain to you how my own hypothesis had changed from late 2005 to 2009. Some (minor) stuff I'm still learning. One or two things that DXer brought up were particularly stimulative for me.....<br />--------------------------------------------<br />When the FACTS showed my hypothesis to be wrong, I changed my hypothesis.<br />----------------------------------------<br />No, you just mindlessly glommed onto the Task Force's hypothesis, lock, stock and amino acid code!<br />(Psst, bold face printing still not very persuasive!)r rowleynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-3875343458033757192014-06-10T09:47:45.005-07:002014-06-10T09:47:45.005-07:00R. Rowley wrote: "How Mister Lake came up wit...R. Rowley wrote: <i>"How Mister Lake came up with such a brilliant analysis in ?2002? ?2003? ?2004?<br />I'm not sure. But my hat's off to you!"</i><br /><br />The difference between you and me is that I do not stick with an hypothesis when the FACTS show it to be wrong. <br /><br />When the FACTS showed my hypothesis to be wrong, I changed my hypothesis. <b>That is the way things are supposed to be done.</b><br /><br />If the facts show YOUR hypothesis to be wrong, <b>you ignore the facts and stick with your wrong hypothesis.</b> That is NOT the way things should be done.<br /><br />EdEd Lakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00517078636884309733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-71162534733802591402014-06-10T09:39:31.670-07:002014-06-10T09:39:31.670-07:00R. Rowley wrote: "But you don't cite when...R. Rowley wrote: <i>"But you don't cite when "that time" was. It was NOT in March of 2002 (ie 5 to 6 months later). It was in September of 2001."</i><br /><br />You need to read what I write. You didn't check the dates at the link. At the link it says, <br /><br /><i><b>Sept. 11, 2001</b> changed everything, including the discussions of anthrax. <b>On this day there were 173 messages using the word,</b> most of which were speculating on whether anthrax would be the next weapon used by the terrorists who had just struck the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.<br /><br />Example message:"Imagine if every one of those terrorists who blew themselves up today was carrying a quart of anthrax in his turban. We would have outbreaks in New York, Washington, Pennsylvania... it would be all across the country before anyone knew they were contagious. Shades of The Stand!"<br /><br />Another: "I wouldn't be at all surprised if a next attack were biological, something along the lines of anthrax in reservoirs."<br /><br />Another: "In ‘Executive Orders’, terrorists are trying to spread the ebola virus in the States, which threat occurred later with anthrax. Is that where terrorists get their ideas? I would never blame Clancy for all this, he's just a writer. After all, if people are crazy enough to act on his ideas, it's not his problem."<br /><br />Another: "I remember a couple of years ago when that Bin Laden bloke was threatening to put anthrax in the London water supply. It's scary to think that he actually could, and thousands of people would be affected before they traced it."<br /><br />Another: "Imagine if 1 Kilogram of BIOLOGICAL stuff was on the plane or bombed out the entire NEW YORK area would be in danger... I hear on News a guy took his antibiotic for his Anthrax and Malaria... or some sort. I read in the news that it takes: 800$ - to blow 1 mile radius with atomic weapons. 60$ - to blow up or eliminate chemically. 2$ - to do it biologically."<br /><br />Another: "For all we know, Anthrax could have been disbursed in this explosion. I am amazed how unprepared our professional fireman etc. are running around without masks"<br /><br />Another: "What if they had anthrax in their baggage?"</i><br /><br />There's another bunch of similar comments for September 12 and 13.<br /><br />LOTS of people were talking about anthrax related threats right after 9/11. It's not a "coincidence" that there were anthrax hoax letters shortly afterward. It is cause and effect.<br /><br />EdEd Lakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00517078636884309733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-33003209507058433292014-06-10T09:37:34.252-07:002014-06-10T09:37:34.252-07:00Since I sense that I have veered off into the nega...Since I sense that I have veered off into the negative (not for the first time!) on this thread, I'll say something positive: Mister Lake's analysis of yesteryear was, by my lights, spot-on (or nearly so): (from this very website): (with my comments between numbered items)<br />------------<br />Profile of the anthrax refiner/mailer:<br /><br />1. The refiner/mailer is probably in his 40s. <br />(Both the mailer and refiner were in their early 30s, and now 12 1/2 years later<br />are in their mid to late 40s)<br /><br />2. The refiner/mailer may currently work in the health industry or in academia. <br />(true for refiner)<br /><br />3. The refiner/mailer has almost unlimited access to scientific equipment and facilities. <br />(Bingo! (but for refiner only))<br /><br />4. The refiner/mailer probably lives within commuting distance of NYC. <br />(Mailer yes. Refiner no)<br /><br />5. The refiner/mailer was in the Trenton, NJ, area late on Sept. 17 and October 8, 2001. <br />(Yeppers!)<br /><br />6. The refiner/mailer probably reads the New York Post. <br />(Online edition, probably)<br /><br />7. The refiner/mailer probably lives alone. <br />(Both men did in 2001)<br /><br />8. The refiner/mailer is probably an American citizen. <br />(Yep. Both of them)<br /><br />9. The refiner/mailer may have some connection to the publication of a newsletter that expresses his beliefs. <br />(This I'm unaware of, but I don't rule it out for the refiner: he LOVES to write)<br /><br />10. The refiner/mailer thinks that voting is a waste of time. If he belonged to a political party, it would be the Fascist Party. <br />(Probably the first statement is true for both men. Fascist Party? I doubt it; is there a true fascist party in the US?)<br /><br />11. The refiner/mailer may be a have mood swings between blatant egotism and deep anger. <br />(Yep)<br /><br />12. The refiner/mailer may be divorced. <br />(Refiner divorced in 2001, mailer then never married)<br /><br />13. The refiner/mailer may have a small child and visitation rights with the child.<br />(This is possible for the refiner; the mailer seemed to have no children) <br /><br />14. The refiner/mailer may have used his child to address the envelopes and to write the letters. <br />(No comment: I'm keeping positive!)<br /><br />15. The refiner/mailer may already have published his "manifesto". <br />(In a perverse sort of way, that's true!)<br /><br />16. The refiner/mailer probably uses the Internet frequently. <br />(Do they ever! And they've communicated with Mister Lake on it!)<br /><br />17. The refiner/mailer may have expressed anti-Muslim sentiments during the period before the 9-11 attacks and followed that with a lot of "I told you so" comments after 9-11. He may have expressed concerns about the number of Muslims living in Central New Jersey. <br />(True, except probably for the NJ part).<br />------------------------------------------------------------------------<br />How Mister Lake came up with such a brilliant analysis in ?2002? ?2003? ?2004?<br />I'm not sure. But my hat's off to you!r rowleynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-31132151805529212302014-06-10T09:27:15.823-07:002014-06-10T09:27:15.823-07:00R. Rowley wrote: "His [Foster's] "be...R. Rowley wrote: <i>"His [Foster's] "beliefs", as you call them, coincided 100% with what the Task Force's own take was on things at that time"</i><br /><br />I'm talking about Foster's belief about the reason why "penacilin" was misspelled, and you twist it to a comment about the fact that both Foster and the FBI believed that the killer was an American scientist. You are just wasting words and my time with such distorted arguments.<br /><br />R. Rowley also wrote: <i>"Oh, I forgot, Mister Lake still believes (BELIEVES) in the fairy tale of an 'amino acid code'. Sorry, I and Max did our best for 120 posts (out of an eventual 129 posts in the thread) to enlighten you; you're unteachable in the matter. You prefer your fairy tale of a 'code' to reality."</i><br /><br /><b>All you and "Max" did was argue your beliefs against the facts.</b> <br /><br />I pointed out how the decoding process was SCIENTIFIC and the way SCIENTISTS do such decoding. You and Max simply didn't believe it. You BELIEVE your beliefs are "reality." That's just plain silly.<br /><br />And you somehow feel that is sufficient argument for me to agree with you and not with the SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE.<br /><br />That is just plain NUTS.<br /><br />But it's also your basic argument. If you believe something, it's true regardless of what any facts say. And if anyone doesn't agree with you, then they are wrong. It shows how pointless it is to argue with you. Your "reality" is what you believe it to be. My "reality" is what the FACTS show.<br /><br />Ed Ed Lakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00517078636884309733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-69403738287073443342014-06-10T09:14:32.403-07:002014-06-10T09:14:32.403-07:00Mr. Rowley,
I'm not sure what your point is. ...Mr. Rowley,<br /><br />I'm not sure what your point is. <br />---------------------------------------------------------------------<br />Then you need to reread what I wrote under each and every excerpt I took from Foster's article. Instead of just 'winging it'.<br />-----------------------------------------------------------------------<br />Don Foster was obviously upset that the FBI wasn't listening to his screwball Hatfill theory.<br />----------------------------------------------------------------<br />It's been almost a decade now and you STILL don't understand the gist of Foster's article, even after it's been explained to you. Whose fault is that?<br />------------------------------------------------------<br />"Here, then, were two powder-filled biothreats addressed to the same news anchor, two days and 1,000 miles apart. Neither writer could have known of the other unless they were in cahoots."<br /><br />First, Foster ignores the surge in hoax letters that occurred across the country at that time<br />------------------------------------------------<br />But you don't cite when "that time" was. It was NOT in March of 2002 (ie 5 to 6 months later). It was in September of 2001. The postmarks were:<br /><br />1) 'real anthrax letter' postmarked September 18th 2001. Trenton.<br /><br />2) hoax anthrax letter postmarked September 20th 2001. St Pete Florida.<br /><br />Same addressee: Tom Brokaw.<br />But all Mister Lake sees are "coicidences".r rowleynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-79621053479299647462014-06-10T08:59:23.668-07:002014-06-10T08:59:23.668-07:00R. Rowley wrote: "Foster found the totality o...R. Rowley wrote: "Foster found the totality of the linguistic evidence consistent with a scientist who was trying to distance himself from that scientific knowledge. Among other methods by (purposely) misspelling "penicillin" (2 errors in the one word)."<br /><br />That MISTAKE by Prof. Foster just shows how he was twisting things to fit his beliefs.<br />=======================================<br />His "beliefs", as you call them, coincided 100% with what the Task Force's own take was on things at that time ( in late 2001: remember Foster's writing in 2003 about his participation as a consultant in 2001) : (from the "Linguistic/Behavioural Analysis" of 2001):<br /><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 />http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/history/famous-cases/anthrax-amerithrax/linguistic-behavorial-analysis-of-the-anthrax-letters<br />-----------------------------<br />And was Steven Hatfill a scientist? Yes, he was. <br />What about Bruce Ivins? Yep.<br />So where's the "mistake" there? <br /><br />Oh, I forgot, Mister Lake still believes (BELIEVES) in the fairy tale of an 'amino acid code'. Sorry, I and Max did our best for 120 posts (out of an eventual 129 posts in the thread) to enlighten you; you're unteachable in the matter. You prefer your fairy tale of a 'code' to reality.<br /><br />(For that thread, see most of this:<br />http://anthraxdebate.blogspot.com/2014/01/subject-truthers.html#comment-form ) Despite Max's very eloquent first post, it required DOZENS of posts for Mister Lake to even get what the 'problem' was. He never even attempted to address it (the non-establishment of the assertion that there was a 'code' of any sort to begin with).r rowleynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-2218433172875762392014-06-10T08:09:32.998-07:002014-06-10T08:09:32.998-07:00R. Rowley wrote that Don Foster wrote: "the Q...R. Rowley wrote that Don Foster wrote: <i>"the Quantico letter had already been declared a hoax and zero-filed as part of the 9/11 investigation."</i><br /><br />The Quantico letter was <b>NOT a hoax</b>. It was a letter that pointed to Assaad as a "potential" terrorist. It is <b>NOT</b> a crime to tell the FBI about someone you suspect of being a potential terrorist - even if your suspicions are erroneous. <br /><br />The FBI checked on Assaad and found no reason to suspect he was dangerous. End of story. <b>There was no reason for the FBI to launch an investigation to find who wrote the Assaad letter.</b> The fact that conspiracy theorists see connections to other events is NOT sufficient reason.<br /><br />As usual, your arguments are POINTLESS. You are arguing as if we were still back in 2007. We know a lot more now than we did back then.<br /><br />EdEd Lakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00517078636884309733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-36638870648020669102014-06-10T07:51:46.322-07:002014-06-10T07:51:46.322-07:00R. Rowley wrote: "Foster found the totality o...R. Rowley wrote: <i>"Foster found the totality of the linguistic evidence consistent with a scientist who was trying to distance himself from that scientific knowledge. Among other methods by (purposely) misspelling "penicillin" (2 errors in the one word)."</i><br /><br />That MISTAKE by Prof. Foster just shows how he was twisting things to fit his beliefs. We now know that the misspelling of "penacilin" was part of a code Bruce Ivins put in the letters. You may not believe that there was a coded message in the letters, but the FACTS make it virtually UNDENIABLE except for the most closed-minded. By ANY measure, it is a BETTER explanation than Foster's theory. <br /><br />I don't understand what you are trying to argue. All of the nonsense from Foster was published before we learned about Bruce Ivins and the evidence against Ivins. We now KNOW why "penacilin" was misspelled. We now KNOW that Hatfill had nothing to do with the attacks. We now KNOW that Bill Patrick's report had NOTHING to do with the attacks.<br /><br />You seem to have closed your mind to the evidence against Ivins and discuss things as if we were still living in 2007. There is a LOT of information we now have as a result of finding that Ivins was the anthrax killer that we did not have back in 2007. You can't just ignore all those facts as if they don't exist. They DO exist.<br /><br />Ignoring the facts makes your arguments pointless.<br /><br />EdEd Lakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00517078636884309733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-55405438528351577972014-06-10T07:49:32.704-07:002014-06-10T07:49:32.704-07:00And one last passage from Foster and then I'm ...And one last passage from Foster and then I'm done:<br />-------------------<br />It was now December 2001, yet Dolan and Altimari's Hartford Courant story was the first I had heard of the Quantico letter. S.S.A. Fitzgerald had not heard of it, either. In fact, there were quite a few critical documents that Fitzgerald had not yet seen. What, I wondered, has the anthrax task force been doing" Hoping that the Quantico letter might lead, if not to the killer, at least to a suspect, I offered to examine the document. My photocopy arrived by FedEx not from the task force but from F.B.I. headquarters in Washington. Searching through documents by some 40 USAMRIID employees, I found writings by a female officer that looked like a perfect match. I wrote a detailed report on the evidence, but the anthrax task force declined to follow through: the Quantico letter had already been declared a hoax and zero-filed as part of the 9/11 investigation.<br />-------------------------------------------<br />Three points:<br /><br />1) I find Foster was misstaken in attributing the letter to "female officer" at USAMRIID. Her writing may indeed have been something that looked like a 'perfect match', but such evaluations are subject to errors. It's really more reliable to say that writing styles diverge than to say that they are a match, even an IMPERFECT one.<br /><br />2) But notice Foster's modest claim(s): "Hoping that the Quantico letter might lead, if not to the killer, at least to a suspect,[...]"; clearly Foster wasn't expecting forensic linguistics in isolation to identify the culprit. I would say, in general, forensic linguistics is more reliable in eliminating a suspect that in identifying or convicting one.<br /><br />3) Once again we see the tendency to 'file away' letters that the investigators can't make heads or tails of.<br /><br />http://www.ph.ucla.edu/epi/bioter/messageanthrax.htmlr rowleynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-76537279107803854252014-06-10T07:36:56.698-07:002014-06-10T07:36:56.698-07:00Mr. Rowley,
I'm not sure what your point is. ...Mr. Rowley,<br /><br />I'm not sure what your point is. <br /><br />Don Foster was obviously upset that the FBI wasn't listening to his screwball Hatfill theory. You are spinning that to fit your own beliefs. <br /><br />This quote from Foster is particularly dumb:<br /><br /><i>"Here, then, were two powder-filled biothreats addressed to the same news anchor, two days and 1,000 miles apart. Neither writer could have known of the other unless they were in cahoots."</i><br /><br />First, Foster ignores the surge in hoax letters that occurred across the country at that time. In March 2002, I did a survey of how may people were talking about anthrax <b>before</b> the anthrax letters were mailed. Check the info for Sept. 11, 12 and 13, 2001 here: http://www.anthraxinvestigation.com/timing.html <br /><br />Second, Foster doesn't know or say how many hoax or threat letters Tom Brokaw was getting at that time. <br /><br />Third, Foster apparently doesn't know what was <b>written</b> in the St. Pete letter. All he knows is that it contained a <b>harmless</b> powder. Foster's specialty is LINGUISTICS, but he's not discussing linguistics. He's discussing things he knows nothing about. <br /><br />What you AND Foster are doing is committing the "availability error" you mention. The two events occurred at about the same time, therefore they <b>must</b> be related. <b>NO, they do not need to be related.</b> <br /><br />If there were some UNDENIABLE similarity in the handwriting or the text, then there might be some logic behind connecting the letters. But the FACTS (based upon the Toxler envelope) say there is NO similarity whatsoever. <br /><br />You point out that Don Foster also wrote:<br /><br /><i>"Most mailed biothreats contain harmless household powder and an anonymous message from the offender. Police and F.B.I. officials have established a routine for this entire class of documents: Confiscate both the letter and the envelope from the recipient without allowing any copies to be retained. Test the powder to confirm that it is nontoxic. Announce to the press that "the incident will be investigated as a serious crime." Then place the documents in what's known as a zero file and never look at them again."</i><br /><br />One of the reasons there are so many hoax letters is that it is so difficult to catch the person who sent the letters. They are typically people with no criminal records. Plus, unless they are particularly stupid, they don't usually provide clues to let the police find them. Moreover, when the police DO catch the hoax letter mailer, it doesn't make the same kind of headlines - because it nearly always turns out to be some typical nut case.<br /><br />One of the mailings Foster blamed on Hatfill was actually done by a "typical nut case." But Foster wasn't looking for REAL culprits, he was looking for ways to tie the letters to Hatfill. So, he didn't notice that the culprit had been caught.<br /><br />In summary, Foster's specialty is linguistics. Foster was NOT using linguistics to tie things together to blame Hafill. He was committing the "availability error" and twisting things to fit his beliefs. <br /><br />That's is NOT the right way to do an investigation. It is the WRONG way to do an investigation. <br /><br />EdEd Lakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00517078636884309733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-15523435579522129652014-06-10T07:02:25.843-07:002014-06-10T07:02:25.843-07:00As I indicated before, there are SO many errors in...As I indicated before, there are SO many errors in Mister Lake's comments about me on Sunday, that I could write about them for a week solid, and still not exhaust that (sub-) topic.<br /><br />Just another sentence:<br /><br />"Inexplicably, the conspiracy theorist doesn't even believe that Don Foster identified the correct suspect when Foster pointed to Hatfill."<br /><br />It's inexplicable only if you haven't followed what I've written about Foster for 3 or 4 YEARS now (where ya been, Mister Lake? You SEEMED to be on the same threads as me but you show no sign of understanding what I have been writing!)<br /><br />People go with what they know. And not just in 'investigations'. Foster found the totality of the linguistic evidence consistent with a scientist who was trying to distance himself from that scientific knowledge. Among other methods by (purposely) misspelling "penicillin" (2 errors in the one word).<br /><br />So, if it's a scientist who: is VERY interested in bioweapons; claims to know how to prepare anthrax POWDER; had access in 1997-9 at USAMRIID to the very flask* from which the killer strain was derived; directed a program in which the possibility of sending anthrax through the mails was examined**(See major footnote); etc.<br />then someone like Foster, who knows of few other scientists who fit the bill, will go with Hatfill. Understandable. And the very reason(s) the Task Force stuck with Hatfill for so many years.<br /><br />*"From the very flask" or "aliquots" derived directly from that RMR-1029<br /><br />**Wiki treats of this 'project' thusly (partial):<br />By this time there had been a number of hoax anthrax mailings in the United States. Hatfill and his collaborator, SAIC vice president Joseph Soukup, commissioned William C. Patrick, retired head of the old US bioweapons program (who had also been a mentor of Hatfill) to write a report on the possibilities of terrorist anthrax mailing attacks. Barbara Hatch Rosenberg (director of the Federation of American Scientists' biochem weapons working group in 2002) said that the report was commissioned "under a CIA contract to SAIC". However, SAIC said Hatfill and Soukup commissioned it internally — there was no outside client.<br /><br />The resulting report, dated February 1999, was subsequently seen by some as a "blueprint" for the 2001 anthrax attacks. Amongst other things, it suggested the maximum amount of anthrax powder - 2.5 grams - that could be put in an envelope without making a suspicious bulge. The quantity in the envelope sent to Senator Patrick Leahy in October 2001 was .871 grams.[11] After the attacks, the report drew the attention of the media and others, and led to their investigation of Patrick and Hatfill.[12]r rowleynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-69065303174261790802014-06-10T06:37:25.225-07:002014-06-10T06:37:25.225-07:00Upthread I made a reference or two to Don Foster&#...Upthread I made a reference or two to Don Foster's insight in the late 2001 to 2003 timeframe. I would have done better to just quote the following passage:<br />-----------------------<br />Most mailed biothreats contain harmless household powder and an anonymous message from the offender. Police and F.B.I. officials have established a routine for this entire class of documents: Confiscate both the letter and the envelope from the recipient without allowing any copies to be retained. Test the powder to confirm that it is nontoxic. Announce to the press that "the incident will be investigated as a serious crime." Then place the documents in what's known as a zero file and never look at them again.<br /><br />Unfortunately, when that same strategy is applied to the questioned documents in a case as important as the 2001 anthrax murders, critical evidence may be overlooked.[...]<br />--------------<br />That pretty much covers: the St Pete hoax letters, the pre-Amerithrax threats from Indy and Trenton, and (eventually) the letter of denunciation against Ayaad Assaad (ie "Town of Quantico letter"). A failure to establish who wrote/sent them. A recognition that all texts were from the same author would have eliminated: Hatfill, Ivins (and doubtlessly others) who were thought to be 'lone wolf' type perps.<br />So Foster in 2001 anticipates what's really out there.<br />Foster goes on: (inside of next paragraph):<br />---------<br />More information has been gleaned from those brief letters than you may suppose. But many of the questioned documents pertinent to the anthrax case have been zero-filed. That is why I have decided finally to speak out.<br />---------<br />So Foster's self-professed reason for writing the article in VANITY FAIR to begin with was to stress the need to cast the evidentiary net wider. Indeed one is left with the impression that the ONLY reason Foster saw one of the St Pete hoax letters to begin with is: investigators MISTAKENLY thought it was the source of Erin O'Connor's cutaneous anthrax.<br />And finally, quite a bit down the text, Foster writes:<br />-----------<br />Here, then, were two powder-filled biothreats addressed to the same news anchor, two days and 1,000 miles apart. Neither writer could have known of the other unless they were in cahoots. <br />---------<br />Exactly. This insight is by no means mitigated by Foster's concentration on Hatfill, which I would call an 'availablity error' (see: http://www.skepdic.com/availability.html<br />)<br />http://www.ph.ucla.edu/epi/bioter/messageanthrax.htmlr rowleynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-46566889596384335022014-06-09T09:35:21.276-07:002014-06-09T09:35:21.276-07:00Okay, I've finished modifying the text for the...Okay, I've finished modifying the text for the "What is 'Evidence?" thread, so I'll spend a few minutes arguing the meaning of words with Mr. Rowley:<br /><br />What is the difference between "There is nothing linking Hatfill to the anthrax mailings" and "there was NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER against Hatfill"?<br /><br />And what is the difference between "the FBI's investigation found nothing to tie him to the mailings" and "there was NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER against Hatfill"?<br /><br />Answer: <b><i>I made no mention of EVIDENCE in what I said.</i></b> I talked about "linking" and "tying." While something that LINKS or TIES a person to a crime would almost certainly be "evidence," there can be all sorts of evidence which <b>by itself</b> does not LINK or TIE a person to a crime.<br /><br />Hatfill example: Hatfill once worked for USAMRIID. That could be "evidence" in a hypothetical case against Hatfill. But, <b><i>hundreds</i></b> of other people also worked for USAMRIID. So, <b>by itself</b> that "evidence" does NOT - repeat <b>NOT</b> - LINK or TIE Dr. Hatfill to the anthrax mailings.<br /><br />Ivins example: Dr. Ivins was in charge of flask RMR-1029, which was the source for the "murder weapon." That is EVIDENCE that LINKS or TIES Ivins to the case. It is not sufficient PROOF to convict Ivins, but it would certainly HELP convict him when viewed together with all the other evidence.<br /><br />This is, of course, just another argument over the meanings of words.<br /><br />Mr. Rowley wrote: <i>"The linguistics led me to: the writer, and the multiple elements (St Pete hoax letters etc.) led me to the relay system ..."</i><br /><br />Linguistics seem to be Mr. Rowley's <b>weakness</b>, not his strong point, when it comes to understanding the evidence in the Amerithrax investigation.<br /><br />EdEd Lakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00517078636884309733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-44121011296488062082014-06-09T07:31:45.653-07:002014-06-09T07:31:45.653-07:00Hmm. I see SEVEN posts by Mr. Rowley this morning...Hmm. I see <b>SEVEN</b> posts by Mr. Rowley this morning. ALL seem to be incoherent rants. NONE say anything meaningful. <br /><br /><a href="http://anthraxdebate.blogspot.com/2014/05/subject-conspiracy-theorist-psychology.html?showComment=1402264403932#c4634414781982814460" rel="nofollow">#1 is a complaint</a> about what I wrote regarding Senator Leahy's comments about Ivins' guilt. Mr. Rowley is arguing his opinion against my opinion.<br /><br /><a href="http://anthraxdebate.blogspot.com/2014/05/subject-conspiracy-theorist-psychology.html?showComment=1402264678881#c2056638401341675278" rel="nofollow">#2 is a statement</a> <b>refusing</b> to provide the link and quote to where I said "there was NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER against Hatfill."<br /><br /><a href="http://anthraxdebate.blogspot.com/2014/05/subject-conspiracy-theorist-psychology.html?showComment=1402265453805#c9200114113379582068" rel="nofollow">#3 is Mr. Rowley digging up a quote from me</a> dated Aug. 25, 2002, where I said ""There is nothing linking Hatfill to the anthrax mailings." Presumably, Mr. Rowley is using this to argue that it is the same as saying "there was NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER against Hatfill." It's not the same. <br /><br /><a href="http://anthraxdebate.blogspot.com/2014/05/subject-conspiracy-theorist-psychology.html?showComment=1402266251546#c5493462050585748083" rel="nofollow">#4 is another attempt by Mr. Rowley to argue</a> that I said something which means the same thing as "there was NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER against Hatfill." I said, "the FBI's investigation found nothing to tie him to the mailings." It's not the same.<br /><br /><a href="http://anthraxdebate.blogspot.com/2014/05/subject-conspiracy-theorist-psychology.html?showComment=1402266621242#c6634355829127371834" rel="nofollow">#5 is a message stating</a> that it is not in his interests to show that he has a better case against his "suspect" than the FBI had against Ivins. So, he won't present his case -- except for a few details (which are just opinions and mean nothing).<br /><br /><a href="http://anthraxdebate.blogspot.com/2014/05/subject-conspiracy-theorist-psychology.html?showComment=1402266782099#c6345706691942873458" rel="nofollow">#6 is a complaint</a> that I am going to start a new thread titled "What is evidence?"<br /><br /><a href="http://anthraxdebate.blogspot.com/2014/05/subject-conspiracy-theorist-psychology.html?showComment=1402266954242#c2169772636423336804" rel="nofollow">#7 is a complaint</a> where Mr. Rowley says that because we argued in the past about how evidence is presented in court, the matter has somehow been resolved in his favor. Nothing could be farther from the truth.<br /><br />There is nothing in these posts worth discussing, so I'm going to work on refining the text in the new thread titled "What is 'Evidence'?"<br /><br />EdEd Lakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00517078636884309733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-21697726364233368042014-06-08T15:35:54.242-07:002014-06-08T15:35:54.242-07:00R. Rowley wrote: "I just noticed that Mister ...R. Rowley wrote: "I just noticed that Mister Lake DELETED the first two posts of my three parter. That indicates that he is not truly open to discussions about:<br /><br />1) the way FACTS are evaluated by courts ..."<br /><br />On the contrary, I am totally open to discussing "the way FACTS are evaluated in courts." <br />============================================<br />What, you don't remember ANY of our past discussions of that topic?!?!?!? That's most disconcerting!r rowleynoreply@blogger.com