Subject: Facts vs Evidence

 Albert Einstein famously said,

“You do not really understand something unless you can explain it to your grandmother” [and get her to understand it, too.]

So, I'm going to try to explain the difference between "facts" and "evidence" to see if I understand it myself.

Evidence is presented in court to determine what the facts are, i.e., evidence is presented to let a jury decide if it is "a proven fact" that the defendant committed the crime for which he/she is accused.

Another source expresses this differently:

"Fact is a truth that can be proven. On the other hand evidence is something that is told by someone. It has to be accepted only on belief. There cannot be truth in all evidences.   This is the main difference between facts and evidence."

The copy of "The People's Law Dictionary" in my personal library contains these definitions:

FACT: n.  an actual thing or happening, which must be proved at trial by presentation of evidence and which is evaluated by the finder or fact (a jury in a jury trial, or by the judge if he/she sits without a jury).

EVIDENCE: n.   every type of proof legally presented at trial (allowed by the judge) which is intended to convince the judge and/or jury of alleged facts material to the case.  It can include oral testimony of witnesses, including experts on technical matters, documents, public records, objects, photographs, and depositions (testimony under oath taken before the trial).  It also includes so-called "circumstantial evidence" which is intended to create belief by showing surrounding circumstances which logically lead to a conclusion of fact.

So, it is totally absurd to say there is "no evidence" showing that Dr. Bruce Ivins was responsible for the anthrax attacks of 2001.  In the Amerithrax Investigative Summary report, the Department of Justice presented 92 pages summarizing the evidence against Dr. Ivins.  And they released thousands of pages of supplemental information.

A naysayer could argue that he or she does not accept or believe the evidence, and therefore, as far as they are concerned, it is not a proven fact that Dr. Ivins was the anthrax killer.  But, they cannot logically say there is "no evidence" showing Dr. Ivins was the anthrax killer.

In court the prosecutor would present the evidence that Dr. Ivins had means, motive and opportunity to commit the crime.  The prosecutor would establish "as a fact" that Ivins had means, motive and opportunity.  And the prosecutor would ask the jury to conclude and confirm the fact that Ivins was the anthrax killer.

On the Internet, an Anthrax Truther can present "evidence" showing that his or her favorite suspect was actually the real anthrax killer.

However, as it says above (and below), "There cannot be truth in all evidences.   This is the main difference between facts and evidence."

One Anthrax Truther on this blog presents "evidence" arguing that "linguistics" within the anthrax documents show that his unnamed "suspect" is the anthrax killer.  He indicates that someday he may present "evidence" showing that his "suspect" had means, motive and opportunity.  But, for now, all he is willing to discuss is the "linguistics" in the documents.  As I see it, his linguistics "evidence" is easily challenged and disputed, so there is no "truth" in his "evidence."  It's something only he sees.

Another Anthrax Truther argues that a 2003 news report saying that Adnan el-Shukrijumah had gone to the United States via Mexico is "evidence" that el-Shukrijumah mailed the anthrax letters.  As further "evidence," he cites another news story which said el-Shukrijumah entered the U.S. "some time after September 1, 2001" as evidence that el-Shukrijumah was in New Jersey in September and October of 2001 mailing the anthrax letters.   As I see it, his "evidence" is so vague and lacking in detail that is no way to find any "truth" in his "evidence."  "The truth" is something only he sees in his "evidence."

The Department of Justice's case against Dr. Ivins, on the other hand, provides excellent evidence which shows that Ivins had means, motive and opportunity to commit the crime, plus they can have FBI agents testify that all other likely suspects can be eliminated for lack of means, motive and/or opportunity.

Unlike the two Anthrax Truthers mentioned above, the DOJ can show solid evidence to establish as a fact that Ivins had the means to commit the crime.   The DOJ can present scientists who can explain that they personally created powders identical to the attack powders using the same equipment Ivins had available in his lab.  The DOJ can also show that Ivins had the opportunity to commit the crime.  To establish that as a fact, they can present documents, time logs and testimony showing that Ivins had no alibi for the times when the mailings were done.  And the DOJ can show that Dr. Ivins had motive for committing the crime:  Though his emails and the testimony of witnesses, they can establish as a fact that:  (1) Dr. Ivins’s life’s work appeared destined for failure, absent an unexpected event.  (2) Dr. Ivins was being subjected to increasing public criticism for his work.  (3)  Dr. Ivins was feeling abandoned in his personal life.  A jury could reasonably conclude that Ivins expected the anthrax mailings to make him and his work important again.

The jury would watch and listen to the evidence being presented.  They would then listen and watch the defense present evidence for their side of the argument.  When done, the jury would decide, based upon all the evidence presented to them, if the case against Dr. Ivins was proven or not proven.  If they decided it was proven, it would become a "fact" that Dr. Ivins was the anthrax killer.

Others can disagree with the "fact" that Ivins did it, but their disagreements would be of no value unless and until they could somehow present better evidence showing someone else did it.

That's my explanation of the difference between "facts" and "evidence."


Below are some sources I used in writing the comment above.
----------------------------------------

Facts and evidence are two words that are often used incorrectly. Even though they are often used interchangeably, they have entirely different meanings. A fact is something that can be proven but evidence is something that someone tells you or objects that can point to the facts. Evidence can be accepted only as a belief that something is a fact and in all cases this is not true.

There are two types of evidence – factual evidence and documented evidence.  In a trial, the court always relies on the documented evidence because facts are needed to prove that it is not true.
However, it is very easy to damage or destroy evidence. Therefore there is not a lot of strength in evidence and it is difficult to authenticate it. In contrast to evidence, a fact can be proven by any means and this is one of the main differences between the two words.

A fact cannot be destroyed or damaged. This is true of scientific facts that have been proven by multiple experiments. No matter how much you change the variables, the conclusion is fact. Facts are based on evidence, but evidence does not necessarily have to be true. It is also considered to be a reality about which a large number of people agree. Facts cannot be disputed.

Information that proves to be helpful in forming a conclusion is termed evidence, but it has to be either true or false. Evidence can be disputed, which is why it is presented in court. The lawyers for both sides present arguments and witnesses to prove or disprove the evidence that has been collected for the case.

It is the evidence that starts an investigation and fact develops from the conclusion of the investigation.

Click HERE for the source.

-------------------------------------

Facts and Evidence are two legal terms that are used with difference. They are generally understood as one and the same thing to an untrained litigant, but strictly speaking they are different.

Fact is a truth that can be proven. On the other hand evidence is something that is told by someone. It has to be accepted only on belief. There cannot be truth in all evidences. This is the main difference between facts and evidence.

Evidence is generally of two types, namely, documental evidence and factual evidence. The decision of the court is always based on documental evidence. You need to have factual evidence to disprove it.

On the main difference between facts and evidence is that evidence can be easily destroyed. This is because of the fact that evidence lacks strength and cannot be proved authentically. On the other hand a fact can be proved by all means. In fact the proven status has made the fact different from evidence.

On the other hand a fact cannot be destroyed at all for that matter. Scientific facts are all proved and hence can never be destroyed by any means. This is mainly due to the fact that fact is characterized by truth whereas evidence is characterized by falsehood.

Evidence is information helpful in forming judgment or a conclusion. Remember it is only information that can be either true or false. On the other hand a fact is a fundamental reality that has been agreed upon by a substantial strength of people.

Another important difference between facts and evidence is that facts cannot be disputed. On the other hand evidence can be disputed in the court. It all depends on the skill of the lawyer to dispute the evidence produced in the court. Fact is arrived at after investigation or experiment. Evidence begins an investigation.

Click HERE for the source. 

--------------------------------------------------------

fact

An objective consensus on a fundamental reality that has been agreed upon by a substantial number of people.

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/fact?rdfro...

evidence

information used to establish facts in an investigation

http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/evi...

information helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment

http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dic...

one or more reasons for believing that something is or is not true

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.a...

Fact is that which is accepted by a large number of persons. Evidence is information provided by a few persons for accepting a certain fact.

Some evidences may become disputable at a later date. That which is never disputed becomes a fact.

http://www.trueauthority.com/cryptozoolo...

Click HERE for the source.  

Ed

Subject: Evidence vs Opinions

Explaining What You Understand

Albert Einstein said, "You do not really understand something unless you can explain it to your grandmother."  And of course, he was saying you have to get your grandmother to understand it, too.

This quote is relevant to the theories of two bloggers who post or attempt to post to this blog:

1.  "DXer" from Lew Weinstein's blog endlessly demonstrates that he cannot explain anything.  And it is clear that the reason he cannot explain anything is either (1) he doesn't understand what he is arguing, or (2) he knows that if he tried to explain himself his explanation would be seen to be clearly ridiculous.

2.  R. Rowley, on the other hand, occasionally seems to try to explain himself.  But, when he does so, he shows everyone that he simply does not understand what he is talking about.  His beliefs do not jibe with reality.

Very little to nothing of what DXer attempts to post has any relevance to the anthrax attacks of 2001.  Yet, he seems to think he is somehow making a good argument for his theory that al Qaeda was behind the anthrax attacks.  Here are two recent examples of his meaningless babble:

Ed, perhaps I can help you make a credible argument in support of an Ivins Theory.

To start, rather than try to suggest he grew the anthrax in the autoclave (ha!) used by others, point out that the FBI doesn't know what happened to the Ames that his assistants were always making. They said it wasn't put into Flask 1029. See Amerithrax Investigative Summary.

and

Also, Ed, if I could help you further in coming up with a credible Ivins Theory, consider Ivins experiment with heat shocked vs. non-heat-shocked spores. That was done in 1412 in connection with aerosol experiments. It could be done in lieu of purification using Renocal, Ivins said. He said he was first learned that it was done by Iraq during the Persian Gulf war era.

DXer doesn't even appear to understand that I'm not trying to develop any kind of "Ivins theory."  The FBI and DOJ presented their legal case against Ivins.  I simply see it as a very good case.  DXer clearly doesn't understand or doesn't believe the evidence, and he apparently doesn't even understand that it's the FBI, not me, who did the investigation.  Nothing in what he talks about in those two attempted posts has anything to do with the evidence against Dr. Bruce Ivins.

R. Rowley, on the other hand, endlessly demonstrates that he does not understand circumstantial evidence.  He says the FBI has no case against Ivins because the FBI doesn't view evidence the way Mr. Rowley views evidence.  In a post HERE, Mr. Rowley argued:

Evidence of the drives to Princeton would be: toll receipts on a road heading to/from NJ; CC television footage of Ivins on any road leading to New Jersey; a parking ticket issued in NJ ; a speeding ticket issued on a highway going to/from New Jersey; receipts for gasoline or any other purchase on the way to/from New Jersey; someone who wrote down/remembered Ivins tag numbers for some reason on the night(s) in question, etc. And, please note, ALL of the above would be "circumstantial evidence" save only the eyewitness jotting down the tag numbers.    

In reality, "DIRECT evidence" is defined as follows:

Evidence in the form of testimony from a witness who actually saw, heard, or touched the subject of questioning. Evidence that, if believed, proves existence of the fact in issue without inference or presumption. That means of proof which tends to show the existence of a fact in question, without the intervention of the proof of any other fact, and which is distinguished from Circumstantial Evidence, often called indirect.

Therefore, while they might not be "direct evidence" of Ivins' guilt,

Toll receipts would be direct evidence of Ivins' trip to New Jersey.
A parking ticket in New Jersey would be direct evidence of Ivins' trip to New Jersey.
A speeding ticket would be direct evidence of Ivins' trip to New Jersey.
Gasoline receipts would be direct evidence of Ivins' trip to New Jersey.
An eye witness would be direct evidence of Ivins' trip to New Jersey.

Click HERE for a definition of "Circumstantial Evidence."

"Books, movies, and television often perpetuate the belief that circumstantial evidence may not be used to convict a criminal of a crime. But this view is incorrect. In many cases, circumstantial evidence is the only evidence linking an accused to a crime; direct evidence may simply not exist. As a result, the jury may have only circumstantial evidence to consider in determining whether to convict or acquit a person charged with a crime. In fact, the U.S. Supreme Court has stated that "circumstantial evidence is intrinsically no different from testimonial [direct] evidence"(Holland v. United States, 348 U.S. 121, 75 S. Ct. 127, 99 L. Ed. 150 [1954]). Thus, the distinction between direct and circumstantial evidence has little practical effect in the presentation or admissibility of evidence in trials."

Here's the example of circumstantial evidence that I provided to Mr. Rowley, but which he doesn't seem to understand.  He he clearly cannot explain why it wouldn't be totally valid in court:

1. Ivins created the powders and the letters.
2. The letters were mailed from New Jersey.
3. Ivins had no alibi for the times when the letters were mailed.
4. Ivins had a history of driving long distances to commit crimes.

Therefore, we have good circumstantial evidence that:

5. Ivins drove to New Jersey to mail the letters. 

In another post (HERE), Mr. Rowley argued:

 The only solid evidence in the case is: that the genetic profile indicates that the flask (RMR_1029) was likely a parent of the attack anthrax. That doesn't point to Ivins alone.

 And I responded:

Generally speaking, NONE of the evidence in a circumstantial case points only to ONE person.

Evidence item #1 may point to suspects A, B, C and D.
Evidence item #2 may point to suspects A, C, J, K and L.
Evidence item #3 may point to suspects C, J, L and M.
Evidence item #4 may point to suspects A, C, D, K, L and M.

Which means that the ONLY person that ALL the evidence points to is C.

 But all Mr. Rowley did in response (as usual) is change the subject.

With every argument it becomes more and more clear that neither of these two Anthrax Truthers understands the evidence against Dr. Bruce Ivins.  Therefore, they cannot explain why I or anyone else should not accept that evidence as very good proof of Dr. Ivins guilt in the anthrax attacks of 2001. And neither of the two Anthrax Truthers can make a clear case in favor of their own personal (and very different) theories -- probably because they do not understand their own theories, either.

Ed

Subject: The Scientific Method

The Scientific Method

Anthrax Truthers and conspiracy theorists appear to be incapable of understanding the scientific method.  It seems they generally start with a conclusion, and then they just look for facts which support that conclusion, while ignoring anything and everything that does not support their conclusion.  Thus, the idea of finding evidence that says you are on the wrong track is virtually incomprehensible to them.  To them, anyone who admits to having been on a wrong track is considered to be incompetent and forever distrusted.

However, understanding that your first impressions are not always right is key to the Scientific Method that is used by most investigators in most fields, including FBI agents and scientists.

For example, it was initially assumed by many people that al Qaeda was behind the anthrax attacks of 2001, because (1) the anthrax letter attacks came so soon after the horrific attacks of 9/11, (2) the letters contained threats and language that appeared to be from Islamic extremists, and (3) it had been feared for years - since the first attack upon the World Trade Center in 1993 - that Islamic terrorists might someday strike America with "the poor man's atomic bomb," i.e., a biological or chemical weapon.

So, it can be argued that the Amerithrax investigation began with an hypothesis that al Qaeda was behind the attacks.

Then the FBI began to investigate (i.e., do research) to determine whether the hypothesis was true or not.

In other words, the first question asked was: Did al Qaeda operatives really send the anthrax letters?

The investigation couldn't find any additional evidence to support the hypothesis.  Instead, it found evidence which seemed to show that the al Qaeda hypothesis was invalid.  One of the first facts uncovered was that the strain of anthrax used in the attacks was an American strain used primarily in American labs for vaccine research.  Plus, no trace of anthrax could be found anywhere the 9/11 hijackers had been, so it didn't appear that 9/11 and the anthrax attacks were connected.  The initial assumption (or hypothesis) appeared to be false.

So, a new question was asked: Who sent the anthrax letters?

The subsequent investigation by the FBI uncovered an abundance of facts and evidence showing that Dr. Bruce Edwards Ivins was the anthrax killer.

But, there were still some unanswered questions.  Examples:

Exactly how did Dr. Ivins make the anthrax spores used in the letters?
Where did the silicon in the spores come from?
How did Dr. Ivins disguise his handwriting?

There are many ways that Dr. Ivins could have made the attack spores, and the results would be the same for all the methods. Dr. Ivins is dead and cannot explain what he did. Thus, there's no way to be absolutely certain which method he used.  There are also different ways that the silicon could have gotten into the spores, and we are unlikely to ever know exactly which method Dr. Ivins used. (Six  percent of the spores Dr. Ivins created for flask RMR-1030 contained a "silicon signature" that exactly matched the attack spores, but Dr. Ivins himself may not have known how it happened.)  At best, the investigators can only determine the "most likely" way that he did it. 

The same holds true for the method Ivins used to disguise his handwriting.  The writing on the anthrax documents does NOT match Dr. Ivins' normal handwriting.  But he was known to disguise his handwriting when sending letters and presents to his female co-workers.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Department of Justice are not going to attempt to determine which methods Dr. Ivins most likely used to accomplish those tasks, since it is not necessary in order to prove their case.  They just need to prove that Dr. Ivins has the means.  Plus, arguing about what is "most likely" only generates counter arguments that the crime might have been done in some totally unlikely way.  

Facts and evidence indicate that Dr. Ivins most likely disguised his handwriting in a relatively unique way:  He manipulated a child into doing the writing for him.  Click HERE for a video explaining 12 facts which support this hypothesis.  Click HERE to read a detailed written explanation of the hypothesis.

The hypothesis that a child wrote the anthrax documents has remained unchallenged for over ten years.  Discovering that Bruce Ivins was the anthrax killer helped confirm the hypothesis, since he seems to have had access to first graders who could have done the writing.  Plus, Dr. Ivins' psychological makeup indicates he could very likely have done things that way.

Anthrax Truthers, of course, do not believe this handwriting hypothesis, but they cannot challenge it by providing facts and evidence which show it is incorrect.  Mostly all they seem to be able to do is argue that a typical killer would not have done things that way.  That is a different question and means nothing to the Amerithrax case.  Dr. Ivins was not a typical killer, and the methods he "most likely" used seem to fit his personality and situation perfectly.

Sometimes Anthrax Truthers also try to argue about whether the child was a boy or girl, and whether it's easier to manipulate a typical boy or typical girl.  Those are also different questions, so the hypothesis does not answer or address those questions.  There don't seem to be sufficient writing samples to make such an evaluation, and there's no reason to believe the child was "typical."

Of course, one could ask the question: Who was the child who wrote the anthrax letters?

But, any answer from me would be only an hypothesis.  And such an hypothesis would have to name some child who could be forever harmed by being identified as "the child who wrote the anthrax letters."  So, I'm not willing to even discuss such an hypothesis.

In summary:

The facts and evidence form an hypothesis that Dr. Ivins most likely used anthrax spores in the attack letters that were created as part of his job for test purposes, instead of destroying the spores after the tests were done.

The facts and evidence form an hypothesis that anthrax spores can most likely be created with silicon in their spore coats if they are grown at room temperatures instead of at incubator temperatures. 

The facts and evidence form an hypothesis that says Dr. Ivins most likely used a first grader to write the anthrax documents.

Everyone reading this blog is urged to challenge these hypotheses with contrary facts and evidence showing that some other explanation was more likely, if they can do so.

The objective of using the Scientific Method is to find out what most likely happened, and if there are better facts and better evidence which shows different explanations are most likely, I would be most interested in being advised of them.

Ed  

Subject: The absurd al Qaeda anthrax theory

In the previous thread HERE, "DXer" (a.k.a. "Anonymous") argued that El-Shukrijumah called his mother from Afghanistan on September 13, 2001, to tell her that he was coming to the U.S. "DXer" views that as evidence that El-Shukrijumah mailed the anthrax letters.  We're supposed to believe that El-Shukrijuma had absolutely no problem flying to the U.S. in the week after 9/11 to mail the letters.  And, apparently, that was all he did, because there was no evidence that El-Shukrijuma did anything at all while he was supposedly in the US in September and October 2001.   

Why couldn't someone else mail the letters?  DXer has no answer.  Why was it necessary for El-Shukrijumah to fly half way around the globe to do it?  DXer has no answer.  He just argues that El-Shukrijumah is known to have left the U.S. months before 9/11.  But, he can't provide any evidence at all that El-Shukrijumah returned in time to mail the first anthrax letters on September 18, 2001. 

Next, DXer argued that al Qaeda's lab in Kandahar had Ames anthrax.  But, the facts say that the lab in Kandahar had no anthrax of any kind.  DXer appears to be relying on some "false positive" readings where pieces of Ames DNA were believed to have been found in the Kandahar lab.  Extensive tests done later found NO TRACE of any kind of anthrax. No doubt they planned to work with anthrax (they even got their inoculations), but there's no evidence they actually did anything with anthrax. 

DXer also seems to believe that al Qaeda got their anthrax from Porton Down.  But Porton Down Ames has been serially cultured so many times that it no longer has the same DNA as Ancestor Ames, which means the DNA is also different from the attack anthrax.

Now DXer is arguing about the fact that "Franklin Park, NJ" was part of the return address on the Senate anthrax letters, and how that must be because some of the 9/11 terrorists worshiped in a mosque in Fort Lauderdale, FL, that was across the street from a small park called "Franklin Park."  He evidently cannot see that as a coincidence.  However, of course, it must just be a coincidence that the anthrax letters were mailed 10 miles from a town in New Jersey called "Franklin Park."

Here are some simple facts:

Ivins had access to the source of the anthrax in the letters.
DXer has no evidence that al Qaeda had access to that source.

Ivins made Ames anthrax spores in his lab routinely.
DXer has no evidence that al Qaeda ever made any Ames anthrax spores.

The handwriting on the letters doesn't match Ivins' or Mohamed Atta's writing.
Ivins had reason to disguise his handwriting.  Atta did not.

Ivins was within driving distance of the mailbox at the time of the mailings.
DXer doesn't know where El-Shukrijumah was at the time of the mailings.

A timeline of Ivins' activities can be found by clicking HERE.
"DXer" (a..k.a. "Anonymous") cannot even construct a logical timeline to support his beliefs.  Sometimes he argues that al Qaeda must have used some Muslim agent to steal Ames anthrax from USAMRIID, other times he argues that al Qaeda obtained Ames from Porton Down.  Sometimes he seems to argue that the letters were filled with anthrax in the USA.  Other times he seems to argue that they were filled with anthrax in Afghanistan and then brought to the USA by El-Shukrijuma.  When and why were the envelopes bought in Maryland?  Why were there two different types of anthrax powder?  Why weren't both batches of letters mailed at the same time?  Why return to the same mail box to mail the second batch of letters.  Why mail the letters in Princeton?         

I could go on and on and on.  The al Qaeda theory is absurd.  I would have used the word "preposterous," but it wouldn't fit in the cartoon illustration at the top of this thread.

DXer needs to provide some EVIDENCE in support of his theory.  It is preposterous to argue that the FBI has "no evidence" against Ivins without DXer providing anything that even resembles evidence to support his argument that al Qaeda was behind the anthrax mailings of 2001.

Ed

9/11 Truthers versus Anthrax Truthers

Here is how Anthrax Truther Lew Weinstein describes the Amerithrax evidence:
 

The FBI’s case against Dr. Ivins is clearly bogus: no evidence, no witnesses, an impossible timeline.

Here's how 9/11 Truther Elias Davidsson describes the 9/11 evidence:
 

There's no evidence whatsoever that the 19 people accused of mass murder boarded the planes on 9/11.

That quote from Davidsson can be found on a YouTube video by clicking HERE and going to the 33 minute mark.

A similar quote can be found on another Davidsson video at the 21 minute mark by clicking HERE:

There is not a single item of evidence pointing that these attacks were perpetrated by people coming from abroad.  ... There is no single proof that any foreigners committed these acts.  No proof that any Arabs went into these planes.  And, so if these Arabs did not go into these planes, then the official story must be a lie.  ... The truth is that there were no Muslims involved in this crime.

Interestingly, Davidsson explains what he finds impossible to believe about the official version of what happened on 9/11.  At about the 37 minute mark in that same video, Elias Davidsson says,

We cannot state that the passengers died in these crashes.  We have full reason to suspect that the passengers were murdered somewhere else. Murdered in cold blood by the U.S. Government.  ... It's impossible to believe for most people.  But, the fact that we don't have evidence that people died in the crashes - we don't have evidence - and it forces us to consider that they were killed somewhere else.  These people do not exist anymore.  They have died.  There is no question about that.  Their families mourn them, and there are many people participating in the mourning.  ... These people are certainly dead, and somebody murdered them.  And, I don't believe personally that they were in these planes, because if they were in these planes, then somebody would have piloted these planes.  And nobody in his right mind would pilot these planes to crash these planes -- even a Muslim --- even a Muslim.  I'm sorry.  Nobody in their right mind would do that.  Even absent all that I told you about the lack of evidence, just the thought that somebody would have piloted - with a pilot's license - would be capable of piloting a civilian aircraft - which the alleged hijackers did not have - ....

Even beyond the fact that there is no evidence, the official story is so fantastic - it is so science fiction - to believe that anybody in his right mind had ... the capability and the wish to fly a plane like this is so outrageous that to believe anybody would have crashed the planes with these passengers - and kill themselves at the same time - is itself implausible to the extreme.

Click HERE for a 5-part video talk by Graeme MacQueen, the author of a new book titled "The 2001 Anthrax Deception."  

Click HERE for a talk by conspiracy theorist Barbara Honegger.  It has some truly screwball comparisons between Pearl Harbor and 9/11.  (Her slide show is HERE.)  She believes that neither Pearl Harbor nor 9/11 were surprise attacks.

Click HERE for a truly weird talk about the anthrax attacks by conspiracy theorist Barry Kissin. 

Click HERE for an interview with conspiracy theorist Elizabeth Woodworth where she rationalizes that disputing the official version of 9/11 doesn't require any attempt to prove any alternative version.  She also believes Osama bin Laden had nothing to do with 9/11.

It appears that the beliefs of all the 9/11 and the anthrax conspiracy theorists can be summarized as follows:

They find it impossible to believe the government's version of what happened.
They believe the government officials must be either incompetent or lying.
The government will not give them the evidence needed to prove a conspiracy.
They do not have the power needed to force the release of the "truth."
Therefore, they want a new investigation to find a "truth" they can believe.
And they are trying to convince the public to demand a new investigation.

Therefore, a conspiracy theorist might be defined as follows:

Someone who cannot believe the official version of events, who wants the government to provide him with facts to disprove the official claims, who considers any failure to provide complete and comprehensive facts to be proof of a conspiracy, who wants a new official investigation to prove what he believes to be true, and who is out trying to get other people to help him force the government to start a new investigation.    

People who have knowledge of actual conspiracies aren't "conspiracy theorists" because they will provide the evidence they have of the criminal conspiracy.  They don't ask the government to provide the evidence, nor will they consider it proof of a criminal conspiracy if the government doesn't do as they ask.
 
Ed

Subject: Discussions versus Arguments

In the prior two threads it was made perfectly clear that Mr. Rowley does not agree with the definitions of "Discussion" versus "Argument."  Below are definitions from a source HERE:

A discussion is an orderly confrontation based on a mutual willingness to learn from one another. It involves the presentation of evidence by each party and then a good-faith attempt of the participants in the discussion to come to agreement.

Discussion presupposes some degree of rational disagreement between us or at least a lack of consensus. If I agreed with you already, we would have nothing to discuss. In a discussion, I do not primarily want to disagree: I want to know the truth. If I do not think that what you say is true, then I disagree, stating my reasons as clearly as possible and without animosity. The same is true for you: you present me with your reasons. By sharing our ideas freely, we hope to arrive at a deeper truth. In a discussion, disagreement is for the sake of agreement.

An argument (emotional, not rational) is a disorderly confrontation based on an unwillingness to learn from one another. Desire for victory takes precedence over love of truth, with the result that agreement becomes impossible.

Although they may have rational grounds for disagreement in the first place, all arguments include an element of bad faith — we are not, with all honesty, pursuing the truth together. Rather, in an argument I simply want my position to be the right one and you to agree with me. I am, indeed, looking for agreement, but on my terms, not in terms of objective truth. Instead of my following reason and leaving passion aside, passion is primary, and reason (if it has a role) works in the service of passion. Quite often, in order to end an argument, we agree to disagree.

And, below is another definition from a source HERE:

When you argue over something, it does not naturally follow that you will arrive at a satisfactory conclusion. When you discuss a particular topic, you will arrive at a conclusion. This is the major difference between discussing and arguing.

Mr. Rowley appears to believe that these definitions should be reversed, since he argues that I'm the one doing the arguing.  From my point of view, I'm trying to discuss subjects of mutual interest to see where disagreements might be resolved.  But, Mr. Rowley seems to have NO interest whatsoever in resolving anything.  He only wants to state his beliefs/opinions.  And, if I don't agree, then I'm starting an argument with him.

I can provide probably a hundred instances where he just changes the subject or disappears if I try to discuss something.  But, for the sake of discussion, I'll provide just one.  Long ago on another blog, Mr. Rowley wrote this when arguing that he doesn't believe a child wrote the anthrax letters:

Said another (high falutin’) way: the pragmatics of the social situation make using a child a high-risk stratagem. And an unnecessary one: short term one can fake certain elements of one’s printing/handwriting.

And I responded:

We have a different point of view about how to look at evidence. From my point of view, the FACTS say that a child wrote the letters. From your point of view, that’s not the way an intelligent adult would PLAN things.

I’m talking about what the facts say in an actual crime.
You’re talking about the planning of a theoretical crime.

When the facts say that a child wrote the letters, the questions become: How did Ivins manage to keep the kid quiet? Why did Ivins do things that way?

You don’t say: I don’t believe it because that’s not the way I would do things, nor is it the way I would expect anyone else to do things. That is ignoring what the facts say and going with your beliefs, instead.

Analyzing this exchange, it's easy to see that Mr. Rowley was arguing "apples," while I was trying to discuss "oranges."

He was arguing that the anthrax killer would do things the way he believes they were done.  

In hopes of discussing things, I pointed out that we were not talking about the same things.  He was talking about what would happen in some theoretical crime - or what he believes happened in the anthrax case, and I was talking about what the evidence says in the actual anthrax case.

But, Mr. Rowley generally refuses to discuss the evidence.  He argues that there is no evidence that says Bruce Ivins was the anthrax killer.  On rare occasions when I've managed to get him to discuss specific items of evidence, he will only argue that his interpretation of the law is correct and mine is wrong, regardless of how much evidence I show him that he is wrong.  His argument is that if the case isn't exactly the same as the Amerithrax case, then the law is different and one case cannot be used to discuss another.

There's no way to discuss something with a person if that person is not willing to accept the possibility that he is wrong.  As the definitions show, a discussion requires that the participants be willing to learn from one another.

I'm totally willing to discuss the evidence that a child wrote the anthrax documents.  For over a decade I've been looking for any compelling and overriding evidence that says a child did NOT write the anthrax documents. But, Anthrax Truthers will only argue that they do not believe it, therefore it cannot be true.  That leaves no room for discussion.

I'm totally willing to discuss the evidence that Dr. Bruce Ivins was the anthrax killer.  But Anthrax Truthers simply argue that there is no such evidence.  That leaves no room for discussion.

I'm totally willing to discuss the evidence that some unnamed criminal mastermind was behind the anthrax murders and many other crimes.  But Mr. Rowley generally refuses to provide such evidence, and where he has provided it (click HERE), he refuses to stay on topic.  That ends any attempt at discussion.

Ed