Sunday's comment on my web site was all about the trials and tribulations of finding a publisher for a book.
I'm in the process of trying to find a literary agent. On Friday, I received my first rejection letter. But, it was more positive than negative, since my first query email was badly written and didn't even include the chapter summaries. The response told me that agents still DO read email queries, and it told me that 15 days to get a response is probably not unusual.
I'm currently in the process of writing the Notes & References section of the book, which involves going back through all my research. That process also is also causing me to find things I didn't include in the book, and I have to wonder if I should add them or not.
So, I've got a lot of work left to do with the book while I'm continuing to send out queries to agents.
I also had an unexpected surprise when I started writing this blog entry. The format changed. It appeared that nothing works the way it formerly did -- until I found the option of going back to the old format.
Ed
Have you even read ANY of the leading 12 journal articles published on Amerithrax in 2012?
ReplyDeleteI read every article about Amerithrax I can find.
ReplyDeleteList the articles, and I'll tell you which ones I've read.
Ed
Darned, and I was hoping that youse two would start arguing about "heat shocking" and/or Renografin so's I could (maybe!) get some impression as to what the devil it's all about. But noooooo! All you guys want to do is compare journal articles!
ReplyDeleteC'mon, mix it up! (but no eye gouging!)
Richard,
ReplyDeleteI explain "heat shocking" in the April 23 comment on my web site.
I asked for the list of "12 journal articles" because I knew Anonymous would NOT post the list. If he did, we'd very likely see that most of the articles have absolutely nothing to do with Amerithrax. They'd be like his statements about "heat shocking." They'd be irrelevant information that has nothing to do with Amerithrax, but which Anonymous somehow feels are connected to the case due to his admitted total ignorance of science.
Ed
What did you think of the first sentence in Dr. Relman's article about the Amerithrax investigation and books on the subject? He was Vice Chair of the NAS panel reviewing the science in Amerithrax and does not share your understanding of things.
ReplyDeleteSeparately, your website is infected with a trojan virus. Putting aside your apparent not crediting that because as a lay person you could not detect it, why do you think a virus is nothing to be concerned about?
Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteIf Dr. Relman doesn't share my understanding of the case, that doesn't mean he's right. We view the case from different angles: He views the science as pure science. I view the science as it would be used and presented in court. Many scientists share my understanding of the case.
I contacted my web site host the first time you mentioned the "virus," and they told me there is no "trojan virus" on their system.
I have hundreds of regular readers, and none of them has reported any virus or Trojan Horse. (A Trojan Horse is NOT a virus.) So, only you seem to believe there is a "trojan virus" on the site, and you would be the last person I would consider an authority about such a thing. And, even if you were correct, there isn't anything more I can do if my web site host says you are wrong.
If there's a virus or a Trojan Horse on the site, what is it's name? Any software that detects it should also provide the name.
Ed
Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteDr. Relman didn't write and "article," he wrote a book review about Jean Guillemin's book "American Anthrax."
I commented on it in my March 4, 2012(D) comment. It's just Relman's opinions and therefore not of any scientific value.
I've read some of Laurie Garrett's book. I found it wildly incorrect, filled with ridiculous opinions and of no real value.
Ed
You did not read Dr. Relman's book review. You read a preview. That would explain why you mischaracterize his view and don't address it meaningfully.
ReplyDeleteYou did not read Laurie Garrett's book -- not even the sections relating to Amerithrax. You read only a preview. In your book proposal, are you going to disclose that you haven't even read the relevant literature to which you purport to respond?
Ed, as another example, why haven't you read the book chapter by Dr. Robertson of the FBI Laboratory Division, Counterterrorism and Forensic Science Research Unit and Jason Bannan of FBI Laboratory Division, Chemical and Biological Sciences Unit, Quantico, VA? Doesn't its discussion of the potential utility of lipid profiles in forensic investigations relating to the culturing of bacillus organisms in the context of specific examples from the literature -- and the validation considerations and quality assurance -- directly contradict your numerous lay assertions? Why haven't you read the other on-point chapters relating to the Amerithrax science?
You make all sorts of claims without even reading the relevant literature. In the 10 years you have been posting, to the best of my knowledge, you have never been to a library. You purport to address and characterize the views of authors without even having read their publications!
Randall Murch, former science head of Amerithrax in 2002, wrote in the Preface of the 2012 treatise that "A recent report issued by the National Academy of Sciences emphatically highlighted the weaknesses of many current forensic techniques and the need for new methods to have strong statistical foundations that are relevant to the courtroom.
ReplyDelete"With the exception of nuclear DNA analysis, however, no forensic method has been rigorously shown to have the capacity to consistently, and with a high degree of certainty, demonstrate a connection between evidence and a specific individual or source."
As a single example, in that 2012 treatise, you haven't read Kristin H. Jarman's 2012 piece on "Statistical Foundations and Data Integration of Microbial Forensics" and yet purport to be qualified to address such issues! You purport to disagree with David Relman, the Vice-Chair of the NAS committee that reviewed the science, without even having read his article! (And as a result you don't even know what he wrote). You purport to address Pulitzer Prize winning author Laurie Garrett's arguments in her book without even having read more than some excerpts available online! You haven't even read the 2012 forensic publication of the FBI authors, to include Dr. Bannan!
If you are interested in the subject of the anthrax mailings of Fall 2001, you should read the relevant literature written by the experts before you bother to post on the internet on the subject.
Your view a First Grader wrote the anthrax letters is certainly not informed by having read the relevant literature.
Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteDon't you realize how silly your arguments are???!
You're saying that if you have read something, I should have read it, too. And, if I haven't, that means you are more informed than I am and therefore right about everything.
That is just plain RIDICULOUS.
You also repeatedly say you have no comprehension of science, so you do not understand what you supposedly read.
The number of books and article you supposedly read have nothing to do with understanding the Amerithrax investigation. Understanding something means you can explain it to others and help them understand, too. YOU CANNOT EXPLAIN ANYTHING! All you do is babble endlessly and meaninglessly about irrelevant matters.
Just look at your most recent post to Lew's site:
"In Trial Testimony, Dr. Basson of South Africa’s “Project Coast” Reports He Visited Both Porton Down and USAMRIID; GAO, Did The Project Coast Virulent Ames Reportedly Had, Which Was Being Offered For Cash, Have 4 Morphs? Dr. Ivins Reports That The Former USAMRIID Scientist Who Went To Work For The CIA Had The Other Slant Of The Ames Strain Sent From Texas."
Don't you understand that all the Ames samples that contained the four morphs originated with flask RMR-1029?
Don't you understand that the original slants did not have the four morphs?
Don't you understand what caused the morphs to appear?
You don't seem to understand ANYTHING AT ALL about the science of the Amerithrax investigation. Nevertheless, you have unshakable beliefs on the subject.
I just received an email from you about a book titled "Chemical and Physical Signatures for Microbial Forensics."
Obviously, you cannot comprehend what is in the book. If you could, you wouldn't just be arguing about whether or not I've read it, you'd be arguing about FACTS in the book which support some argument of yours. The fact that you've looked at the pages in the book without understanding anything doesn't mean you have proved something of value.
My book is about what the FACTS say versus what people with opinions believed and continue to believe about the Amerithrax investigation.
My view that a first grader wrote the anthrax letters IS INDEED informed by having read the relevant literature. There is no relevant literature that says the letters were NOT written by a first grader. The FACTS, by any impartial measure, say that the letters were written by a first grader.
You cannot intelligently discuss the Amerithrax case because you have only opinions and ignore all the facts. And one of your most absurd opinions is your opinion that if I don't read what you read, I'm not well informed.
I understand what I read. You obviously do not understand what you read.
Ed
Ed Lakes writes: " There is no relevant literature that says the letters were NOT written by a first grader." (On this point, I would also note that Ed has not read the 2012 law review piece discussing Daubert and the analysis of the writing of the letters).
ReplyDeleteEd Lake has not read the 2011 book on Amerithrax by Pulitzer Prize winner Laurie Garrett and yet purports to address the arguments she makes in the lengthy book.
Ed Lake has not read the piece by David Relman on Amerithrax in SCIENCE and yet purports to address his points. (He evidences that he does not know what points Dr. Relman makes by misstating his argument).
Ed Lake has not read the 2012 book containing numerous chapters on the microbial forensics used in Amerithrax and yet purports to address the issues.
Ed Lake argues "There is no relevant literature that says the letters were NOT written by a first grader."
By all means, Ed Lake should read the literature on Amerithrax if he is in interested in the subject to the point where he wishes to have his view a First Grader wrote the anthrax letters to be published. The standard is for book proposals to include a section that describes what has been written and one's qualification for addressing the subject. It is presumed that the submitter has actually read the books and articles on the subject.
Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteDon't you have anything better to do than play games of "OneUpsManShip" where you argue that I haven't read what you've read therefore you are superior. I've already explained that that argument is just plain preposterous.
Don't worry about my book. If no agent wants to read it or if no publisher wants to publish it, I'll self-publish. For me, it's not a matter of persuading people to publish the book, it's a matter of getting the book into print so that I can move on to other things. Eleven years is enough time to spend on this subject.
Unlike you, I'm not out to convert to world to my beliefs. I just want to present my findings to anyone who cares to read them, and to put two copies in the Library of Congress.
I fully expect to self-publish only about 300 copies which I'll sell via Barnes and Noble's web site. Plus I'll sell ebooks via Kindle. If I find a regular publisher, it will be a pleasant surprise. But, it's not something I depend upon or even expect to happen.
I realize I'm just a guy on the Internet and don't have the impressive credentials that most publishers look for. On the other hand, the publishing business isn't what it used to be. Publishers recognize that "bloggers" are now part of the Universe.
So, we'll see what happens.
Ed
"Don't you have anything better to do than play games of "OneUpsManShip" where you argue that I haven't read what you've read therefore you are superior."
ReplyDeleteThe comments are posted above and that's not what they say. They say that you have not read material central to the subject and you should go read the material. That's precisely the problem with your approach. You don't address the arguments or points actually being made -- often because you haven't even read them.
Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteThe materials to which you refer are NOT "central to the subject." They are either materials which you can distort to support your beliefs, or they are irrelevant to the Amerithrax investigation.
If you have some FACTS ABOUT THE CASE to argue, argue them. Do not waste my time by arguing that because I haven't read what you've read, you are superior. As I've stated, that's just a brainless game of "OneUPsManShip." It's as STUPID as Stuart's argument that I don't drive a new car, and therefore his arguments are superior to mine.
I may not have a reading list that is identical to yours, but what I read I at least TRY to understand. All you appear to do is place books and articles in a stack and try to argue that your stack is taller than my stack, therefore you understand the case better than I do.
Ed
David Relman explains in the article you suggest is not "central to the subject" explains:
ReplyDeleteThe National Research Council (NRC)
committee found that it is impossible to arrive at a definitive conclusion
about the origin of the letter spores based on the available scientific
evidence alone. The scientific data generated by and on behalf of the
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) provided leads as to a possible source
(flask RMR-1029) but did not rule out other sources. In contrast, the
Department of Justice’s Amerithrax Investigative Summary states conclusively
that the flask was the source of the spores in the letters. …
******
There were problems with the representativeness
of the FBI repository of B. anthracis samples against which the letter
material was compared. The FBI failed to aggressively pursue an alternative
explanation: that some of the mutations in the letters might have arisen by
parallel evolution rather than by derivation from the flask. Similar kinds
of mutations are known to occur with large-scale production of anthrax
spores using bulk serial passaging (1). Guillemin also ignores other NRC
criticisms, including questions about the reliability of the genetic assays
used to look in the repository for the mutations found in the letters. In
addition, she describes some of the details of the science-based
investigation incorrectly, such as the number of positive samples from a
clandestine effort to assess a possible overseas source of the spores and
the number of collection missions that yielded positive samples. Although
seemingly minor, these incorrect descriptions of the scientific findings may
lend credence to the Department of Justice’s overstated conclusions …”
Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteThat's about what I figured. Relman said nothing they didn't say in the NAS report. He's just saying that science alone doesn't completely rule out some other source for the anthrax. I.e., it is scientifically possible the attack spores came from alien invaders living on the moon.
Dr. Relman is arguing scientific certitude while the DOJ was looking for evidence to present in court to prove a legal case. Those are totally different objectives. Dr. Relman blindly ignores all the supporting evidence that showed that Ivins was the anthrax mailer. He only looked at the science. The science just reduced the number of possible suspects, it did NOT pinpoint a specific suspect.
So, there's nothing new in Dr. Relman's remarks. They've all be addressed by me, by the DOJ and by others. Here's what the DOJ said:
"“The committee’s Report reiterates what is and is not possible to establish through science alone in a criminal investigation of this magnitude. The committee’s focus was on the more novel scientific approaches used in this investigation and did not review the traditional forensic methods and techniques employed or the significant body of evidence gathered through traditional law enforcement techniques. The committee also concluded that it is not possible to reach a definitive conclusion about the origins of the B. anthracis in the mailings based on the available scientific evidence alone. The FBI has long maintained that while science played a significant role, it was the totality of the investigative process that determined the outcome of the anthrax case. Although there have been great strides in forensic science over the years, rarely does science alone solve an investigation. The scientific findings in this case provided investigators with valuable investigative leads that led to the identification of the late Dr. Bruce Ivins as the perpetrator of the anthrax attacks."
So, you've made it clear that Dr. Relman really had nothing new to say, and reading all of his book review would just have been a waste of time.
Ed
Speaking of aliens, Ed Lake did not read the book of the key witness that alleged that Dr. Ivins had a murderous plot in July 2000 -- the same witness who annotated the psychiatrists records. She reports that she was controlled by an alien who had implanted a microchip in her butt. The alien would give her instructions at night.
ReplyDeleteShe would have emergency exorcisms after meeting with her patients who had murderous astral entities attached to them. Those entities would pursue her and she would protect herself by a vortex of light. This is ironic given how often resorts to references to aliens!
Heck, Ed hasn't even read the literature on children's handwriting relevant to his decade's-long advocacy that a First Grader wrote the anthrax letters!
Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteYou continue to make it abundantly clear that you read irrelevant crap that says nothing about the evidence in the Amerithrax case. And you criticize others for not reading the same irrelevant crap.
You have a big stack of crap that you've read but didn't understand, but because your stack of irrelevant crap is bigger than my stack of relevant material, you argue the size of the stacks means you know more about the case.
Your arguments are endless nonsense.
Ed
To the contrary, Ed, your reliance on the witness is central to your smear of Dr. Ivins. She explains in her book that during the period she was psychotic but was protected from that diagnosis by her husband. If you informed yourself by research and reading, you would not have continued to have relied on her claims.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous,
ReplyDeleteIvins' first psychiatrist, Dr. Naomi Heller, stated that Ivins had thoughts and plans about poisoning Nancy Haigwood because Haigwood wouldn't return Ivins' overtures of friendship. When Heller heard about the anthrax attacks, she immediately suspected that it could have been done by Ivins.
Dr. David Irwin, Ivins' second psychiatrist stated that Ivins had plans to make a bomb and was "homicidal" and had "sociopathic intentions." He also said that Ivins was the "scariest" patient he'd ever had.
When Ivins told counselor Judith McLean about his plan to poison Mara Linscott, McLean had psychiatrist Dr. Orrin Palmer talk with Ivins. She also had Dr. Irwin talk with Ivins. McLean did nothing improper. She did everything correctly.
When Ivins told counselor Jean Duley and psychologist Wendy Levy about his plans to murder his co-workers at USAMRIID, they also consulted with others before calling the police.
Judith McLean's role in the case is very minor. She did everything properly, and everything she said about Ivins was verified. But, you found a way to attack her personally, so you want everyone else to do the same and to ignore everything she said. Even if we ignored what she said, there are still the statements from Dr. Heller, Dr. Irwin, Jean Duley and Dr. Wendy Levy.
You do not understand the science of the case, and you do not agree with the other facts about the case, so you rely on "experts" with ignorant opinions, like Dr. Relman, and you ignore the facts which show that Relman was ignorant and wrong in his statements.
This case has been a battle between "experts" from the very beginning. It's been all about deciding which "experts" are voicing only ignorant opinions, and which are citing solid facts. You rely on the ignorant opinions. I look at the facts.
The facts say beyond any reasonable doubt that Bruce Ivins was the anthrax killer.
Ed
Ed, have you read Amber Dance's article regarding the analysis of genetic sequencing lagging behind sequencing? It was in the October 2011 issue of Nature Medicine. You are not qualified to address scientific issues -- but importantly you don't even read the literature.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous,
ReplyDeleteI read the literature. More importantly, I understand the literature.
You clearly do not understand anything in Amber Dance's article, since you do not cite anything from it, you just return to your ridiculous, nonsensical argument that you have a bigger stack of articles, but even though you do not comprehend what is in the articles, the size of the stack somehow means you are more knowledgeable about the case than I am.
If there is something in the article that is of value, why don't you cite it instead of merely asking if I've read it? Your description says it is another irrelevant article.
I've read countless articles about the case and about the science used in the case. Understanding is not about how MANY articles a person has read, it's about how much one COMPREHENDS. And, I tend to read RELEVANT material.
You obviously comprehend nothing, since you cannot argue about anything other that that you believe you have looked at articles I haven't looked at.
You're wasting my time with these asinine questions about what I've read and what I haven't read. I've got better things to do.
Ed
Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteFYI, I just uploaded a list of .pdf files related to the case that I tried to maintain for years. It's currently 67 pages long and is at this link: http://www.anthraxinvestigation.com/PDF-Directory-new.pdf
I read and save every scientific article related to the anthrax attacks of 2001 that I can find. The list may contain some duplications, since articles sometimes appear in different places with different pdf file names. Plus, I probably have many dozens that aren't on the list because I gave up on trying to keep the list up-to-date. It was just too much work, and my time was better spent on things other than maintaining the list.
Have you read all the articles on this list? I have.
Ed
Yes, I have Ed. You'll recall that I give you the articles and book chapters. You haven't stepped foot in a library in the past decade. For example, I sent you the copy of the last scanned Microbial Forensics book that you otherwise would never have seen.
ReplyDeleteOn the subject of "elemental signatures," if you were to read the 2012 article, which you won't, you would see that an Ivins Theory garners no support from:
Developing an integrated proteo-genomic approach for the characterisation of biomarkers for the identification of Bacillus anthraces.
Journal of Microbiological Methods; Feb2012, Vol. 88 Issue 2, p237-247, 11p
Document Type:
Article
Subject Terms:
*BACILLUS anthracis
*ANTHRAX
*BIOCHEMICAL markers
*METHODOLOGY
*MASS spectrometry
*SILICON
*LIQUID chromatography
*BIOINFORMATICS
*PEPTIDES
You haven't even read Laurie Garrett's 2011 book on Amerithrax!
ReplyDeleteAnonymous,
ReplyDeleteIf you've read the articles, it's clear you do not comprehend what is in them since you cannot discuss them. All you can discuss is how many articles you've read.
Who cares if "an Ivins Theory garners no support" from X, Y or Z?
It's not about theories, it's about what the facts say. And the facts say that Ivins was the anthrax mailer beyond any reasonable doubt.
Ed
Ed, I regularly consult the top scientists (e.g., Kiel) and then I quote them. You are the fellow who presumes to address science even though you have no qualification to do so.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous wrote: "Ed, I regularly consult the top scientists (e.g., Kiel) and then I quote them."
ReplyDeleteYou still do not understand. Consulting "top scientists" and then quoting them is meaningless if those scientists are just giving opinions.
The anthrax case was plagued by "top scientists" giving STUPID opinions based upon ignorance of the facts. It appears that there is no idea so stupid that you can't get a "top scientist" to say something quotable in favor of it.
Some of the most ridiculous quotes in the case have come from:
1. Dr. Barbara Hatch Rosenberg
2. Dr. Richard Spertzel
3. Dr. Francis A. Boyle
4. Dr. Peter Jahrling
5. Dr. Stuart Jacobsen
You demonstrated that when you quoted Dr. Relman.
Quotable nonsense from scientists who have opinions that agree with your opinions is worthless. It's worse than worthless. It's counter-productive.
Arguing opinions against opinions is a STUPID waste of time. That's why I concentrated on the facts.
When I consult with scientists, I do so to check the facts, NOT to get their opinions. I've consulted with everyone from Paul Keim to Joe Michael to Matthew Meselson to Ken Alibek to FBI scientists. I could go on and on. William Patrick III endorsed and provided a review for my first book.
If my facts are wrong, tell me where they are wrong. Don't just claim they must be wrong because you don't like my credentials. That is asinine. It confirms you do not understand the facts and cannot discuss the facts, you can only attack people who disagree with your OPINIONS.
But, that's what you've been doing for the past ten years, so I don't expect you to change now.
Ed
Okay, Ed. You say it is FACT a First Grader wrote the letters.
ReplyDeleteYou are wrong. You are True Believer to persist for 10 years when not even a single person on the planet has agreed.
BTW, Dr. Boyle of course has a doctorate in political science. And I have never relied on on Dr. Spertzel, Dr. Boyle or Dr. Jahrling. But getting basic facts right is not your strong point.
With respect to questions of processing, I rely on people who have actually made aerosolized virulent anthrax or anthrax simulant, to include the FBI's expert JE, who made a dried powder out of Ames provided from Flask 1029. I interviewed him on film.
Dr. Kiel, who headed a military lab making aerosolized simulates, conducted controlled experiments as he and his labs noodled over the possible cause of the silicon signal and provided me the images.
You should not be addressing things beyond your ken and obtain and read the relevant documents. For example, I obtained a couple dozen documents showing what Dr. Ivins was doing in the laboratory when the FBI incorrectly claimed he had no reason to be in the lab. You don't cite those 25 or so documents relating to the 52 rabbits in his B3 lab for good reason. Because, without more, they destroy all of the case there ever was against Dr. Ivins. As for the genetics, they winnowed things from 700-1000 to 200-300. Are you really that inexperienced in true crime analysis that 200-300 is not the sort of number that constitutes a prosecutable case? The folks at USAMRIID regularly had access to both the strain that was matching and the strains the Ames that were not. It did not point to Dr. Ivins in the east any more than 200+. There is no other science that in any way points to Dr. Ivins. Not hair, fiber, ink, paper, isotopes, culture medium, processing, etc. You rely on hearsay regarding events from the early 1980s -- which would not even be admissible for a variety of reasons. But of course you are not qualified to address the federal rules governing criminal prosecutions either.
As for discussing the evidence, I regularly address the dozens of pieces of documentary evidence -- most of which I obtained from FOIA over the course of the past two years from USAMRIID.
ReplyDeletehttp://caseclosedbylewweinstein.wordpress.com/2012/04/27/chemical-and-physical-signatures-for-microbial-forensics-2012-excerpt-from-preface/#comments
You are the one who makes no attempt to obtain the relevant documents.
Anonymous wrote: "You say it is FACT a First Grader wrote the letters."
ReplyDeleteNONSENSE. I have NEVER said that.
I've said that the FACTS say that a first grader wrote the anthrax letters.
And I ask people to provide FACTS which say otherwise. No one has.
It's an hypothesis that I put forward for challenge. No one has provided any FACTS to challenge it. There are only people like you, who have other theories and who do not believe the facts.
Anonymous also wrote: "I obtained a couple dozen documents showing what Dr. Ivins was doing in the laboratory when the FBI incorrectly claimed he had no reason to be in the lab. You don't cite those 25 or so documents relating to the 52 rabbits in his B3 lab for good reason. Because, without more, they destroy all of the case there ever was against Dr. Ivins.
MORE NONSENSE. You present irrelevant documents and CLAIM they have a meaning they do not have. That's been your argument for the past ten years: presenting meaningless information and CLAIMING it means something.
If you have information that the FBI is wrong, EXPLAIN how your information PROVES that the FBI is wrong. Don't just post irrelevant material and CLAIM that it means something.
You demonstrate again and again and again and again that you are INCAPABLE of EXPLAINING anything because you UNDERSTAND NOTHING. You only have beliefs. And you believe that everything the FBI has not fully explained somehow proves what you believe. It doesn't. The FBI didn't fully explain it because it was IRRELEVANT.
Furthermore, your arguments are clearly with the FBI, not with me. You point out that the FBI "winnowed things from 700-1000 to 200-300" and then accuse me of being so inexperienced that I don't know that "200-300 is not the sort of number that constitutes a prosecutable case". In your fantasy world, at what point does what the FBI did become my fault?
Your arguments are nonsense and preposterous. They are nonsense because they are nonsensical claims about irrelevant materials, and they are preposterous because you blame me for everything the FBI did.
But, you are doing one thing correctly: You are showing people who view this blog that your arguments are totally ridiculous.
Ed
Anonymous wrote: "You are the one who makes no attempt to obtain the relevant documents."
ReplyDeleteThat's the biggest laugh of the week.
Right now, I'm in the process of putting together the "Notes & Resources" section of my new book. That means I'm working every day to add the tiny footnote numbers in the text and then add an entry in the "Notes & Resources" section explaining where the information in the text came from.
Some of the information came from the DOJ Summary Report.
Some of the information came from 2,720 pages of FBI documents released with the DOJ Summary Report.
Some of the information came from The National Academy of Sciences' "Review of the Scientific Approaches Used During the FBI's Investigation of the Anthrax Attacks of 2001."
Some of the information came from the 9,600 pages of supplementary information released with the NAS review.
Some of the information came from the Expert Behavioral Analysis Panel report.
Some of the information came from USAMRIID's files of Bruce Ivins' emails and other documents related to the case.
Some of the information came from the UCLA's Department of Epidemiology's web site about the case.
Some of the information came from the hundreds of scientific articles I read that relate to the case.
Some of the information came from the thousands of newspaper articles I've read about the case.
Some of the information came from David Willmans' book, from Richard Preston's book or from Marilyn Thompson's book.
And you ridiculously argue that I make "no attempt to obtain the relevant documents."
You are looking for documents which you can distort to make them fit your own theory. You are re-investigating the case in an attempt to DISPROVE the FBI's findings. But, all you really do is restate your belief that the FBI is wrong.
The FACTS say that the FBI was right. Ivins WAS the anthrax killer. The only additional material I need to obtain via FOIA requests is detail information to fill in the blanks. And I've done that by talking with people who have the FACTS and by submitting FOIA requests.
Your arguments are just getting more and more ridiculous.
But they are amusing and they do provide a good laugh from time to time.
Ed
Is it that you don't understand how Daubert applies to opinion testimony re the handwriting? what you call your "hypothesis" i.e., your opinion?
ReplyDeleteOh, yes. I remember. You haven't read the 2012 article about how Daubert applies to opinion testimony re the handwriting in the letters.
Anonymous wrote: "Is it that you don't understand how Daubert applies to opinion testimony re the handwriting?"
ReplyDeleteYou still do not understand. I am NOT - repeat NOT making a legal case to take to court. To suggest I am is totally preposterous. YOU are trying to re-investigate the case, not me.
The FBI and DOJ were responsible for taking the case to court, NOT ME.
All I'm doing is presenting my analysis of the case to whoever wants to read it. Nothing more. I'm filling in details to help people understand the case, not because I plan to use those details in court.
You just endlessly confuse me with the FBI and with the DOJ. I am not responsible for things you think the FBI did wrong. I am not responsible for taking the case against Ivins to court.
You really NEED to try to understand that.
Ed
Anonymous just sent me a personal email which stated: "Ed, you've made yourself irrelevant to the matter by not addressing the issues being addressed by the GAO
ReplyDeleteIf I'm irrelevant, why are you arguing with me?
Is it because you do NOT think I'm irrelevant?
And what issues being addressed by the GAO haven't I addressed? Or did you mean to say that I haven't addressed the nonsense you endlessly ask the GAO to address?
Ed
You are explaining the theory to "whoever wants to read it."
ReplyDeleteYour argument had been firmed up in 2002 and yet you never even collected additional samples of children. So in those 10 years, no one who read it found it persuasive. It is time for a reality check. If you want to be published, you should read the literature and the documents -- and then stay current upon issuance of the GAO report. Putting in book form what not a single person found persuasive in 10 years is not the way to get published.
10 years ago you wrote:
"I realize that people find it hard to accept that a child might have been used to write the anthrax letters, and I'm not actually stating that is true. "
Your argument in 2002 is the same as today.
http://web.archive.org/web/20020301105702/http://www.anthraxinvestigation.com/writing1.html
Not a SINGLE person has found the argument persuasive. Except as we discussed, the fellow who made the suggestion first.
Ed, it is time for a reality check. No expert agrees finds your argument. No lay person -- no potential person that would serve on a jury -- finds your argument persuasive.
And your opinion evidence would not be admissible under Daubert. And responsible commentary addresses evidence that is reliable -- not opinions that are not.
Not only did you not adequately sample children's handwriting or submit it to any controlled (blind) test, you didn't collect samples from new ESL students. Thus, immediately, your hypothesis that the block writing was done by someone who just learned to write English runs afoul of testing the related (more common sense) hypothesis -- that the person who just learned to write English was an adult part of a well-established plan to use anthrax against US targets. You don't even know that the person with the leg lesion had just learned to write English.
ReplyDeleteThis wouldn't pass as a 5th grader's science fair project because there was no blind testing at all.
You seem to care about the issue very much -- one would think you would spend an hour or two seeking to develop the argument. Rather than writing essays about hyphenation.
I strongly encourage you to pursue the hypothesis. Collect samples. Submit for blind testing.
Eyeballing the exemplars you have chosen, the suggestion doesn't pass the giggle test.
Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteIt's really not that hard to understand. You just let your fantasies confuse you.
At one time, everyone in the world believed the earth was FLAT. That didn't make it flat. The number of people who believe in something has NOTHING to do with whether it is true or not.
The FACTS say that a child wrote the anthrax letters. The number of people who do not believe the facts has NOTHING to do with whether the hypothesis is true or not.
If the hypothesis is wrong, it must be proved wrong with FACTS. In ten years, no one has even attempted to do so.
And, you're wrong when you say, "Not a single person has found the argument persuasive." Over the years I've received emails from a number of people who found the argument persuasive. I just didn't mention it because it means nothing. It's not about how many people believe this or that, it's about what the facts say.
Anonymous also wrote: "responsible commentary addresses evidence that is reliable -- not opinions that are not"
Exactly! The FACTS say that a child wrote the anthrax letters. Therefore, it is reliable until proved otherwise.
Opinions like yours, that the facts mean nothing because you do not believe the facts, are irresponsible.
Ed
Anonymous wrote: "Not only did you not adequately sample children's handwriting or submit it to any controlled (blind) test, you didn't collect samples from new ESL students."
ReplyDeleteYou continue to misrepresent and/or ignore the evidence instead of trying to understanding it.
The evidence is NOT about whether the handwriting matches some other child's handwriting or how the average first grader writes. So, comparisons to other children's handwriting would mean little or nothing at all.
I attempted to get some children's handwriting samples, but the school teachers I talked with were afraid that they'd get into some kind of trouble with the school board if they went along. The only meaningful handwriting samples would have to include samples on the first day of first grade versus samples from the same child a month into first grade. I've looked for such samples, but I've not been able to find them.
Besides, the main facts of the hypothesis are not altered by handwriting samples:
1A. The writer changed the size of his handwriting between the first letters and the second. His lettering in the second mailing was roughly HALF the size of the lettering in the first mailing.
1B. Adults to not change the size of their handwriting one month versus the next when writing on the same size envelopes and paper.
1C. In kindergarten children write on blank paper, and they write BIG. In first grade, children are taught to write smaller by writing on lined paper.
2A. The writer didn't use punctuation in the first letter but did use punctuation in the second letter.
2B. Adults do not suddenly start using punctuation when they previously did not.
2C. Children are taught about punctuation in first grade.
3A. Between mailings, the writer learned the proper way of drawing certain letters of the alphabet
3B. Adults write from experience, they are not constantly learning how to properly write characters of the alphabet.
3C. In kindergarten, children are taught to write by copying what they see on the blackboard. In first grade, they are instructed on the PROPER way to draw each character of the alphabet.
The handwriting differences are clearly explained by the differences between kindergarten and first grade writing. The handwriting samples we have of the 9/11 terrorists clearly do NOT match the anthrax letter handwriting in any way. The terrorists' handwriting is ADULT handwriting and shows the confidence an adult has when writing, even when writing in a language that is not his native language.
Ed
Ed, this email from September 17 was withheld for 4 years.
ReplyDeletehttp://caseclosedbylewweinstein.wordpress.com/2012/03/01/doj-for-4-years-withheld-this-email-message-0438-written-by-bruce-ivins-on-the-date-of-alleged-mailing-of-deadly-anthrax-gao-should-obtain-a-full-set-of-emails-from-doj-including-those-that-doj/comment-page-1/#comment-17526
The DOJ and FBI directed John P of USMRC to pull certain emails. They vetted the production in batches over the course of two years. Numerous emails from September and October 2001 still need to be produced. Do you agree that contemporaneous emails are very good evidence of who did what when?
On the subject of handwriting analysis, Ed, I definitely agree with you that the GAO should obtain the FBI all handwriting analyses and disclose them. Handwriting regarding matches are admissible under Daubert. Moreover, I think the FBI's handwriting analysis from 2001 would also readily meet Daubert standards.
ReplyDelete" The terrorists' handwriting is ADULT handwriting and shows the confidence an adult has when writing, even when writing in a language that is not his native language. "
ReplyDeleteReally? Which of the terrorists who recently learned english from KSM are you referring to? You don't know anything about ANY of the Al Qaeda operatives. You have never even mentioned Yazid Sufaat or Rauf Ahmad's name. You are not even writing on the same subject as the GAO. You have been dwelling on First Graders for the past 10 years -- ignoring the actual true crime and intelligence analysis implicated by Amerithrax investigation.
Anonymous wrote: "Do you agree that contemporaneous emails are very good evidence of who did what when?"
ReplyDeleteI agree. But, the email you cite was written at 10:20 a.m. on the morning of the 17th of September, 2001. And the in-out logs show that Ivins was at work that morning, so the email adds nothing of significance.
Your argument appears to be that, if the government doesn't produce documents as fast as you want, they are not living up to your standards. Yet, you never seem to be able to find anything that means anything. You demand documents, the documents are produced, and you just complain they weren't produced fast enough. It's the only argument you seem to have. You never seem to find anything that has any significance in the case. Or, if you do, you never seem to be able to EXPLAIN what the significance is.
Anonymous also wrote: "Ed, I definitely agree with you that the GAO should obtain the FBI all handwriting analyses and disclose them."
I don't think I've ever said anything even remotely like that.
However, it would be interesting to see all the different "expert" opinions about the handwriting in one place, even if it wouldn't mean anything. The FBI as already pointed out that the handwriting findings are inconclusive. Showing the details would only confirm that the handwriting experts don't agree on much of anything.
Anonymous also wrote: "You don't know anything about ANY of the Al Qaeda operatives. "
I compared handwriting samples from Mohammed Atta to the anthrax handwriting in my January 25, 2012 comment, showing how dramatically and conclusively different Atta's handwriting was.
On August 6, 2006, I created a supplemental web page where I examined the handwriting of Zacarias Moussaoui and Marwan Al-Shehhi. The page is here: http://www.anthraxinvestigation.com/handwriting2.html
Anonymous also wrote: "You are not even writing on the same subject as the GAO. You have been dwelling on First Graders for the past 10 years -- ignoring the actual true crime and intelligence analysis implicated by Amerithrax investigation."
I reality, of course, it makes no difference to me what subjects the GAO is covering. My analysis is MY analysis, not the GAO's.
And, the actual "true crime and intelligence analysis implicated by the Amerithrax investigation" has been my focus for 10 years. The FBI and I just don't believe as "Anonymous" believes. We work with facts. "Anonymous" works only with beliefs.
Ed
Ed, you refer to Atta, Moussaoui and Marwan Al-Shehhi were the operatives who recently learned English? On what basis? You apparently don't even know which operatives learned English recently and which were fluent. By all means, if you think there is reliable evidence that the writer recently learned evidence, then obtain writing exemplars of the Al Qaeda operatives in the US who recently learned English. You haven't done that.
ReplyDeleteAnonymouse wrote: "Ed, you refer to Atta, Moussaoui and Marwan Al-Shehhi were the operatives who recently learned English?"
ReplyDeleteNonsense. I did no such thing. I referred to them as the 9/11 terrorists whose handwriting I'd compared to the handwriting on the anthrax letters.
Since the FACTS say the anthrax letters were written by a child in Ivins' wife's day care center, there was no reason to hunt for samples of any other 9/11 terrorists' handwriting.
Ed
Even after the documents were linked and uploaded, Ed would disregard what they said.
ReplyDeleteI wrote:
"You should not be addressing things beyond your ken and obtain and read the relevant documents. For example, I obtained a couple dozen documents showing what Dr. Ivins was doing in the laboratory when the FBI incorrectly claimed he had no reason to be in the lab. You don't cite those 25 or so documents relating to the 52 rabbits in his B3 lab for good reason. Because, without more, they destroy all of the case there ever was against Dr. Ivins. As for the genetics, they winnowed things from 700-1000 to 200-300. Are you really that inexperienced in true crime analysis that 200-300 is not the sort of number that constitutes a prosecutable case? The folks at USAMRIID regularly had access to both the strain that was matching and the strains the Ames that were not. It did not point to Dr. Ivins in the east any more than 200+. There is no other science that in any way points to Dr. Ivins. Not hair, fiber, ink, paper, isotopes, culture medium, processing, etc. You rely on hearsay regarding events from the early 1980s -- which would not even be admissible for a variety of reasons. But of course you are not qualified to address the federal rules governing criminal prosecutions either.
As for discussing the evidence, I regularly address the dozens of pieces of documentary evidence -- most of which I obtained from FOIA over the course of the past two years from USAMRIID.
http://caseclosedbylewweinstein.wordpress.com/2012/04/27/chemical-and-physical-signatures-for-microbial-forensics-2012-excerpt-from-preface/#comments
You are the one who makes no attempt to obtain the relevant documents."
Ed Lake wrote:
"The FACTS say that a child wrote the anthrax letters. Therefore, it is reliable until proved otherwise.
Opinions like yours, that the facts mean nothing because you do not believe the facts, are irresponsible."
http://anthraxdebate.blogspot.com/2012/04/apr-22-apr-29-2012-discussions.html