The main part of my comment on Sunday May 27 was about an article in Clinician's Biosecurity News where yet another scientists states his uninformed and incorrect beliefs about the Amerithrax investigation.
Then I wrote about another scientist who has been on my email forum for a decade, and who suddenly broke a long silence to send me the article from Clinician's Biosecurity News. When I pointed out the errors in the article, the scientist went into his standard mode of arguing his beliefs against my facts and his credentials versus my credentials. And, in my Sunday comment I explained how that left no possible way to reach any kind of mutual understanding.
Which brings us back to last week's discussion with Richard Rowley on this blog. I tried to explain to him how we have no basis for communication, since he believes facts mean nothing if he can find other meanings for the facts, and I believe that facts are the key to understanding everything, and even if the facts can sometimes be misleading, it's still necessary to stick to finding and examining the facts until it becomes certain what the facts actually mean.
While waiting for an agent to tell me what she thinks of my new book, I'm finding myself with a lot of time on my hands. I'm also waiting on some new materials from Freedom of Information Act requests I sent to the FBI and to USAMRIID, which means I can't start on the final version of my book until I learn if I'm going to get the requested information. So, that probably explains why I spent a lot of time last week philosophizing about the fundamentals of person to person communication.
Ed
Hello
ReplyDelete+ The discussion between Mr. Rowley and you left me confused. I was surprised by the references to the Nazis, Chile, 1776, etc .... was a strange mix.
+ The theory of the child writer reminded me of the problem calligraphic in the case of the Zodiac murderer (California) and the confusion of the calligraphic experts. I expected to find evidence of child contact, children can be very "sticky", I mean remnants of chocolate, sugar, juices, mucus in the notes ..... The idea of a child with latex gloves writing amuse me, and this would be memorable for a child.
- Now I'm reading the report of the panel of experts in analysis of behavior and I am surprised as he could overcome the security measures in order to work in this laboratory. I'm surprised too that was not imprisoned or tried for harassing several women. Why the members of the fraternity failed to protect one of their partners?. Really there is no record of stay in prison, suit or criminal indictment?
Bye.
Joseph,
ReplyDeleteThe child writer hypothesis is based upon some solid facts: (1A) The writer wrote smaller in the second mailing than in the first. (1B)Children are taught to write smaller in first grade, where they use lined paper to help them write smaller. (2A) The writer didn't use punctuation in the first letter, but he did in the second letter. (2B) Children are taught about punctuation in first grade. (3A) The writer changed the way he drew certain letters of the alphabet when he wrote the second letter, he drew the letters properly. (3B) In first grade, children are taught how to properly draw letters of the alphabet, in kindergarten they just copy what they see on a blackboard. (4) The letters were sent just as children were starting a new year. (5) Ivins' wife ran a day care center in their home.
Joseph wrote: "I'm surprised too that was not imprisoned or tried for harassing several women. Why the members of the fraternity failed to protect one of their partners?. Really there is no record of stay in prison, suit or criminal indictment?"
There was no arrest of any kind, so there was no criminal indictment or stay in prison. Bruce Ivins was viewed as eccentric and harmless. The woman (Nancy Haigwood) he harassed didn't file a complaint with the police.
Ed
Last week, but in the thread of two weeks ago, I gave an overarching look at my hypothesis, but since I was working off the top of my head, without looking at notes, I left out a couple
ReplyDeleteof incidents. The new version:
------------------------------------------------------
Just to be as clear as possible (without giving too much away!) about my hypothesis in its totality:
The same person:
1) sent* the petri dish in April of 1997 to B'nai Br'ith.
2) sent* white powder mailings to news outlets in 1999:
-----
February 1999 (B): There is another hoax anthrax attack (see April 24, 1997). A handful of envelopes with almost identical messages are sent to a combination of media and government targets including The Washington Post, NBC's Atlanta office, a post office in Columbus, Georgia (next to Fort Benning, an Army base), and the Old Executive Office Building in Washington. The letters contained fake anthrax powder.
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/timeline/AAanthrax.html
--------
3) sent* the Amerithrax letters of 2001.
4) sent* the St Pete hoax letters of 2001.
5) sent* the TOWN OF QUANTICO letter of Sept 2001.
6) sent* an anthrax-simulant mailing to a Reno, Nevada Microsoft office via Malaysia.
7) sent* the anthrax-contaminated mailing to Antonio Banfi in 2001.
8) sent* ricin through the mails in late 2003/early 2004(?), signing himself "Fallen Angel" and claiming to be in the trucking industry (again, a totally bogus story).
9) sent* the threatening Goldman Sachs letters of 2007.
10) sent* the Goldman Sachs apology letters of 2007.
11) sent* the "jihad boom" threatening postcards in Florida in 2007.
The use of the verb "send" is not meant to imply that the perp HIMSELF dropped these mailings off at a mailbox or post office.
In most instances he used a distribution network, of at least 4 persons, to accomplish all this. He likely sent the actually powders in baggies within an overnight deliverey box/envelope, with instructions as to how they were to be handled, opened so as to leave no forensic clues (fingerprints/fibers etc.
Nor do I assume that the above is a comprehensive list of his terrorist-fun activities. He's too old to have started in 1997.
Richard,
ReplyDeleteIt's an amusing theory. And the fact that you have absolutely no facts to support it makes it almost hilarious.
Ed
Richard Rowley wrote: "6) sent* an anthrax-simulant mailing to a Reno, Nevada Microsoft office via Malaysia."
ReplyDeleteFYI, there was no "anthrax-simulant" in the Reno letter. It was just a returned check which some dissatisfied customer in Malaysia returned to Microsoft after spitting or pissing on it. He also sent some pornography with the returned check. The spit or piss set off a false positive reading. It was later determined to be just a false positive reading. There was no anthrax nor any "simulant" in the letter.
So, the fact that you assume that your suspect also sent that returned check from Malaysia just shows how absurd your beliefs are.
Ed
What did I say last week about Mister Lake's penchant for categorizing his opponents etc.? Let's see: (partial)
ReplyDelete---------
because of your appalling inability to DISTINGUISH a fact from an explanation (here 'explanation'= an interpretation of some event/feature/true 'fact'). From long exposure to your writings it's clear to me that you have a sort of labelling/categorizing mania, which begins with designating all of your interlocutors "True Believers" "Conspiracy Theorists" and the like. This resembles the Christians of centuries ago who labelled those of different faiths 'pagans', 'savages' etc. Naturally this doesn't make for a fruitful dialogue, because your running assumption is: you're right, the OTHER PERSON has foolish ideas, argues in an irrational way, is ignorant of the subject under discussion etc. and your one true hope is to enlighten them.
---------------
And voila! Here's the proof: (Mister Lake today)
----------------------------------------------------------
So, the fact that you assume that your suspect also sent that returned check from Malaysia just shows how absurd your beliefs are.
---------------------------------------------------------
Simple 'returned checks' don't give even FALSE positive readings for anthrax. "Piss" and "spit" don't have the same chemical composition, so this "fact" is wrong too.
Of course, of my 11 points above the most likely one to be mistaken is the Malaysian mailing, but there are reasons I can't go into as to why it fits the overall pattern. But I won't mind in the slightest if I'm wrong.
-------------------------------------
I did a short run-through over the weekend of a fraction of the North Texas text and it's from the same perp as #s 1-11 (though POSSIBLY minus #6). It fits in chronologically too, as I have NOTHING (that I can recall) in the way of threatening communications from the Perp beyond 2007 and the North Texas mailings evidently began in 2008. Continuing to this year.
Richard Rowley wrote: "Piss" and "spit" don't have the same chemical composition, so this "fact" is wrong too."
ReplyDeleteProve it.
It was a "false positive," which just means that there was something in the spit that triggered a positive reading. Show us your evidence that ordinary harmless bacteria in the mouth of a Malaysian won't trigger a false positive.
Ed
Richard Rowley wrote: "Piss" and "spit" don't have the same chemical composition, so this "fact" is wrong too."
ReplyDeleteProve it.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Composition of urine:
-------
Composition
Urea structure
Exhaustive detailed description of the composition of human urine can be found in NASA Contractor Report No. NASA CR-1802, D. F. Putnam, July 1971.[3] That report provided detailed chemical analyses for inorganic and organic constituents, methods of analysis, chemical and physical properties and its behavior during concentrative processes such as evaporation, distillation and other physiochemical operations. Urine is an aqueous solution of greater than 95% water, with the remaining constituents, in order of decreasing concentration urea 9.3 g/L, chloride 1.87 g/L, sodium 1.17 g/L, potassium 0.750 g/L, creatinine 0.670 g/L and other dissolved ions, inorganic and organic compounds.
Urine is sterile until it reaches the urethra, where epithelial cells lining the urethra are colonized by facultatively anaerobic Gram negative rods and cocci.[4] Subsequent to elimination from the body, urine can acquire strong odors due to bacterial action,[citation needed] and in particular the release of ammonia from the breakdown of urea
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urine#Composition
=========================================================
spit (saliva):
Nearly 99.5 percent of the total composition of saliva is water. The remaining 0.5 percent consists of ions, such as potassium, chloride, sodium, and phosphates, which serve as buffers and activate the enzymatic activity. An important enzyme in saliva is salivary amylase. It breaks down complex carbohydrates, such as starches, into smaller molecules that can be absorbed by the digestive tract.
Read more: http://www.answers.com/topic/what-is-the-composition-of-saliva#ixzz1wIqhLedw
-----------------------------------------------------------
no urea in saliva, no functioning enzymes in urine.
Richard Rowley wrote: "no urea in saliva, no functioning enzymes in urine."
ReplyDeleteAnthrax tests do not test for urea or enzymes. They test for bacteria, specifically Bacillus-type bacteria.
Are you trying to say that there are no bacteria in spit? Your beliefs just get more and more preposterous. Click HERE for an article that says your spit contains "600 species of bacteria."
Or in urine? Click HERE
You need to study the word "FACT" to see how it differs from "BELIEF" which is what you always use instead of FACTS.
Ed
To Joseph from Spain,
ReplyDeleteHola! In the 1990s I had a number of pals from your country. Once in talking to one such Espanhola, I was inspired (?): to recite that little bit of Henry Higgins: 'The rain in Spain falls mainly in the plains.' My pal said "Kay Ba!". So, Joseph, is Kay Ba a sort of Spanish meteorologist? "Ba" strikes me as a Chinese, rather than a Spanish name. Any illumination would help!
Hello mr Rowley.
Delete- I like My Fair Lady
- When I wanted to understand the problem related to the FBI Mmccormick´s code I saw that movie several times. And the English language seems very difficult:
"Why Can't the English Learn to Speak"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lGOZaNzzETI&feature=related
- The song "The rain in Spain ..." is sung in Spanish as well: "La lluvia en Sevilla es una pura maravilla" (The rain in Seville is a pure wonder). Is a good song:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLjZJMWmhDE&feature=fvwp&NR=1
- Seville is a Spanish city and has made a song about it:
"The Shady Dame From Seville" by Julie Andrews.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TmDh8pkVnlE
- Although sometimes the modified song is more "attractive" than the original song:
"The Shady Dame From Seville" by Robert Preston.
Victor Victoria part 10
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h3Qpc989QII&feature=relmfu
+ I have the DVD, and it includes commentary by Julie Andrews and Blake Edwards. According to them, Robert Preston carried this out as he wished, and it was done in one take.
- For now I can not say it means "Kay Ba". Could it be the Spanish expression: "¡Que Va!" = "No way!"
Bye.
Regarding Mister Lake's comment of May 30th which includes the following: (FBI files online)
ReplyDelete-----------
From 2003, page 7:
The subject left a message advising that Senator Dole, Senator Edwards, Senator Helms, and Governor Schwarzenegger are "all a bunch of crooks that should be hanged and if that did not happen to them, he would kill all of them himself."
------------------------------------------------------
They might have started looking at someone who had recently, after a long stretch, been deinstitutionalized. Reason? In October of 2003 Jesse Helms hadn't been a US Senator for about 9 months (since January of 2003). Bob Dole hadn't been a US Senator since mid-1996, when he resigned his Senate seat to run unimpeded by Senate obligations against Clinton in the general election for president. So Dole hadn't been a Senator for SEVEN YEARS when the threat was made, yet the person still referred to Dole (and Helms) as a Senator. If you look deep enough in those files, you might find people threatening President Eisenhower!
Mr. Rowley,
ReplyDeleteIt's common and even standard practice to refer to people by their previous titles, if their current title isn't even more impressive. So, people refer to "Senator Dole" that way even though he's really "Ex-Senator Dole" or "Former Senator Dole."
It's standard form with Presidents, Generals, Governors, Judges and other titles. It's standard with Senators, too.
Here's what one source says:
While we might refer to a retired Senator Smith as former Senator Smith or ex-Senator Smith, that would not be appropriate as an address - whether a direct personal address or address on a letter. It is perfectly acceptable and appropriate to continue to address him as "Senator Smith" or write him in care of "Senator John Smith."
Another source:
http://www.formsofaddress.info/former.html#142
A little research would help you avoid making incorrect assumptions.
Ed
It's common and even standard practice to refer to people by their previous titles, if their current title isn't even more impressive.
ReplyDelete======================================================
That's true. But you aren't going to get that in 1)nasty letters (unless meant sarcastically) and 2) threat letters.
I would call this one both. Two of the four politicians threatened weren't in office when the threat was made. Sign of either the person having been out of society for some time, or psychotically out-of-it. It's called pragmatics.
Richard Rowley wrote: "But you aren't going to get that in 1)nasty letters (unless meant sarcastically) and 2) threat letters."
ReplyDeleteYou're rationalizing again, i.e., dreaming up possible explanations which make the facts seemingly fit your beliefs.
Ed
From time to time I still do Google searches on Amerithrax and sometimes I come upon......myself disputing on same.
ReplyDeleteThis thread I ran into today. So, though I dropped the matter back in June, I should have corrected myself: the "Dole" referred to was almost certainly not Bob Dole, long-time majority/minority leader of the Senate, but rather his wife Elizabeth (Liddy) Dole, one(?)-term Senator from North Carolina, making all the pols referred by the writer North Carolinians, so the writer probably was himself from that state, and not necessarily someone who had been out of commission for several years via incarceration.