My web site comment for Sunday, November 11, 2012, was mostly an announcement that my new book "A Crime Unlike Any Other: What The Facts Say About Dr. Bruce Edwards Ivins and The Anthrax Attacks of 2001" is now for sale at the printing company's web site. Just click HERE to go to their site.
And, to my stunned surprise, it's also available on Amazon.com. Click HERE to go to Amazon's web site. It was my understanding that Amazon wouldn't be selling it until a week from now. (It's also my understanding that you won't be able to order it through your local bookstore until sometime in late December.)
If you're interested, I've created a YouTube Video of me describing the book:
The video has some stammers and flubs in it, but took me about 30 "takes" to get something that was reasonably watchable. If I can gather the will power, I might replace it with a better one.
I put a half dozen short "outtakes" on YouTube. Here's a video that shows six of the "outtakes":
In the first outtake, I not only flubbed my lines, I also forgot to turn off my stereo. So, music almost drowns me out. In the last "outtake," I realize that I forgot to change the image on the computer screen behind me, so I stop before saying a single word. The rest are mostly line reading flubs.
In the first outtake, I not only flubbed my lines, I also forgot to turn off my stereo. So, music almost drowns me out. In the last "outtake," I realize that I forgot to change the image on the computer screen behind me, so I stop before saying a single word. The rest are mostly line reading flubs.
Now, I have to start sending out emails to people telling them that the book is for sale. And, on Tuesday, I'll start sending out press releases to newspapers and other media outlets.
I'm also thinking of creating another video where I explain the FACTS which show that a first grader wrote the anthrax letters and addressed the envelopes. People who have viewed my web site during the past 11 years should already know what the facts say, but there are millions of people for whom it would be stunning news. And, one way to tell them about it is via a YouTube video, which will get to people who would never think of looking for information about the anthrax attacks of 2001. One of the most common searches that brings people to my web site is a search for "handwriting analysis." Another is "children's handwriting."
But, before I can create such a video, I need to learn more about the video editing software that came with the digital camera I bought many years ago.
Busy busy busy.
I'm also thinking of creating another video where I explain the FACTS which show that a first grader wrote the anthrax letters and addressed the envelopes. People who have viewed my web site during the past 11 years should already know what the facts say, but there are millions of people for whom it would be stunning news. And, one way to tell them about it is via a YouTube video, which will get to people who would never think of looking for information about the anthrax attacks of 2001. One of the most common searches that brings people to my web site is a search for "handwriting analysis." Another is "children's handwriting."
ReplyDeleteBut it is shrewd of you to have avoided mention of your child theory at the actual point of sale.
"Anonymous,"
ReplyDeleteYou're getting repetitive and tedious.
The book isn't a series of essays. It's the STORY of how Ivins committed the anthrax attacks; how True Believers, conspiracy theorists, the media and some politicians constantly misled the public about the facts of the case; and how the FBI gradually figured out that Bruce Ivins was the killer.
The handwriting is just part of the story.
But, I think a YouTube video will make a good marketing tool. It's likely to hit a different group of people than my web page "The Facts Say: A Child Wrote The Anthrax Letters."
Plus, a picture is worth a thousand words, so a short video might make a much bigger impression than a lot of written words.
Ed
The Anthrax Truthers are already becoming upset over my book.
ReplyDeleteOn Lew Weinstein's blog, one Anthrax Truther rants his screwball belief TWICE:
"The internet poster who argues it is a FACT that a First Grader recruited by Bruce Ivins wrote the anthrax letters — and not merely his unsupported claim — sent out numerous emails today ..."
and
"What we needed was to have professionals to do a proper “gap analysis” assessing the science used by the FBI. What we instead got was an abdication of the task that GAO had agreed to undertake and a guy arguing it is a FACT a First Grader wrote the anthrax letters in Fall 2001."
He keeps making that false statement.
I have NEVER said that it was a fact that a first grader wrote the anthrax letters.
What I've said is: The facts say that a first grader wrote the anthrax letters.
There's a big difference.
Stating "It is a fact that a child wrote the letters" is a declaration that no other explanation is possible.
Stating "The facts say that a child wrote the letters" is an observation of what the known facts currently indicate. It invites people to examine the facts to see for themselves, and to provide disputing facts, if they have any.
No one has any disputing facts. They generally - the Anthrax Truther being a prime example - just ignore the facts and declare their beliefs. So, in my OPINION, it's probably about a 95% certainty that a child wrote the letters.
Also, the Anthrax Truther who wrote the comment on Lew's site has a difficult time writing coherently, so you might not understand what he meant when he wrote this:
[The internet poster]"sent out numerous emails today following the same general formula. In each case, he cited to the recipient the page number where he mentions them. He thinks that insulting people will make them want to buy the book.
What he's saying is: I sent out some emails telling people that I mention them in my book. So, if someone's name is in the book's index, the Anthrax Truther sees that as an "insult."
I guess, according to that Anthrax Truther, Franklin Delano Roosevelt is probably turning over in his grave. FDR is mentioned on page 139.
I sometimes find it impossible to believe the unbelievable things that some people believe.
Ed
I like your suggestion that someone who just learned to write English wrote the letters -- as illustrated by the "R" that includes a round circle.
ReplyDeleteCharacterization of children's latent fingerprint residues by infrared microspectroscopy: forensic implications.
ReplyDeleteWilliams DK, Brown CJ, Bruker J.
Source
Federal Bureau of Investigation, Laboratory Division, 2501 Investigation Parkway, Quantico, VA 22135, United States. diane.williams@ic.fbi.gov
Abstract
The chemistry of children's latent fingerprint residues was investigated as a function of time and temperature by non-destructive spectrochemical analysis. Latent fingerprints from children, ranging in age from 2 to 11 years, were deposited onto aluminum-coated glass slides and were analyzed by Fourier-Transform Infrared Microspectroscopy. The results revealed that there are three major classes of compounds present in children's latent fingerprints: carboxylic acid salts, proteins, and esters. By studying the changes in the fingerprint residues as a function of time and at elevated temperatures, we discovered that the salts in the fingerprint residues are stable relative to the esters. These findings have relevant forensic implications; by targeting the acid salts instead of the esters or proteins, children's latent fingerprints may be recovered after extended periods of time have elapsed.
Interesting. But, I don't see any relevance here.
DeleteThe FBI experts and Postal Inspection Service experts weren't able to find any fingerprint evidence on the letters or envelopes.
Ed
Anonymous wrote: "I like your suggestion that someone who just learned to write English wrote the letters -- as illustrated by the "R" that includes a round circle."
ReplyDeleteThat "suggestion" is probably less important than the facts. I point out the fact that the writer drew his R's with round circles when the wrote the Brokaw letter, but, equally important is the fact that when he addressed the media envelopes he no longer drew the tops of R's with round circles. He drew arcs.
Those two facts indicate that during the time between writing the letter and addressing the envelopes he learned the correct way to draw R's.
Upon close examination, you can also see that he still wanted to draw circles when he was addressing the envelopes. Some of his R's have tops that are like backward C's. That's apparently an indicator that he was still inclined to draw R's the old way.
The change in the way he draw R's also indicates that some time passed between the writing of the letter and the addressing of the envelopes.
And, it appears that Ivins added the date at the top of the media letter, since it doesn't seem to be done by the same person who did all the other writing.
The key fact is: The writer drew R's on the media letter incorrectly and drew R's on the media envelopes correctly.
There are other facts about the handwriting coming later in the book. Together, all the facts tell a very clear story.
Ed
Is it likely that the writer was trying to disguise his writing? Or do you think he wrote the letters in the way he normally was inclined to write the letters. And are you relying on facts in that surmise or a guess?
ReplyDeleteDo you think a First Grader would remember when Dr. Ivins asked him to write those letters?
Anonymous asked, "Is it likely that the writer was trying to disguise his writing?"
ReplyDeleteWhile lots of people have opinions, there's no evidence that the writer was trying to disguise his handwriting. That's why the FBI sent out 150,000 flyers to people around the area where the letters were mailed: to see if anyone recognized the handwriting.
The facts say that a child wrote the letters and addressed the envelopes. Disguised handwriting doesn't change or affect any of those facts. It just says that disguised handwriting makes no sense.
"Do you think a First Grader would remember when Dr. Ivins asked him to write those letters?"
Who knows? Yes, no, maybe. My book suggests ways Ivins could have made the writing task something the child would easily forget.
Ed
Why doesn't disguised writing change those facts? In disguising one's writing, why might the writer not simply choose to make the "R" with a rounded circle? Doesn't Occam's Razor suggest that the writer would want to disguise his writing? And could disguise his writing? And did disguise his writing?
ReplyDeleteAnd wouldn't the writer want to avoid an unnecessary additional person knowing of his crime?
In collecting samples of capital "R's" with rounded circles, aren't the vast majority by adults rather than children? What database are you using? What did you do in collecting samples of capital "Rs" written by adults?
"Anonymous" wrote: "Why doesn't disguised writing change those facts? In disguising one's writing, why might the writer not simply choose to make the "R" with a rounded circle?"
ReplyDeleteYou're ignoring the facts. Yes, a person wanting to disguise his handwriting might "choose to make the 'R' with a rounded circle." BUT, why would he change it a few weeks later and start drawing R's correctly? And why would he start writing much smaller a month later? And why would he start using punctuation a month later?
Is it possible that some adult decided to disguise his handwriting by writing the way a child would write as he learns the correct way of writing in the first weeks of first grade? Yes, of course it's possible. Anything is possible. But, Occam's Razor and common sense says that it's far more likely that it was a child that did the writing.
"Anonymous" also asked, "And wouldn't the writer want to avoid an unnecessary additional person knowing of his crime?"
The "typical" criminal might. But Dr. Ivins was mentally ill. He could have seen using a child that way to be a brilliant idea. He may have figure that you and others like you would never believe that anyone would do such a thing and would close your mind to such a thing.
"What database are you using?"
I used the database of information I've collected about the anthrax attacks of 2001. No other database is relevant.
I deleted your followup comment about databases, since it's also irrelevant. It's just a way of ignoring the evidence. It's an attempt to change the subject. It's an attempt to argue that if there is no previous case that does the same thing, then it couldn't have been done in the anthrax case, because nothing is ever done for the first time.
Ed
"BUT, why would he change it a few weeks later and start drawing R's correctly?"
ReplyDeleteThe experts agree that one tends to be inconsistent in disguising one's handwriting. There are numerous published books and articles making this point. You should read the literature.
Moreover, Mrs. Ivins confirms that Dr. Ivins did not have contact with any First Graders in 2001 and she had none in any daycare. That was just your mistaken assumption.
Finally, the large collection of capital Rs available to any handwritten analyst do not support your theory.
Anonymous wrote: "The experts agree that one tends to be inconsistent in disguising one's handwriting."
ReplyDeleteYou claim to read things, but you clearly do not understand what you read.
Yes, "one tends to be inconsistent in disguising one's handwriting," but the writer was NOT inconsistent in that way. He was totally consistent in the way he drew ALL of his R's in the media letter using tiny circles.
If the writer was disguising his handwriting, he would have drawn some R's with circles and some in a different way, typically more like the way he normally drew R's. But, he didn't. He was consistent in the way he drew R's in the media letter.
The fact that he drew R's a different way on the envelopes doesn't mean he was "inconsistent," it means he LEARNED the right way to draw the letter R between writing samples. He was now consistent in writing R's the correct way.
Claiming you read books doesn't mean anything if you don't understand what you read.
"Anonymous" also wrote, "Moreover, Mrs. Ivins confirms that Dr. Ivins did not have contact with any First Graders in 2001 and she had none in any daycare. That was just your mistaken assumption."
It's what the facts say. If Mrs. Ivins says she BELIEVES that "Dr. Ivins didn't have contact with any First Graders in 2001," then the facts say she's mistaken.
I'll just ignore your meaningless and totally silly comment about a collection of capital R's. It's not worth a response.
And I deleted your post about some article on handwriting. It is irrelevant of it does not specifically address the handwriting on the anthrax documents and what the facts say about that handwriting. You are just trying to sidetrack the issue.
Ed
"Anonymous,"
ReplyDeleteI also deleted your long message attacking me because I do not view facts the way you do.
Ed
To sum up: You argue that there is a 95% likelihood that Dr. Ivins did not write the letters.
ReplyDeleteOkay.
"Anonymous" wrote: "To sum up: You argue that there is a 95% likelihood that Dr. Ivins did not write the letters."
ReplyDeleteTo sum up: The FACTS say Dr. Ivins mailed the anthrax letters. The FACTS say he used a child to write the letters and to address the envelopes.
You say you do not believe what the facts say, and you're going to believe what you want to believe. And, you've been saying that for eleven years.
Ed
Ed, speaking of the facts relating to your First Grader theory, what is your sourcing for your claim that the first day of school was August 20, 2001 -- rather than August 27, 2001?
ReplyDeleteHave you examined the calendars for the local elementary schools?
Wasn't the first day of school August 27, 2001?
Your analysis is the one that is not well sourced factually.
You suggest Dr. Ivins juggled for the kid on August 27 to get him to write the anthrax letter -- and suggest he had homework. Even carried a felt tip pen in his backpack.
And yet you cite no support -- do you? -- for your claim the first day of school was August 20 rather than August 27.
Area elementary schools are Tuscarora Elementary School, Ballenger Creek Elementary, Whittier Elementary, and Urbana Elementary School.
ReplyDeleteTheir calendars for 2001 are a matter of public record.
If you make a factual assertion as to the first day of school, you should cite factual support for your claim.
"Anonymous" wrote: "If you make a factual assertion as to the first day of school, you should cite factual support for your claim."
ReplyDeleteWhat I wrote on page 54 is as follows:
The first day of school was evidently Monday, August 20.
I don't recall why I used the word "evidently," which means it is NOT a "factual assertion" as you falsely claim. Can't you argue anything without using distortions and false claims?
I did some research into the date when I was writing that page, but there was evidently some question about the exact start date. I don't recall what the question was. When I get some free time, I'll research it further. If the date was definitely August 27, I'll try to make the correction to the Kindle version of the book.
Thanks for bringing it to my attention.
Of course, it makes absolutely NO DIFFERENCE to the case against Bruce Ivins if the first day of school was the 27th and not the 20th. But, I suppose you'll be pointing out the "error" every chance you get for the foreseeable future.
You really need to look at your own errors. If you think some Muslim terrorist sent the anthrax letters, then your analysis is based upon nothing but errors. There are certainly no solid facts supporting such a theory.
Ed
Ed, I sent you a copy of the article from the August 24, 2001 Frederick News-Post discussing the planned start of schools.
ReplyDeleteYou never correct errors and so it is a waste of time to point them out.
So you have Bruce juggling for a First Grader (who wasn't there) on his day of school!
"Anonymous" wrote: "You never correct errors and so it is a waste of time to point them out."
ReplyDeleteI correct errors when they ARE errors. Usually you just use someone's opinion to argue against the facts.
In this case you're asking me to change something in a printed book that was NOT stated as a fact but as something that "evidently" happened. Why don't you explain your reasoning on how to make such a change?
The facts say that Bruce Ivins was the anthrax mailer.
The facts say that a child was used to write the anthrax letters.
The fact that you do not believe the facts, doesn't change the facts.
Ed
Ed, it is real simple. Acknowledge it was an error on your blog and say you are going to change it.
ReplyDeleteI have a list of 97 error where the factual error is revealed by quoting a linked, uploaded document. Once you are engaged in correcting errors we can make progress. We can start working through them if you'll start acknowledging the errors so the factual record doesn't get muddied.
As an example (#17 on the list), the instructions on preparing samples EXPRESSLY state that an equivalent can be used. If they then decided after preparing the instructions that they didn't want to allow equivalents, fine. But the instructions in fact authorize use of an equivalent. In contrast, you argue it was "silly" for Ivins to think he could use an equivalent. It's as if you didn't actually read the instructions.
"Anonymous wrote: "I have a list of 97 error where the factual error is revealed by quoting a linked, uploaded document."
ReplyDeleteYou have a list of what you believe are errors. Most of what you believe are errors are NOT errors but just people with opinions arguing against the facts.
"Anonymous" also wrote: "As an example (#17 on the list), the instructions on preparing samples EXPRESSLY state that an equivalent can be used."
But, what Ivins created was NOT AN EQUIVALENT. Ivins may have argued that it was just as good as a Remel slant, but it wasn't.
The problem here is that "equivalent" is not an exact term. What one person might think is "an equivalent" many not be "an equivalent" to another person.
Ivins was a very devious guy. It would have been totally within his character to have seen that they used the word "equivalent," and he played on that to create slants that were obviously NOT equivalents, but he could argue (as he did) that he believed they were "equivalents."
The people gathering slants for the FBI Repository were the judges on what was "equivalent" and what was not. Ivins first series of slants were NOT equivalents. (And the FBI said he violated chain of custody protocols, too. That would also make them unusable.)
Ed