It occurred to me this morning (and I wrote about it in my Sunday comment on my web site) that all the "Truthers" out there arguing against what the facts say about the anthrax attacks of 2001 (and the 9/11 attacks, and the landings on the moon, and the causes of climate change, and the connection between HIV and AIDS, and the links between cancer and smoking, and the official versions of many other subjects) are not really arguing about what they believe. They are arguing about what they cannot believe. Instead of being called "conspiracy theorists" and "True Believers," they might more accurately and properly be called "Cannot Believers." Here's part of what I wrote in my Sunday comment:
Some people simply cannot believe
that a lone gunman could single-handedly concoct a plot and fire a rifle with
such accuracy to kill an American President in a moving vehicle.
Some people simply cannot believe
that a single airliner striking a modern skyscraper could cause the
entire building to collapse like a house of cards.
Some people simply cannot believe
that it's just a coincidence that there were mass shootings using
assault weapons at the time when the government wanted to crack down on
ownership of such weapons.
Some people simply cannot believe
that it is possible for humans to travel all the way to the moon and
back and live to tell about it.
Some people simply cannot believe
that it is possible for mere humans to affect the entire atmosphere of
a planet the size of the earth.
Some people simply cannot believe
that smoking causes cancer when there are so many people who smoked all
their lives and never got cancer.
Some people simply cannot believe
that a virus would mysteriously appear to kill mostly homosexuals when
it is clear there are so many people opposed to homosexuality.
Some people simply cannot believe
that the anthrax attack could come so soon after the 9/11 attacks
without the same people being responsible for both attacks.
Some people simply cannot believe
it was just a coincidence that there was a biological weapons terrorist attack so soon after America trashed the Biological and Toxic Weapons Convention because it
didn't address attacks from terrorist organizations.
Some people simply cannot believe that
a lone individual can create a super-sophisticated anthrax powder with
the properties exhibited by the senate anthrax powders.
Some people simply cannot believe
that someone they knew,
particularly a socially inept person like Bruce Ivins, could commit the
crime for which he was accused.
And, because these
individuals cannot
personally believe these things, they develop
personal theories to account for what must have "really happened."
I.e., either some people in the government must have conspired to make it
appear that the impossible
happened, or the people in charge of investigating such things are so incompetent that they actually
believe the impossible happened and don't see how impossible it really is.
So, the conspiracy theories are NOT what the conspiracy theorists believe, but what they developed because of what they CANNOT believe.
That's a very different ball game.
It suggests that additional information CAN have an impact on them. It says they are arguing from ignorance, thus some facts just might make a difference.
It's something worth thinking more about.
Ed
Under your construct, you are a TRUE BELIEVER who CANNOT believe that different sized writing could be explained by anything other than the writer being a First Grader.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous wrote: "Under your construct, you ...CANNOT believe that different sized writing could be explained by anything other than the writer being a First Grader."
ReplyDeleteYou're distorting the facts again. I cannot recall that anyone else has even tried to explain the different size handwriting in the anthrax letters. If you have someone's explanation for it, please provide the quote and link.
My hypothesis includes the different size handwriting as just one fact out of TWELVE FACTS which together combine to say that a child wrote the anthrax letters:
Fact #1. Between the writing of the Brokaw letter and the addressing of the Brokaw envelope, the writer learned the proper way to draw the letter R.
Fact #2. Adults do not generally learn the correct way to draw letters of the alphabet between writing a letter and addressing an envelope.
Fact #3. Children are generally taught the correct way to draw letters of the alphabet in the first weeks of first grade.
Fact #4. The writing on the media letter and envelopes was roughly twice the size of the writing on the senate letter and envelopes.
Fact #5. Adults go not generally change the size of their handwriting.
Fact #6. Children are generally taught to write smaller in the first weeks of first grade.
Fact #7. The media letter did NOT use punctuation, while the senate letter mailed three weeks later DID use punctuation.
Fact #8. Adults generally write from habit and do not switch from not using punctuation to using punctuation.
Fact #9. Children are taught about punctuation in the first weeks of first grade.
Fact #10. The anthrax letters were sent out at about the same time as children were beginning the first weeks of first grade.
Fact #11. Adults who attempt to disguise their handwriting generally do so by (A) writing with their "wrong" hand, (B) writing upside down, or (C) copying someone else's handwriting.
Fact #12. None of the above methods of disguising one's handwriting would result in a fluctuation in the punctuation, in writing size, OR in how characters of the alphabet are drawn. Differences generally result from fluctuations between the disguised style they are attempting to use and the habitual style they regularly use.
I would have no problem at all if someone could explain to me how these TWELVE facts can be true and then provide ADDITIONAL facts which prove that those 12 facts are misleading and that an adult actually DID write the letters.
It appears you cannot believe that a child wrote the letters because you cannot believe that 9/11 and the anthrax letters were not both dreamed up by Muslim terrorists.
It seems that makes you the "Cannot Believer."
Ed
Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteI have a video which shows handwriting examples to illustrate the 12 FACTS (in a slightly different order) which say that Ivins used a child to write the anthrax letters.
Click HERE to view it.
David Willman and one of his sources believes that Dr. Ivins disguised his handwriting to write the letters and address the envelopes himself. I've also argued with someone on line who believes Ivins MUST have disguised his handwriting because he cannot believe that Ivins would leave a living witness to his crime.
That seems to be the big hangup with most people. They cannot believe that the child wouldn't have told his parents about writing the letters, OR they cannot believe that Ivins would have used a child in such a way and taken such a chance. Therefore, they construct a theory that Ivins MUST have disguised his handwriting BECAUSE they cannot believe what the facts say.
The facts say that there have been countless adults who have abused and/or manipulated children in many terrible ways and somehow most of their parents never learned about it. Ivins was a master manipulator, so it seems very logical that he would do such a thing. Depending on who the parents of the child were, it may have been another one of his sick schemes to mess with people he didn't like without them knowing about it.
Ed
I'm through with discussing handwriting so I'll just switch to one point from today's comment section:
ReplyDelete-------------------
Some people simply cannot believe that someone they knew, particularly a socially inept person like Bruce Ivins, could commit the crime for which he was accused.
================================================
It's true that life has some surprises for all of us, but the most significant (to me)testimony from his friends is that he was such an irrepressible sort (and we see some of this in the Emails where he talks about his paranoia etc.) that, HAD HE COMMITTED Amerithrax, he certainly would have confided it to someone between October 2001 and July 2008.
There's no evidence he ever did: he proclaimed his innocence as much in private as he did in public.
R. Rowley wrote: "he certainly would have confided it to someone between October 2001 and July 2008.
ReplyDeleteThat's the reasoning some of his friends used. But, Ivins was no fool, and he was paranoid. So, while one might expect he would have told someone, it was far from a "certainty".
R. Rowley also wrote: "he proclaimed his innocence as much in private as he did in public."
Actually, he didn't "proclaim his innocence" very much at all. What he did was point the finger at others and "proclaim" that they were all better suspects than he was. He falsely argued that the spores were made in a way he didn't use (fermenters). When the silicon mystery showed up, he talked about how it seemed to point elsewhere. And, when the FBI arranged for a friend to ask him if he did it, Ivins didn't really deny it. He said that, IF he did it, he didn't remember doing it.
Ivins attacked the media for picking on the Department of Defense, he suggested that one FBI agent was "gay," and he accused the entire FBI of hounding him, but he never really went around saying "I'm innocent." He went around pointing at others and saying they should be BETTER suspects. Instead of a denial, that is an acknowledgement that he could also have done it.
Ed
R. Rowley also wrote: "he proclaimed his innocence as much in private as he did in public."
ReplyDeleteActually, he didn't "proclaim his innocence" very much at all. What he did was point the finger at others and "proclaim" that they were all better suspects than he was.
===================================================
No.
1) I'm talking about what he told his friends, family, coworkers, and group therapy playmates. That he was innocent. Period.
2) you, Mister Lake, are, as always,talking about what the DoJ
through the FINAL REPORT reports him saying to investigators. That he was "point[ing] the finger at others and "proclaim" that they were all better suspects than he was." Even if that is 100% true it is certainly NOT what we were originally talking about: what Ivins'friends, family, coworkers etc. said about the likelihood of his guilt, since that evaluation (those evaluations) would be built on their personal interactions with Ivins, not some 'report' that came out over a year and a half after his death. (Unless you are NOW claiming the FBI/Task Force was bugging all of Ivins' telephone calls, bugged his church, bugged USAMRIID etc.and all this 24/7 and that THAT was the basis for saying he didn't deny it to anyone. But if so, that is you making new stuff up, it's not in the FINAL REPORT.)
One of the few glimpses we DO have is the contents of a note that Diane Ivins wrote to her husband a few days before his death. We can skip her expressions of hurt etc. and get to the pertinent section as summarized in the Frederick News-Post:
----------------------
Diane Ivins also wrote that she knew her husband had nothing to do with the anthrax attacks and that she never doubted his innocence, she told police in an interview.
--------------------------------------------------
She certainly wouldn't have written anything like that unless Ivins had been telling her consistently (for up to 3 years at that point) that he was innocent.
http://www.fredericknewspost.com/sections/news/display.htm?StoryID=84778
(I didn't bother to look, but I would be shocked if a paragraph like the above WAS in the FINAL REPORT as that document was a one-sided hachet-job on Ivins, in general and in just about all the particulars)
-----------------------------------------------
Back to Mister Lake: "but he never really went around saying "I'm innocent." I think you'll find that he did, in person (at least until the Bureau succeeded in socially isolating him at USAMRIID) and via emails.
R. Rowley wrote: "She certainly wouldn't have written anything like that unless Ivins had been telling her consistently (for up to 3 years at that point) that he was innocent."
ReplyDeleteWhat would you expect Ivins to do? To tell his wife that he killed 5 innocent people? Why would he tell her that when he wouldn't even tell her what he was doing at night when he took long trips to commit burglaries and to play games on Mara Linscott? The record shows that he constantly lied to his wife.
None in his family or among his friends knew anything about his previous criminal acts - i.e., his burglaries and vandalism.
If he didn't tell anyone about those minor crimes, why on earth would he tell anyone about his MURDERS?
What EVIDENCE do you have that he told people he was innocent? The fact that they BELIEVED he was innocent doesn't mean that Ivins said such to them.
What people told the FBI was that he claimed he was being unfairly persecuted. That's not the same as him saying he's innocent. It's saying they were picking on him when there were people who were better suspects than he was -- the same thing he told the FBI.
When he told his therapy group that he was going to go to USAMRIID and kill his co-workers, he didn't say anything about being innocent. He just wanted to kill them because they pointed the finger at him. The facts say that some of his co-workers DID believe he was the anthrax mailer. Pat Fellows would be the #1 example.
Some people just cannot believe that someone they knew and talked with nearly every day could be a mass murderer -- no matter what all the facts say. It shakes up their whole belief system. But, it doesn't mean they are right.
The facts say that Bruce Edwards Ivins was the anthrax killer. If people don't believe the facts, that doesn't change the facts in any way. The facts still say that Ivins did it.
Ed
ReplyDeleteR. Rowley wrote: "She certainly wouldn't have written anything like that unless Ivins had been telling her consistently (for up to 3 years at that point) that he was innocent."
What would you expect Ivins to do? To tell his wife that he killed 5 innocent people?[...]
----------------------------------------
No, I would have expected him to confide in his daughter and/or those women coworkers at USAMRIID with whom he shared via email his paranoia problems. Included would be Pat Fellows whom the investigators themselves chose to draw out Ivins on the possibility he did it (she was wearing a mike and so their conversation was recorded). And I sifted through that in some detail here about 13 months ago: about 2/3rds of way down thread (I'm Anonymous)
Anonymous January 26, 2012 at 1:54 PM
http://anthraxdebate.blogspot.com/2012/01/jan-15-jan-21-discussions.html
R. Rowley wrote: "No, I would have expected him to confide in his daughter and/or those women coworkers at USAMRIID with whom he shared via email his paranoia problems."
ReplyDeleteI find that ridiculous -- except for his daughter. And, it's hard to believe he'd even outright confess to his daughter. However, his daughter attempted suicide in January 2002, so one can certainly speculate as to what really caused her to do that at that particular point in time.
But, I think the idea that he'd confide in his co-workers is absurd. He would have no reason to believe that they wouldn't go straight to the FBI. The fact that they joshed around and were co-workers means NOTHING when it comes to an admission of murder.
And members of his family wouldn't likely tell the police, even if they had reason to suspect Ivins was the culprit. It would cause harm to their entire lives. If it was just suspicions, they'd go into denial. Even if they had an admission from Ivins himself, they would still likely go into denial.
A family member turning in another family member is VERY rare. Yes, it happened with the UniBomber, but that one instance just points out how RARE it is. Otherwise, about the only time a family member turns in another family member who committed a crime is if he's a minor and they think that the court ordeal might "straighten him out." And, even that doesn't happen very often.
I find the whole idea that Ivins would confess his crime to anyone (except maybe he daughter) to be ridiculous.
So, if you think it's a "certainty," we have a very BIG disagreement. And, once again, I feel I'm looking at the facts and you are just arguing your beliefs because you have a personal theory about who "really" sent the anthrax letters.
Ed
Mr. Rowley,
ReplyDeleteI should have mentioned that, if Ivins had confessed to his co-workers that he sent the anthrax letters, and if those co-workers didn't immediately tell the authorities, they could be prosecuted as "accessories after the fact," since they would have assisted the culprit "in order to hinder or prevent his or her apprehension, trial or punishment."
Ed
"in order to hinder or prevent his or her apprehension, trial or punishment.""
ReplyDelete------------------------------------------------------
Since when did informing become a citizen's duty? (in communist countries that was indeed the expectation; probably in Nazi Germany too) And a successful prosecution would require the state to prove INTENT to 'hinder or prevent his/her apprehension', something very difficult to establish. Mostly that stuff (ie the concept of 'accessory after the fact') is used for those harboring a fugitive (something Ivins never was) or destroying evidence (not in question in this case).
But note that this is quite a walk-back for Mister Lake:
1)old line (this thread): "Actually, he didn't "proclaim his innocence" very much at all. What he did was point the finger at others and "proclaim" that they were all better suspects than he was. " (wherein Mister Lake SUBSTITUTES what the FINAL REPORT claims Ivins said to investigators about Amerithrax for what Ivins said, over a much longer period (roughly Oct 2001-July 2008), to those in his social circle about who likely did Amerithrax and (from about March 2005 onwards) about his own innocence in the matter.
2)(new line)well, yeah Ivins told everyone (including but not limited to the investigators) that he didn't do it, that he HIMSELF had tried to figure out who did it, that he 'wasn't a killer at heart', and the investigators knew all about his consistent in-private denials because they talked to his family members, colleagues etc. but somehow all this doesn't 'count' because those family members, friends, colleagues etc. would have been legally obligated to inform authorities IF IVINS HAD CONFESSED guilt in the matter.
R. Rowley asked, "Since when did informing become a citizen's duty?"
ReplyDeleteYou don't think a person should tell the police when someone confesses to them that they committed a mass murder? Hmmm.
You think it's the same as telling the authorities that someone has been making anti-government comments - as was the case in Nazi Germany? Hmmm.
Here's what a Legal Dictionary says:
"In common law, an accessory could not be found guilty unless the actual perpetrator was convicted. In most U.S. jurisdictions today, however, an accessory can be convicted even if the principal actor is not arrested or is acquitted. The prosecution must establish that the accessory in some way instigated, furthered, or concealed the crime.
"An accessory must knowingly promote or contribute to the crime. In other words, she or he must aid or encourage the offense deliberately, not accidentally. The accessory may withdraw from the crime by denouncing the plans, refusing to assist with the crime, contacting the police, or trying to stop the crime from occurring.
"An accessory after the fact is someone who knows that a crime has occurred but nonetheless helps to conceal it. Today, this action is often termed obstructing justice or harboring a fugitive."
Ivins co-workers knew that a crime had been committed. If Ivins confessed to them, they would be obstructing justice by not contacting the police.
However, about the only way they'd be found out is if Ivins was caught and then HE told the police that he told his co-workers that he did it.
His co-workers could claim that they didn't believe him or that Ivins was lying and never told them anything. They might escape prosecution, but they would still have broken the law.
There's no "walk-back" by Mister Lake in anything I wrote. I don't know where you get the idea that I said anything about Ivins "proclaiming his innocence." I've constantly said that Ivins did NOT proclaim his innocence. Instead, he tried to argue that others were better suspects than he was. And, even when asked directly, his response was that IF he did it, he didn't remember doing it.
Claiming that he was trying to figure out who did it is NOT a "proclamation of innocence." It's another way of saying that there are a lot of others who are better suspects.
But, I suppose you can argue that what Ivins was doing was proclaiming his innocence WITHOUT actually and verbally proclaiming his innocence. He was implying he was innocent without actually saying so.
Why imply? Why not just say so? Was it because Ivins felt he was better at manipulation and deceit than at outright lying?
It's an interesting question. And, I think that's the answer: Ivins' style was to manipulate people. So, he implied he was innocent by pointing to others as better suspects. If he proclaimed he was innocent, he would be drawing attention to himself as a possible suspect. A master manipulator would never do things that way. And, Ivins considered himself to be a master manipulator.
Ed