1. They all believe the government is wrong in saying Bruce Ivins was the anthrax killer.
2. They all believe that they know "the truth," which is that someone other than Bruce Ivins did it.
3. They cannot make any kind of meaningful case against whomever they think did it.
4. They cannot provide evidence which proves their theory is better than the government's.
5. They can only argue that the evidence against Ivins is not convincing to them.
6. They do not seem to understand circumstantial evidence.
7. They claim that the evidence against Bruce Ivins "isn't really evidence."
8. They do not fully agree with any other "truthers" about details of their own beliefs.
9. Many "truthers" totally disagree with other "truthers" about who sent the anthrax letters.
10. They endlessly seem to argue that beliefs and opinions are more important than facts.
11. When presented with evidence that they are wrong, they ignore it and continue to just believe what they want to believe.
12. They believe their standards for evidence are the only acceptable standards for the world.
Example:
"Anonymous" has recently claimed once again HERE that the T in "NEXT" in the media letter was not highlighted. Here is what he wrote:
It is a FACT that the "T" in next has not been shown to have been double-lined and so the entire code was crock.
Here is an enlargement of the T in "NEXT" in the media letter:
Can there be any dispute that the horizontal line in the T in NEXT is traced over in way that is virtually identical to the T in the second TO in the image above? Isn't it perfectly clear that the horizontal lines in the T's in DEATH are NOT traced over the way the other T's are traced over?
Example:
In a post HERE, R. Rowley quoted my point #5 in an earlier post and wrote his response:
5. It's a FACT that the message in the media letter CAN be decoded to be either "PAT" or "FNY" or both.In other words, unless there is only one way to interpret "PAT" and "FNY," and that evidence points directly to Bruce Ivins, then the evidence is worthless.
----------------------------
And literally hundreds of thousands(if not millions) of other things, rendering it worthless.
Example:
In a post HERE, "Max" wrote this about the decoding of the hidden message in the media letter:
The FBI found nothing. There is no message.What is Max's reasoning? Try to make sense of this:
PAT is not a message.
FNY is not a message.
If you want to claim otherwise, then you need to show that you expected to find PAT before the "decoding". Of course, nobody did.He appears to be saying that a person needs to expect to find "PAT" is the decoded message before they decode the message, otherwise "PAT" is not the decoded message? Who but a "Truther" would think that kind of reasoning makes sense?
13. When you attempt to get a "truther" to explain what he means, he either disappears or he changes the subject.
Ed
"He appears to be saying that a person needs to expect to find "PAT" is the decoded message before they decode the message, otherwise "PAT" is not the decoded message? Who but a "Truther" would think that kind of reasoning makes sense?"
ReplyDeleteTry to follow the logic, it's not that hard. You don't know whether there's a message in the first place. If there is a message, you don't know whether you correctly "decoded" it. All you have are guesses piled on top of guesses piled on top of guesses. So think: how can you verify that all this guesswork is (miraculously) correct?
You've obviously never given the question a moment's thought, because you've somehow convinced yourself that no proof is needed. Because you have a lucky feeling about it or something. I don't know.
So back to the question - how do you prove that a 3 letter "message" is actually a message? Well, if you had a prior guess about what the message would be, then you could calculate the odds of decoding the guess by chance (1/8000). Then you would have something, because 1/8000 is a low probability.
You don't have that. All you have is an after the fact rationalization for what you found. Huge difference.
Max wrote: "Try to follow the logic, it's not that hard. You don't know whether there's a message in the first place. If there is a message, you don't know whether you correctly "decoded" it. All you have are guesses piled on top of guesses piled on top of guesses. So think: how can you verify that all this guesswork is (miraculously) correct?"
ReplyDeleteYou obviously haven't read "Godel, Escher, Bach."
As I wrote elsewhere, the decoding process described in the book is about decoding messages from alien worlds. How can you do that if you don't even know if there ARE aliens on other worlds, if you don't know they are sending a message, if you don't know what kind of language they speak, and if you don't even know if they have thought processes similar to ours?
The same logic would apply to reading mail that a dangerous prisoner receives. You don't know who would send him a secret message, you don't know what kind of secret message would be sent, and you don't even know IF someone would send him a secret message. But, you HAVE to try to see IF there are any secret messages in his mail.
By your argument, this is impossible.
But, to scientists, analysts and decoding experts, it's just a STANDARD problem. The solution involves LOGIC AND PROBABILITIES.
Analysts look for PATTERNS that would not LOGICALLY appear by pure happenstance -- except maybe once in a trillion times.
Analysts acknowledge that it is POSSIBLE for some pattern to just randomly appear. They know that "anything is possible." But, it's not a matter of POSSIBILITIES, it's a matter of PROBABILITIES.
ONLY A FOOL BELIEVES THAT BECAUSE "ANYTHING IS POSSIBLE," NOTHING CAN BE PROVED IN COURT.
In court, they use different rules than you use. In solving criminal cases, they use different rules than what you use.
In criminal cases, it's about what ALMOST CERTAINLY HAPPENED. If the possibility of there being some other solution is ridiculously small, then the matter is PROVEN BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. It's not been proved beyond ANY doubt, just beyond a "reasonable" doubt.
1. Ivins inexplicably threw away one of his favorite books and a science magazine about codes in DNA.
2. After a search by police, suspects in crimes frequently throw away evidence that the police did not find, evidence which the suspect doesn't want the police to find if they do another search.
3. The basic coding technique in the media letter APPEARED to match the coding technique described in "Godel, Escher, Bach."
4. Ivins was KNOWN to have a keen interest in codes. He even STOLE a code book from the KKG sorority in an act of burglary.
5. The DNA coding method described in the science magazine allowed the FBI to decode an apparent message in the media letter.
6. The decoded messages appeared to relate to women Ivins knew.
What are the chances that this is all happenstance? It is not IMPOSSIBLE, but it is HIGHLY IMPROBABLE that it is just all an incredible series of coincidences.
When presented to a jury in court as part of a circumstantial evidence case against Bruce Ivins, it appears extremely unlikely that any intelligent juror would see it as just a bunch of coincidences. Intelligent people know that when coincidences pile up too high, they cease being "coincidences" and they become a PATTERN of EVIDENCE.
Try to follow that logic. It's not that hard. Even a child understands that there is very little that is absolutely certain in this world. But it's still okay to tell people that the Mickey Mouse Club is on TV on Saturday mornings.
Isn't it POSSIBLE that Ivins was the anthrax mailer? The FACTS say it is not only possible, it is EXTREMELY PROBABLE.
Ed
"The same logic would apply to reading mail that a dangerous prisoner receives. You don't know who would send him a secret message, you don't know what kind of secret message would be sent, and you don't even know IF someone would send him a secret message. But, you HAVE to try to see IF there are any secret messages in his mail.
ReplyDeleteBy your argument, this is impossible."
It may or may not be possible. Clearly the length of the message matters.
"1. Ivins inexplicably threw away one of his favorite books and a science magazine about codes in DNA.
2. After a search by police, suspects in crimes frequently throw away evidence that the police did not find, evidence which the suspect doesn't want the police to find if they do another search."
It's a guess that there is some meaning to be found in Ivan's trash. If there isn't any meaning, then everything that follows is wrong. (If there is some incriminating meaning, it doesn't mean that everything that follows is right. The FBI may have completely missed the significance).
"3. The basic coding technique in the media letter APPEARED to match the coding technique described in "Godel, Escher, Bach.""
This is a wild guess, not something that "appears" to be true.
"4. Ivins was KNOWN to have a keen interest in codes. He even STOLE a code book from the KKG sorority in an act of burglary."
Stealing a code book from the KKG sorority shows a keen interest in the KKG sorority, much more than a keen interest in codes.
"5. The DNA coding method described in the science magazine allowed the FBI to decode an apparent message in the media letter."
There isn't any "apparent message". There's a wild guess that there's a message.
"6. The decoded messages appeared to relate to women Ivins knew."
No, this is another wild guess.
"What are the chances that this is all happenstance? It is not IMPOSSIBLE, but it is HIGHLY IMPROBABLE that it is just all an incredible series of coincidences."
What coincidences??? Is it really a coincidence that 3 letters (only 8,000 possible "messages"!) can be interpreted as being linked to Bruce Ivans? No, not in the slightest. Because 3 letters can mean anything.
When you make one wild guess, you're unlikely to be right. When you make a series of wild guesses, you're extremely unlikely to be right. That's why I insist on evidence that the end result of all this speculation is actually a message, and not 3 random letters. Any reasonable person would.
Max is absolutely right: how did the Poles and then the Brits know that they were CORRECTLY deciphering/decoding the German Enigma-machine codes of WWII?
ReplyDeleteThe texts themselves told them: they would look at a text and it would, when deciphered/decoded, say something like:
'Der Fuehrer hat uns einen neuen Befehl gegeben'
In other words, the decoders were expecting: more or less grammatically correct German; complete thoughts or ideas (usually requiring a clause or sentence to be complete).
What if, on using a new decryption method, they deciphered the (apparent) word 'der' with nothing preceding it and nothing following it? Could they be certain that this was the German word(-form) 'der' and therefore their methodology was correct? No, they could not. Because it isn't a complete thought.
The German word 'der' is almost invariably preceding a noun (though sometimes with an intervening adjective). In isolation it's rather meaningless (like our English definite article 'the'). So, they couldn't be certain judging by the 'der' decryption that their decryption method was valid. Only a longer text(something coming after the 'der'), or OTHER texts could tell them that.
In one key way though this (the 'amino acid code' alleged in Amerithrax) is different:
in contrast with the German situation, where the code can be assumed unless the transmissions are in plain text, in the Brokaw text there's no guarantee that there's an encoded text*. So the matter is a chain of recursiveness:
1) the texts arrived at tell the decipherers that:
2) the decipherment method is correct (or in some cases not) and THAT:
3) confirms the hypothesis about the manner of encipherment/encryption
[and in the Brokaw letter] this:
4) confirms that there is a coded message there to begin with.
But "FNY" is not an English word, nor is it a standard** English abbreviation or acronym. All the Task Force did was INVENT an acronym for FNY for the express purpose of 'connecting' it in someway to Bruce Ivins, no matter how convolutedly.
That's not what legitimate cryptoanalysts do.
*I have it on good authority that an intelligent, informed gentleman claimed for years on the Internet that the highlighting was mere doodling, completely without meaning.
**As we saw in other discussions of this topic FNY is a localized abbreviation for
a number of placenames in New York State, but most of those towns are small and so FNY would mean little to someone not from those localities, and for someone who never lived in New York State. Mostly 'FNY' would draw a blank from most English-speakers, would not be in their vocabularies.
The situation for 'pat' is a bit more complicated:
ReplyDeleteThe word 'pat' is both a verb and a common noun in English.
As an isolated verb 'pat' would likely be taken as a imperative (ie Pat!), but that created two problems for the Task Force:
1) it isn't clear for whom the imperative (the command) is, ie to whom it is directed.
Or what/whom is to be patted. IOW it doesn't make much sense as a message.
2) this meaning (or its use as a common noun) wouldn't connect it to Ivins. The whole purpose and goal of the decryption exercise.
Hence, 'pat' had to be a proper name, as Ivins had (at least) two Pats in his life (Worsham and Fellows), and this could be presented as having some significance.
Given how common the name is, though, even if we could be certain that there was 1) a code and also 2) a legitimate solution to that code, it's quite a stretch to say you know what 'pat' means.
There's only one person for whom it can be accurately stated that Ivins had an 'obsession': Nancy Haigwood. And we know why: she was a member of KKG. So if Ivins had been writing coded messages to the object of his obsession we would expect some reference to a Nancy and/or to KKG. Not on offer.
Max wrote: "It's a guess that there is some meaning to be found in Ivan's trash. If there isn't any meaning, then everything that follows is wrong."
ReplyDeleteIt's not a "guess." It's and INVESTIGATIVE TECHNIQUE. Looking for clues in a suspect's trash is a standard operating procedure.
"This is a wild guess, not something that "appears" to be true."
It's LOGIC AND REASONING. Evidently that's an unknown subject to you.
"There isn't any "apparent message". There's a wild guess that there's a message."
It's not a guess. IT'S DEDUCTIVE REASONING.
There's no way to communicate here if you do not understand basic logic and deductive reasoning.
R. Rowley wrote: "But "FNY" is not an English word, nor is it a standard** English abbreviation or acronym. All the Task Force did was INVENT an acronym for FNY for the express purpose of 'connecting' it in someway to Bruce Ivins, no matter how convolutedly.
That's not what legitimate cryptoanalysts do."
All you are both doing is showing a mindless bias against the FBI and the facts of the case. You have your own theory, and you cannot see any validity in any other theory.
"There's only one person for whom it can be accurately stated that Ivins had an 'obsession': Nancy Haigwood."
Not true. Ivins was equally or even more obsessed with Mara Linscott. She was a family friend. He'd known her since she was in high school, probably longer. The differences are: (1) Haigwood was a SECRET obsession. Linscott NOT a secret obsession. (2) Linscott and Ivins worked together. (3) Because everyone knew of his obsession with Linscott, Ivins couldn't ATTACK Linscott the way he attacked Haigwood. Everyone would know about it. (But he DID tell his psychiatrist about thoughts of POISONING Linscott because she'd "betrayed" him by leaving her job at USAMRIID and going off to medical school.)
Max and R. Rowley are BOTH woefully ignorant of the case against Bruce Ivins, and they have FIXED IDEAS of how the world works. If something doesn't happen the way they imagine it MUST, then it must be an error.
How can anyone discuss anything intelligently with someone who thinks that basic deductive reasoning is "guesswork"?
All you are doing is arguing that IF another solution is POSSIBLE, then nothing has been proved -- and you are free to believe whatever you want to believe.
Yes, you can believe whatever you want to believe. No one is stopping you.
But, if you want to be taken seriously, you both need to DEMONSTRATE THAT YOUR EVIDENCE SUPPORTING YOUR CASE IS BETTER THAN THE FBI'S CASE AGAINST IVINS.
LET'S SEE HOW YOU THINK THINGS SHOULD BE DONE. SHOW US YOUR CASE AGAINST YOUR SUSPECT, AND EXPLAIN HOW IT IS BETTER.
Your argument seems to be that, if it is POSSIBLE for someone other than Ivins to have sent the anthrax letters, then the case against Ivins has not been proved, and that somehow automatically makes your theory better -- even if you cannot explain your theory intelligently, and it is more than just possible you are ridiculously wrong.
It's game-playing in support of nonsense, i.e., illogical logic.
Ed
Ed
But, if you want to be taken seriously, you both need to DEMONSTRATE THAT YOUR EVIDENCE SUPPORTING YOUR CASE IS BETTER THAN THE FBI'S CASE AGAINST IVINS.
DeleteLET'S SEE HOW YOU THINK THINGS SHOULD BE DONE. SHOW US YOUR CASE AGAINST YOUR SUSPECT, AND EXPLAIN HOW IT IS BETTER.
================================================
Wow, all caps. That must be serious!
My 'case' is about two books way. I'm certainly not going to spoil things
by presenting stuff here (beyond what I already have) in an effort to placate you, Mister Lake. Nice provocation, though!
R. Rowey wrote: "I'm certainly not going to spoil things
Deleteby presenting stuff here (beyond what I already have)."
In other words, you cannot provide any better evidence.
If you think a mass murderer is on the loose and that you have BETTER evidence against him than the FBI has against Ivins, isn't it your civic duty to help bring this person to justice as soon as possible?
If you do not trust the FBI, why not show your "evidence" to the media? Call a press conference.
What are you going to do, just sit around and claim that every new hoax anthrax letter is from your suspect? Why not put a stop to what he's doing? Is it because you think it might hurt the profits from your book?
Wouldn't it help you make more money off your theory if you released your information to the world so that the guy can be arrested? THEN you can publish your book about how you figured it all out. People will line up to buy such a book.
Oh yes, I remember. You are afraid of being sued. But, how can you be sued by someone who actually did what you claim he did, and you can PROVE IT? Are you saying that your evidence won't be enough to convince people that you are right? You might not be able to convince a judge or jury that your evidence is true and valid? And therefore you might be sued by your suspect?
Which is it? Do you have a case that can convince a judge and jury and thus eliminate any chance of being sued for LIBEL? Or do you believe a judge and jury will not believe your theory?
The material about the handwriting you've submitted so far has been laughable. It can easily be shown to be nonsense. Click HERE and HERE to see how easily it can be debunked. Those links go to the threads titled "Illogical Logic" and "Illogical Logic - Part 2." They show the unbelievable things you believe.
Ed
"It's not a "guess." It's and INVESTIGATIVE TECHNIQUE. Looking for clues in a suspect's trash is a standard operating procedure."
ReplyDeleteWhy would you think I disagree? I already said that I have no problem with what the FBI did. There's nothing wrong with looking. The problem is you claim they found something (actually your claim is far stronger: smoking gun evidence!), when they actually found nothing.
"It's LOGIC AND REASONING. Evidently that's an unknown subject to you."
Having a logical reason to look for something is not the same as finding it.
If somebody hands you a napkin and says there's a treasure map on it (actually it's just a coffee stain), you have a logical reason to go digging if you have nothing better to do. But it would highly illogical to assume that whatever junk you dig up must be treasure. The logical assumption is that what appears to be junk is junk, and you dug in the wrong place, or there was nothing to find in the first place.
That's the situation here. I'm not disputing that what the FBI did was logical, only the claim that they found something.
I seriously doubt the FBI places the same weight on this "code" business that you do, so I don't feel that I'm attacking the FBI's case at all. I'm only attacking your claim of smoking gun evidence.
Max wrote
Delete"I seriously doubt the FBI places the same weight on this "code" business that you do,[...]"
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From page 60 of the Amerithrax Investigative Summary: (after explications of 'FNY' and 'PAT':
"It was obviously impossible for the Task Force to determine with certainty that either of these two translations was correct. However, as the discussion that follows makes clear, the key point to the investigative analysis is that there is a hidden message, not so much what that message is."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The report has much more modest, but to me still untenable, claims for its 'amino acid code' than Mister Lake does.
R. Rowley wrote: "The report has much more modest, but to me still untenable, claims for its 'amino acid code' than Mister Lake does."
DeleteIn your opinion the claims are "untenable." The DOJ clearly feels otherwise, since they wrote: "the key point to the investigative analysis is that there is a hidden message, not so much what that message is."
"There IS a hidden message." They're not saying there could be a hidden message. There IS a hidden message, and it can be proven beyond any reasonable doubt in court that there IS a hidden message and that Ivins threw away the code books for coding and decoding the hidden message.
You may not believe it, because you have some different theory you cannot explain, but the facts speak for themselves: Ivins put a hidden message in the media letter.
Ed
Max wrote: "The problem is you claim they found something (actually your claim is far stronger: smoking gun evidence!), when they actually found nothing."
ReplyDeleteNo, the problem is they found evidence that you do not accept as evidence. The problem is not with the FBI, it's with you.
It appears that, just like R. Rowley, you either do not understand circumstantial evidence, or you do not accept it as real evidence and want the WORLD to stop using in and to do things your way.
"I seriously doubt the FBI places the same weight on this "code" business that you do, so I don't feel that I'm attacking the FBI's case at all. I'm only attacking your claim of smoking gun evidence."
Just like R. Rowley, you want to argue over words. It's "smoking gun" evidence TO ME because it directly connects Ivins and no one else to the media letter. The DOJ included a very detailed explanation of the code on pages 58 to 64 of the Amerithrax Investigation Summary. Whether they consider it a "smoking gun" or not is unknown. But, it's clear they consider it a VERY important part of the case.
It's a code that is explained in "code books" that Ivins threw away. That makes it a very specific coding technique which has little or nothing to do with other codes that have been used throughout history.
Ed
Regarding whether the government considers the "code" evidence to be very important, in the DOJ's press conference ( http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2008/August/08-opa-697.html ), there were several main points of evidence highlighted. The "code" was not mentioned, so at least the top DOJ lawyer involved doesn't seem to be among the people who considers it very important.
DeleteMax wrote: "the top DOJ lawyer involved doesn't seem to be among the people who considers it very important."
DeleteThat's YOUR interpretation.
First of all, the August 2008 news conference was held to advise the media about the evidence against Ivins a week after the news broke that Ivins was the anthrax killer and that Ivins had committed suicide.
The code is complex. It would require illustrations of some kind. The hastily assembled press conference wasn't organized that way. All they did was present the basic evidence that pointed to Ivins. Then they opened the press conference to questions from the media.
Secondly, the news about the hidden message in the media letter appeared for the first time in the Amerithrax Investigation Summary, which wasn't released until February 2010, a year and a half later. Since the Summary was a PRINTED document, it was a much better place to illustrate the code and how it worked.
But, of course, you and Mr. Rowley are free to see things differently.
Ed
Yes, it's my interpretation. I could be wrong, but it seems reasonable to assume that the DOJ lawyer highlighted the evidence that he considered the most important (regardless of complexity...surely you don't think the anthrax flask evidence is simple). The "code" didn't make the cut.
DeleteClearly at least one person other than you thinks the "code" evidence is meaningful or it wouldn't be in the Amerithrax document. You assume it's a generally held opinion at FBI/DOJ. I don't make that assumption.
Max wrote: "You assume it's a generally held opinion at FBI/DOJ."
DeleteNO, I don't. I don't CARE how many people believe this or that. I only care what the FACTS say to me.
Anthrax Truthers care about opinions and beliefs. I don't. I care what the FACTS say.
If 10,000 FBI agents believe Ivins disguised his handwriting to write the anthrax documents and the FACTS say that a child wrote the documents, I accept the FACTS until I am shown BETTER FACTS which prove something else.
Beliefs and opinions mean nothing to me, unless they are EXPERT OPINIONS about subjects where there can be no "facts," such as the interpretation of what "PAT" and "FNY" most likely mean, or a psychiatrist's opinion about Ivins' motive and why he most likely did what he did.
Ed
"NO, I don't. I don't CARE how many people believe this or that. I only care what the FACTS say to me."
DeleteYou mentioned it several times, which is strange if you don't care about it. ("Actually, however, that's not MY interpretation. It's the interpretation of the FBI and DOJ... You have your view point (which is shared by other naysayers), and I have mine (which is generally shared by the FBI and DOJ)." "...from the DOJ' and FBI's and my point of view, it is perfectly LOGICAL for Ivins to have encoded "PAT" and "FNY" into the media letter." "You may disagree and have a different way of viewing things, but that is the way the courts and the Department of Justice view things. So, that is the way the evidence would be presented in court.")
I didn't want to talk about the FBI/DOJ view at all, only your "smoking gun" article, but you kept bringing it up.
"If 10,000 FBI agents believe Ivins disguised his handwriting to write the anthrax documents and the FACTS say that a child wrote the documents, I accept the FACTS until I am shown BETTER FACTS which prove something else."
For someone who throws around the word Truther like confetti, you sound a lot like....a Truther. As in, someone who stubbornly holds to a pet theory which defies common sense.
Not saying you are one. Just that you sound like one sometimes.
Max wrote: "You mentioned it several times, which is strange if you don't care about it."
DeleteIf I mention what people believe, it's because I've been arguing with Truthers and what they BELIEVE for twelve years.
"For someone who throws around the word Truther like confetti, you sound a lot like....a Truther. As in, someone who stubbornly holds to a pet theory which defies common sense."
You misunderstand. My "pet theory" was that a scientist who lives and works in New Jersey was the anthrax killer. That was what the FACTS told me from November 2001 through July 2008.
When the FBI presented BETTER FACTS that Ivins was the anthrax killer, I had no choice to to drop my "pet theory" and go with what the new facts said.
It's a scientific point of view. Only facts matter when trying to understand something. As I said in the previous thread, at one time (in ancient times) nearly everyone in the world BELIEVED that the earth was flat. That didn't make it flat. Beliefs do not determine what is true or not. FACTS determine what is true.
Facts can sometimes be misleading. And they have to be correctly interpreted. But, they're still better than relying on beliefs and opinions.
You can intelligently discuss facts with other people and find a way to resolve different interpretations of the facts. I've done that COUNTLESS TIMES. I find it's virtually impossible to discuss beliefs and opinions and get someone to change their mind.
I had a "theory" that someone in New Jersey sent the anthrax letters. I didn't "believe" the theory. I just had no better theory. I placed about a 20 percent confidence value on it.
I recently thought (see the previous thread) that a picture of snow on the pyramids was real. Others showed me "evidence" that it was fake, but their evidence could be easily and thoroughly debunked. The picture was not simply color adjusted, nor was it something that could be created overnight to produce a fake picture on the internet.
My investigation showed that the picture was technically neither fake nor real. It was a work of art created years ago that was found when people did searches for pictures of "snow on the pyramids." It came from a collection of artwork about a post-apocalyptic world.
A "Truther" is someone who believes he or she KNOWS the truth. And nothing can change his or her mind.
If I think it's a 97% certainty that a child did the writing on the anthrax documents because of what the FACTS tell me, I'm not saying it's the "truth." I'm saying it's what the facts say until someone can supply BETTER FACTS to show something else is more likely.
Ed
Just like R. Rowley, you want to argue over words. It's "smoking gun" evidence TO ME because it directly connects Ivins and no one else to the media letter.
ReplyDelete=======================================================
That's only because the 'decryption' was DESIGNED that way. It was guided, and motivated by an oh-my-gosh-the-public-didn't-swoon-at-our-August-6th-press-conference-so-we've-got-to-make-up-something-impressive insight. It's both invented and/or manufactured 'evidence' and junk evidence at that. No one with even a passing knowledge of the field of codes and their decipherment would take such 'evidence' seriously. That a large majority of the US population lacks even that passing knowledge of the field is evidently what the Task Force was banking on.
At every turn the Task Force said, 'Let's assume there's an encoded message there and let's assume it is encoded according to Douglas Hofstadter's book, and let's assume the 'text' connects to Bruce Ivins. They had no trouble (eventually) manufacturing such evidence. The books were cooked. A self-fulfilling prophecy.
Real cryptoanalysts don't work that way: they have a let-the-chips-fall-where-they-may attitude. Disinterestedness.
I don't think they set out to manufacture evidence. If they had, they would have kept trying different codes (perhaps with the aid of a computer) until they found a "message" that was plausible.
DeleteThe problem isn't what the FBI did, it's that the conclusion that there's a message is completely unreliable, since it's built on a mountain of guesswork, with no verification from the supposed "message" itself.
Ed takes this mistake and runs with it, calling it smoking gun evidence. Adding to the absurdity is the suggestion that two alternate "decodings" are both valid. Even if you swallow everything else, that should raise an eyebrow.
Max wrote: "The problem isn't what the FBI did, it's that the conclusion that there's a message is completely unreliable, since it's built on a mountain of guesswork, with no verification from the supposed "message" itself."
DeleteIt's NOT guesswork. It is LOGIC and DEDUCTIVE REASONING based upon SOLID EVIDENCE.
The books exist, the code exists, the interpretation of the code is entirely logical and follows the rules in the book. Anyone can see that. No one can intelligently deny it.
The FBI acknowledges that they cannot be absolutely certain what "PAT" and "FNY" meant to Ivins, since they're not mind-readers. But, that is not important. What IS important is that there WAS a hidden message in the media letter and Ivins threw away the code books for decoding that hidden message. That is SOLID evidence in court that points to Ivins as the culprit and no one else.
Only someone with a totally distorted view of the world would argue otherwise.
Ed
"The FBI acknowledges that they cannot be absolutely certain what "PAT" and "FNY" meant to Ivins, since they're not mind-readers. But, that is not important. What IS important is that there WAS a hidden message..."
DeleteAnd you believe this with serene confidence despite the fact that the decoded "message" is a mere 3 letters of gibberish?
You have a strange idea of solid evidence.
Max wrote: "And you believe this with serene confidence despite the fact that the decoded "message" is a mere 3 letters of gibberish?
DeleteYou have a strange idea of solid evidence."
You have some INEXPLICABLE BELIEF that a hidden message cannot consist of just three characters. There can be no intelligent basis for such a belief. Why can't a hidden message consist of just "YES" or "NO"?
The decoded message was NOT "gibberish." You just BELIEVE it is "gibberish" because you have a different theory and it cannot be stated with absolute certainty whether the decoded message was "PAT" or "FNY" or both.
It was decoded using the technique in the books Ivins threw away. That makes it SOLID evidence. Exactly what was in Ivins' mind when he encoded the message is not critical. All that is important is if you follow the steps described in "Godel, Escher, Bach" you get a hidden message that CAN connect Ivins to the anthrax letters.
A couple months ago I had an argument with someone who could not accept the playing of "Taps" as a "signal." It was TOO LONG to be a "signal," according to his beliefs. A "signal" was evidently just supposed to be a blowing of a whistle or a sounding of a horn.
I could make no sense of why a "signal" cannot be a 55-second composition on a bugle, nor can I make any sense of a belief that a decoded message cannot consist of merely 3 characters. You're establishing RULES for the universe that I do not believe are real rules.
Ed
I wrote: "You're establishing RULES for the universe that I do not believe are real rules."
DeleteOr maybe, just as Mr. Rowley seems to constantly do, you're establishing RULES for what a word means. The word "SIGNAL" means some something short, not long. "Message" means something long, not short.
I see no such rules.
Ed
Just on the point of how important people think the 'amino acid code' is as a skein of evidence: David Willman presents it in his book MIRAGE MAN but when he gets down to hard tacks in an epilogue at the very end of the text proper 'The Case Against Bruce Ivins', the 'code' doesn't make the cut. And, once again, Willman thinks Ivins was likely the culprit.
Delete"The FBI acknowledges that they cannot be absolutely certain what "PAT" and "FNY" meant to Ivins, since they're not mind-readers."
Delete----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But saying that Ivins WROTE such a code is untestable outside of verifying the legitimacy/accuracy of the text arrived at. You are ALREADY engaged in mindreading if you say: 'yeah, Ivins wrote this, it must have some meaning for him.'
"You have some INEXPLICABLE BELIEF that a hidden message cannot consist of just three characters. There can be no intelligent basis for such a belief. Why can't a hidden message consist of just "YES" or "NO"?"
DeleteI didn't imply anything of the sort, which again makes me question whether you understand me.
The main issue isn't what a "message" could be, or would likely be. That's a side issue which I have avoided. The issue is what kind of message would reliably indicate that there's a message.
The key word is reliably. If you want to claim that this evidence would convict Bruce Ivans, then it should be reliable. The fact that you can hallucinate a connection between 3 letters of gibberish and Bruce Ivans is not reliable evidence.
"The decoded message was NOT "gibberish." You just BELIEVE it is "gibberish" because you have a different theory and it cannot be stated with absolute certainty whether the decoded message was "PAT" or "FNY" or both."
Yes, gibberish. And why, may I ask, do you feel the need to add "or both"? Is there any reason to believe in a dual message? Is that part of the "code"? No, you just made it up.
"It was decoded using the technique in the books Ivins threw away. That makes it SOLID evidence."
Absolutely not, because the "code" provides no reliable way to verify that the message has been decoded correctly. So you don't know whether there is a message, or whether the 3 letters of gibberish are the product of interpreting meaningless markings in the letters as a code.
I wrote: "You're establishing RULES for the universe that I do not believe are real rules."
DeleteOr maybe, just as Mr. Rowley seems to constantly do, you're establishing RULES for what a word means[...]
==========================================
Basically, words mean what people use them for. But not people so much as individuals but as members of speech communities, since people use language to communicate with others.
I have no personal opinion on your tete-a-tete over 'signal' except to note that personal usages are going to vary a somewhat.
R. Rowley wrote: But saying that Ivins WROTE such a code is untestable outside of verifying the legitimacy/accuracy of the text arrived at. You are ALREADY engaged in mindreading if you say: 'yeah, Ivins wrote this, it must have some meaning for him.'"
DeleteOnly on your planet. On this planet, if you have good evidence that someone wrote "PAT" on the side of a building, it is NATURAL to ASSUME that those letters mean something to the man who wrote them. It doesn't really matter what the letters mean, the crime is in writing on the side of a building. And that can be PROVEN in court.
Max wrote: "The issue is what kind of message would reliably indicate that there's a message. The key word is reliably."
"Reliably" is a word that different people interpret differently. And, there CAN be a "message" even if no one except the writer can interpret the message.
"The fact that you can hallucinate a connection between 3 letters of gibberish and Bruce Ivans is not reliable evidence."
The letters are NOT gibberish. If the message in the anthrax letter decoded to "QWJ," that would be different. That WOULD be gibberish. But the fact that following the decoding steps led to a meaningful result, however ambiguous that result might be, means that the decoding rules were followed AND a result was reached which APPEARS correct.
The jury would understand that there is no way to GUARANTEE what the letters "PAT" mean without a confession from Ivins, but the jury does not need guarantees. They just need to accept that "Pat" is something that means something to Ivins, therefore it COULD be something he'd encode in such a letter. The FACT that the coding rules from the books were followed says Ivins did it. The message itself is secondary, and not really essential at all.
Ed
R. Rowley wrote: But saying that Ivins WROTE such a code is untestable outside of verifying the legitimacy/accuracy of the text arrived at. You are ALREADY engaged in mindreading if you say: 'yeah, Ivins wrote this, it must have some meaning for him.'"
DeleteOnly on your planet. On this planet, if you have good evidence that someone wrote "PAT" on the side of a building, it is NATURAL to ASSUME that those letters mean something to the man who wrote them. It doesn't really matter what the letters mean, the crime is in writing on the side of a building. And that can be PROVEN in court.
============================================
If it were that OBVIOUS as the comparison you make, then the investigation would have arrested Ivins in October of 2001. And you, Mister Lake, would not have spent years defiantly declaiming on the Internet that the 'code' (ie the highlighting) was a child's doodling.
That Ivins threw out his copy of Hofstadter's book does not establish that he (Ivins) used the book to ENCODE any message, let alone an alleged one in the Brokaw letter. There are several other interpretations to his discarding of the book, including an interpretation I've adduced here at least 4 or 5 times: Ivins was using the book to try to DECODE what he thought might be a message in the Brokaw text. He eventually gave up and threw the book away as a symbolic gesture (to himself) that he was through playing detective in the Amerithrax Case.
This fits in better with emails that Ivins wrote to himself in the 2005-8 period. From the Amerithrax Investigative Summary: (page 72)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In November 2007, a search of Dr. Ivins’s residence revealed the printout of an e-mail he sent to himself “speculating” in an illogical 12-point memo that Former Colleagues #1 and #2 together mailed the anthrax letters in an effort to get back at him, a notion he had raised once before:///snip////
==============================================
A guilty man wouldn't have needed to do any speculating, logical or illogical.
He would know.
R. Rowley wrote: "If it were that OBVIOUS as the comparison you make, then the investigation would have arrested Ivins in October of 2001."
DeleteIt's "obvious" when you have the FACTS. It's not "obvious" when you have NO meaningful facts because you haven't yet started the investigation.
That is about the DUMBEST argument you've made to date.
R. Rowley also wrote: "That Ivins threw out his copy of Hofstadter's book does not establish that he (Ivins) used the book to ENCODE any message, let alone an alleged one in the Brokaw letter. There are several other interpretations to his discarding of the book, including an interpretation I've adduced here at least 4 or 5 times: Ivins was using the book to try to DECODE what he thought might be a message in the Brokaw text. He eventually gave up and threw the book away as a symbolic gesture (to himself) that he was through playing detective in the Amerithrax Case."
You are just showing abysmal ignorance of the evidence against Ivins.
"Godel, Escher, Bach" was a favorite book of Ivins YEARS before the anthrax attacks. Nancy Haigwood had recommended the book to him TWENTY YEARS BEFORE THE ATTACKS. He'd tried to get Pat Fellows to read it long before the attacks.
The idea that he bought it after the attacks to try to figure out the code in the letters is not consistent with the KNOWN facts. You are just rationalizing and making stuff up because you are ignorant of the facts pointing to Ivins as the anthrax mailer.
Ed
"The letters are NOT gibberish. If the message in the anthrax letter decoded to "QWJ," that would be different. That WOULD be gibberish. But the fact that following the decoding steps led to a meaningful result, however ambiguous that result might be, means that the decoding rules were followed AND a result was reached which APPEARS correct."
DeleteThe only reason why you say that QWJ is gibberish and PAT isn't, is because you lazily adopt the FBI's "suggested meaning" for PAT. It's not because PAT is actually more meaningful than QWJ. Perhaps repeated exposure to the FBI's interpretation has made it seem inevitable and obvious to you, but it's not.
The result appears to be 3 letters of gibberish. The most reasonable conclusion is that one, or all, of the guesses required to decode the message (starting with the guess that there was some incriminating meaning to Ivan's trash, through interpreting what appear to be meaningless markings as a code) were incorrect.
If you can't prove (not with certainty, but with some reliability) that there's a message, then this isn't usable evidence. It's just a lead that didn't pan out.
I gave some examples of how you could prove a message, but that confused you, because you thought I was giving a view as to what a message must be or would likely be. I don't assume a message must be anything, but not all (hidden) messages can be reliably recognized as messages.
Max wrote: "The only reason why you say that QWJ is gibberish and PAT isn't, is because you lazily adopt the FBI's "suggested meaning" for PAT."
DeleteThe only reason you say PAT is gibberish is because you lazily refuse to understand circumstantial evidence. As a result, tou mindlessly disagree with a case you cannot understand. Until you learn to understand circumstantial evidence, you can't understand the case against Bruce Ivins, since it is a circumstantial evidence case.
You repeatedly misspell Ivins' name as "Ivans." If you can't even get his name right, how can you believe you can understand the case against him? (It appears you DELIBERATELY misspell his name as a way of trying to make your posts look different from R. Rowley's posts. The same with not using equal signs to identify quotes. It doesn't make your posts look different, it highlights the similarities.)
Max also wrote: "If you can't prove (not with certainty, but with some reliability) that there's a message, then this isn't usable evidence."
That may be your BELIEF, but it has nothing to do with reality. You and Mr. Rowley need to learn about circumstantial evidence. Until you understand circumstantial evidence, there seems no possibility of holding a meaningful discussion with you.
Ed
"You repeatedly misspell Ivins' name as "Ivans." If you can't even get his name right, how can you believe you can understand the case against him? (It appears you DELIBERATELY misspell his name as a way of trying to make your posts look different from R. Rowley's posts. The same with not using equal signs to identify quotes. It doesn't make your posts look different, it highlights the similarities.) "
DeleteSorry about the misspelling. As I said before, I lost interest in the case after 2008, so not everything is at the tip of my tongue. Your "smoking gun" article is the first time I became aware of an alleged code in the letters, and that's what I want to discuss. I haven't said one word about the case as a whole.
I've noticed that when you use the word "appears", what follows is invariably a highly imaginative theory. You apply imagination where it's not called for, and exhibit of a lack of imagination where some is required (e.g. imagining how you might interpret QWJ is that were the "decoding").
Repeating "you don't understand circumstantial evidence" is not engaging the argument. I don't demand you agree with me, just that you make some effort to understand, which is a prerequisite for an intelligent disagreement.
Max wrote: "Sorry about the misspelling. As I said before, I lost interest in the case after 2008, so not everything is at the tip of my tongue."
DeleteYes, but the name has been spelled correctly in dozens of posts on this blog. I spell it correctly when I respond to you. Most people would see that I spell it differently and would then figure out which is right.
I use the word "appears" to describe how things appear to me. I want to avoid declaring something is true that is really just how I see things. In other words, I don't want to do things the way you do them. Example:
You wrote: "The only reason why you say that QWJ is gibberish and PAT isn't, is because you lazily adopt the FBI's "suggested meaning" for PAT."
You do not know what my reason is. You are stating that as if it was a FACT. It's just your OPINION. I would have begun with "It appears ..." so that I don't look like I'm stating facts when I'm just stating an opinion.
Max also wrote: "Repeating "you don't understand circumstantial evidence" is not engaging the argument. I don't demand you agree with me, just that you make some effort to understand, which is a prerequisite for an intelligent disagreement."
I FULLY understand your argument. It's the same argument I've been hearing for 12 years from other Truthers. But your argument is FALSE. It's based upon a misunderstanding of circumstantial evidence. Until you and Mr. Rowley understand how circumstantial evidence works, there's no hope of you reaching any correct understanding of the case against Ivins.
Ed
I've noticed that when you use the word "appears", what follows is invariably a highly imaginative theory. You apply imagination where it's not called for, and exhibit of a lack of imagination where some is required [...]
Delete===============================================
Oh wait! That reminds me of a quotation from Goya:
""Fantasy, abandoned by reason, produces impossible monsters; united with it, she is the mother of the arts and the origin of marvels.""
The case against Bruce Ivins=an impossible monster
Mister Lake addressing Max:
Delete----------------------------------------
I FULLY understand your argument. It's the same argument I've been hearing for 12 years from other Truthers.
=========================================
Obviously erroneous on the timeframe: we're all talking about Bruce Ivins, and in the October 2001 to August 2008 no 'truther' was saying he was innocent because no one knew he was a suspect! Try: 4 1/2 years of arguing about Ivins. And the 'amino acid code' (what Max has concentrated on here) wasn't unveiled until February of 2010, just under 4 years ago. So we see here Mister Lake's penchants for:
1) ignoring chronology
2) exaggerating and
3) grouping all of his 'debate partners' under a single rubric
all rolled in one!
"Yes, but the name has been spelled correctly in dozens of posts on this blog. I spell it correctly when I respond to you. Most people would see that I spell it differently and would then figure out which is right."
DeleteOkay! I get it. It was sloppy of me. I'm sorry.
"I FULLY understand your argument. It's the same argument I've been hearing for 12 years from other Truthers."
That's quite remarkable since the evidence we're discussing wasn't public before, I believe, 2010 (in any case not for 12 years).
Do you want to discuss this "smoking gun" evidence or not? Because if you don't, then I'll stop. I have zero interest in discussing ill-defined and abstract legal theories (if there is even anything to discuss).
And again, I haven't said one word about the case as a whole. That is, of course, a much broader and more complicated topic than just looking at one piece of evidence. Let's stick to something relatively simple before venturing into deeper waters, eh?
Max wrote: "Do you want to discuss this "smoking gun" evidence or not?"
DeleteWhat is it you want to discuss? That I don't use the same definition of "smoking gun" that you use? So what? Who cares?
If you want to discuss the hidden message in the media letter and how it HELPS PROVE Ivins was the anthrax killer, then I'm ready to discuss that. It's what I HAVE been discussing. But, first we would need to come to an agreement on how circumstantial evidence works. There's no possibility of any intelligent discussion of the evidence if we don't agree on how circumstantial evidence works in court. The hidden message evidence IS circumstantial evidence.
Ed
I wrote: "It's the same argument I've been hearing for 12 years from other Truthers."
DeleteAnd R. Rowley responded: "Obviously erroneous on the timeframe: we're all talking about Bruce Ivins,....."
I've been arguing circumstantial evidence with TRUTHERS for 12 years. Prior to the announcement that Ivins was the killer, the truthers were arguing that al Qaeda, the CIA, Dick CHENEY, the Jews, Steven Hatfill, Right Wingers and others were the killer. NONE of them had any real evidence, and they generally misunderstood circumstantial evidence.
But, if it helps, I'll say I've been arguing about circumstantial evidence SPECIFICALLY for FIVE years.
Ed
"What is it you want to discuss? That I don't use the same definition of "smoking gun" that you use? So what? Who cares?"
DeleteIf you recall, we already established that we mean the same thing. I posted a definition and you agreed that this is what you meant.
To refresh your memory: (quoted from wikipedia) "The term "smoking gun" was originally, and is still primarily, a reference to an object or fact that serves as conclusive evidence of a crime or similar act."
"If you want to discuss the hidden message in the media letter and how it HELPS PROVE Ivins was the anthrax killer, then I'm ready to discuss that. It's what I HAVE been discussing."
Don't be obtuse. My argument is about why there's no reliable evidence of a message. A non-existent message can't "help prove" anything.
"But, first we would need to come to an agreement on how circumstantial evidence works. There's no possibility of any intelligent discussion of the evidence if we don't agree on how circumstantial evidence works in court. The hidden message evidence IS circumstantial evidence."
If there were a message, then of course it would be evidence (whether you classify it as circumstantial is of no importance). The fact that you seem to think I believe otherwise shows that you haven't been making the slightest effort to understand me. You just want to pigeonhole me as someone who "doesn't understand circumstantial evidence" (whatever the heck that means)...which is seemingly how you classify everyone who disagrees with you about anything whatsoever.
Max wrote: "Don't be obtuse. My argument is about why there's no reliable evidence of a message. A non-existent message can't "help prove" anything."
DeleteDon't be obtuse. The message exists. The code exists. The evidence exists. Simply declaring your BELIEF that it is "non-existent" doesn't make it so. It just shows you have unshakable BELIEFS and cannot understand evidence that challenges your BELIEFS.
I understand you. You BELIEVE there is no message even though the FACTS clearly show there is a message and Ivins composed the message.
The fact that I do not accept your BELIEFS doesn't mean I don't understand what you are saying. I understand it very well, because I've encountered it many many times over the past 12 years.
The problem is that your UNSHAKABLE BELIEFS do not allow you to accept FACTS which are clear and undeniable. That's perfectly understandable. It's the thinking of a "True Believer," a very well-known and well-documented psychological condition.
Ed
Max wrote: "Don't be obtuse. My argument is about why there's no reliable evidence of a message. A non-existent message can't "help prove" anything."
Delete----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Don't be obtuse. The message exists. The code exists. The evidence exists. Simply declaring your BELIEF that it is "non-existent" doesn't make it so. It just shows you have unshakable BELIEFS and cannot understand evidence that challenges your BELIEFS.
I understand you. You BELIEVE there is no message even though the FACTS clearly show there is a message and Ivins composed the message.
=======================================
Mister Lake. your reading skills have failed you and not for the first time.
Reread the thread. You will find:
1) Max states not his opinion but the generally understood view in the field of cryptographic science that the only way to test whether a code exists and whether you have deciphered it is: producing reliable breakouts of texts in the code in question. That certainly is, to put it mildly, in doubt in the case of the alleged 'amino acid code' of Amerithrax.
2) I, in parallel to Max, gave the example of real-world code breaking: the Enigma machine(s) used in WWII and how the Bletchley Park code breakers knew they were onto something. They required reliable breakouts of some length and/or number to know they were onto something.
3) In contrast, Mister Lake produces a profession of faith: "The message exists. The code exists. The evidence exists. " He then, in the same post immediately taxes Max (and by implication me) with having a similar but opposite faith " I understand you. You BELIEVE there is no message even though the FACTS clearly show there is a message and Ivins composed the message."
But Mister Lake, as always has FAILED to understand Max and me: he fails to understand that there are criteria for determining the reliability of a decoded message and, yes, even the existence of a 'hidden message'. Mister Lake fails utterly to engage the argument, to state what he thinks the criteria are in the field for determining the existence of such a hidden message. He just keeps repeating over and over and over again that he and only he understands circumstantial evidence.
R. Rowley wrote: "Max states not his opinion but the generally understood view in the field of cryptographic science that the only way to test whether a code exists and whether you have deciphered it is: producing reliable breakouts of texts in the code in question."
DeleteIt is Max's (and evidently YOUR) OPINION that "cryptographic science" has some relevancy here. IT DOES NOT. The decoding was NOT done by an cryptoanalyist, it was done by a FBI agent who is also a microbiologist. In court the FBI agent would testify to what he found. There is no need for any cryptoanalysts (unless the DEFENSE) wanted to challenge something.
R. Rowley also wrote: "3) In contrast, Mister Lake produces a profession of faith: "The message exists. The code exists. The evidence exists."
It's not a matter of "faith." THE FACTS say the code exists. You just do not believe the facts.
R. Rowley also wrote: "he fails to understand that there are criteria for determining the reliability of a decoded message and, yes, even the existence of a 'hidden message'. "
You may be able to dream up instances where that would be true, but this is NOT such an instance.
The testimony of an FBI agent and how he found evidence does NOT have to be certified or verified by ANYONE. PERIOD.
Your misunderstanding about lay witness testimony versus "expert witness" testimony has been discussed before. I even checked with some lawyers on the subject and wrote about it on my web site. Check my comment for July 7, 2013, where I quote a lawyer who said: "The rules of evidence deal with questions and how they are put."
The idea that a judge would not allow the testimony about the hidden message in the media letter is beyond ignorant, it is STUPID. If it is what an FBI investigator found and it is relevant to the case, IT IS VALID EVIDENCE and it can be admitted. PERIOD. It is up to the jury to determine if they want to believe it or not.
Here is another lawyer's opinion from July 3, 2013: "Basically, there is nothing that would specifically prevent the officer from testifying about the code just like there would be nothing that would prevent you or me from doing so. He would not be considered an expert and there may be some limit on what he could testify about regarding the code but generally speaking he could probably say what he believed the code meant.
My belief, and others may disagree, is that code breaking could be accomplished by a lay person and they could then testify to the code (but probably not code breaking as a skill or details regarding other codes or other specific information). Think of it like solving a Sudoku puzzle. Anyone could do it if given the time. That person would not be barred from testifying about the solution simply because they are not a professional trained Sudoku puzzle solver. "
Another lawyer wrote: "If the officer has the personal experience of cracking the code, he or she can certainly testify as a lay witness. The officer's testimony is relevant and has no problem on admissibility as to the process and result of his or her own experiences without expert qualification."
Just go through my 2012, part 2 web page HERE and search for "rules of evidence". You will find that the BELIEF that an officer cannot testify to what he found if it is some kind of code is NONSENSE. PERIOD.
Ed
"I understand you."
DeleteYou thought I believed that a message would be initials. You thought I had a view as what a message "must" be. You thought I believed a message would not be evidence.
All mistakes. I didn't say or imply any of those things. That's a lot of mistakes for someone who supposedly understands the argument. It's more consistent with someone who read without comprehension.
Perhaps by now you do understand, but I'm still awaiting some evidence of it.
"The problem is that your UNSHAKABLE BELIEFS do not allow you to accept FACTS which are clear and undeniable. That's perfectly understandable. It's the thinking of a "True Believer," a very well-known and well-documented psychological condition."
What do you call the psychological condition that causes some people to focus on meaningless details and spin them into far fetched theories? Like the meaningless markings in the anthrax letters...or my misspelling of Ivins!
Max wrote: "What do you call the psychological condition that causes some people to focus on meaningless details and spin them into far fetched theories? Like the meaningless markings in the anthrax letters...or my misspelling of Ivins!"
DeleteHasn't it been made clear? The markings are NOT meaningless. The FACTS say they are not meaningless. You BELIEFS do not change what the FACTS say.
You wrote: "You thought I believed that a message would be initials. You thought I had a view as what a message "must" be. You thought I believed a message would not be evidence."
I thought NONE Of this. It's either totally made up, or it's just YOUR misunderstanding of what I wrote. It's NONSENSE.
You wrote: "The FBI found nothing. There is no message.
PAT is not a message.
FNY is not a message."
You believe that it's not a message unless it meets YOUR criteria.
You evidently believe you are the ONLY authority on what is real and what is not.
I understand you believe that way. I just do not agree with you.
I look at the FACTS. The FACTS say that Ivins was the anthrax mailer, and the FACTS say he wrote a coded message in the anthrax letter he sent to the media. Your BELIEFS do not change that.
Ed
"Hasn't it been made clear? The markings are NOT meaningless. The FACTS say they are not meaningless. You BELIEFS do not change what the FACTS say."
DeleteWe have a demonstration on this page of your fascination with meaningless details leading you to a false conclusion.
So excuse me if I question your analysis.
"You believe that it's not a message unless it meets YOUR criteria."
No.
Some messages will validate that there's a message, and some will not.
If your "message" appears to be 3 random letters, then you can't be confident that you decoded it correctly (or that there is anything to decode).
If by some miracle there actually is a message, then I have no idea what it would be. There's no logical reason for a hidden message to begin with. 3 random-looking letters makes as much sense (none) as anything.
If we had some evidence that Bruce Ivins, for some crazy reason, put the hidden message PAT in things he wrote...that would be a coincidence. But we don't have anything like that.
There are no coincidences here, just a collection of meaningless details connected by a far fetched theory.
Max wrote: "We have a demonstration on this page of your fascination with meaningless details leading you to a false conclusion."
DeleteThat's your OPINION. I disagree.
"There's no logical reason for a hidden message to begin with. 3 random-looking letters makes as much sense (none) as anything."
That's your OPINION. I disagree.
"If we had some evidence that Bruce Ivins, for some crazy reason, put the hidden message PAT in things he wrote...that would be a coincidence. But we don't have anything like that."
That's your OPINION. I disagree.
"There are no coincidences here, just a collection of meaningless details connected by a far fetched theory."
That's your OPINION. I disagree.
If you can't do anything except voice your OPINION, then we have nothing to discuss. As I've told you before, OPINION VERSUS OPINION ARGUMENTS ARE POINTLESS.
If you are incapable of discussing facts and evidence, then we cannot have an intelligent conversation. FACTS AND EVIDENCE are what prove Ivins was the anthrax mailer, and your OPINIONS change nothing. By merely arguing your OPINIONS, you're just wasting my time.
Ed
"Max wrote: "We have a demonstration on this page of your fascination with meaningless details leading you to a false conclusion."
DeleteThat's your OPINION. I disagree."
In case it isn't obvious, I'm referring to:
"It appears you DELIBERATELY misspell his name as a way of trying to make your posts look different from R. Rowley's posts. The same with not using equal signs to identify quotes. It doesn't make your posts look different, it highlights the similarities."
This demonstrates:
1) a focus on meaningless details (my careless misspelling of Ivins, quoting style)
2) spinning the meaningless details into a far fetched theory
3) an inability to see the big picture and apply common sense
4) blundering into a wrong conclusion (in this case, I know it's wrong with 100% certainty, even if you don't. So this isn't my "opinion").
When you say you don't care about "opinions", what you're saying is that you have so much confidence in your analytical skills that you won't listen to any explanation of why your analysis is flawed.
This is much the same as a conversation I had with you many, many years ago about your "child author" theory. When I pointed out some random fact about the writing that you had overlooked, you got very excited. You adore meaningless facts. But when I talked about the flaws in your analysis (which of course, is critically important if you care about finding the truth), you turned to stone. You didn't want to hear a word. I don't know if it's arrogance or stubbornness, but you completely turn off your brain when somebody suggests you made an error in judgement. "By merely pointing out my analytical blunders, you're wasting my time! Don't you have any irrelevant facts? I love those!"
Max wrote: "When you say you don't care about "opinions", what you're saying is that you have so much confidence in your analytical skills that you won't listen to any explanation of why your analysis is flawed."
DeleteYou''ll notice that, unlike you, I stated NO certainties. I saw something odd and wondered about it. That's all. I came to no conclusions.
But, you jump to a conclusion that because I wondered about the way you repeatedly misspelled "Ivins" as "Ivans," my wondering somehow relates to all the actual analyses I've done over 12 years.
That is just your screwball opinion. It has absolutely NOTHING to do with reality, as far as I'm concerned.
It appears (i.e., it's just my point of view) that you are just trying to change the argument because you cannot intelligently discuss the facts about the hidden message.
Ed
R. Rowley wrote: "At every turn the Task Force said, 'Let's assume there's an encoded message there and let's assume it is encoded according to Douglas Hofstadter's book, and let's assume the 'text' connects to Bruce Ivins. They had no trouble (eventually) manufacturing such evidence. The books were cooked. A self-fulfilling prophecy."
ReplyDeleteThat is just your WARPED and DISTORTED view of things. It has nothing to do with reality.
Anyone who bothers to understand how investigations work would see that they did what investigators are supposed to do. They followed the evidence.
The books show the coding process STEP BY STEP. Anyone who isn't deliberately blind to the evidence can see that. There was no "prophecy" by the FBI. They didn't know there was any kind of hidden message in the media letter. The INVESTIGATION led them to the code.
1. They found the code books after Ivins threw them away.
2. In the books they found the details for the code Ivins had used.
3. They used those details to decode the hidden message.
As the Amerithrax Investigation Summary says, "there is a hidden message." There can be NO DOUBT about that for anyone with an open mind.
When the FBI agent looked at the books Ivins had thrown away, he had no idea what they might mean. But, they were IVINS' books, not books found in a library. So, the question was: why did Ivins throw them away?
R. Rowley also wrote: "Real cryptoanalysts don't work that way: they have a let-the-chips-fall-where-they-may attitude. Disinterestedness."
Only in your fantasy world. In the real world, real cryptoanalysts are VERY interested in what they might find. It's ridiculous to believe that a scientist looking for signals from alien worlds wouldn't care what he found. Or that he would be no more expecting to receive a message from an alien world than a signal between dope dealers in Chicago. You can argue that he's biased because he's listening for signals from an alien world and therefore would automatically interpret any signal as being from an alien world, but, in reality, they begin by trying to eliminate all sources of signals EXCEPT from alien worlds. They are ONLY interested in signals from alien worlds.
Cryptoanalysts trying to break Chinese codes EXPECT to get information about CHINESE SECRETS. They do not have a "let the chips fall where they may" attitude which would allow them to no more expect a message about Chinese secrets than a secret message between an Italian businessman and his mistress.
In the REAL world, cryptoanalysts do NOT work in a vacuum. They work in a world where they EXPECT and TRY to figure out what a SPECIFIC person or group is writing in code.
In the Amerithrax case, there were NO CRYPTOANALYSTS. It was a FBI microbiologist who figured it out. He knew Ivins. He knew DNA. He knew about the anthrax letters. He read the books Ivins threw away. He put two and two together and he figured out why Ivins had thrown away the books. The EVIDENCE led him there.
To argue that he somehow knew the solution before he did the investigation is idiotic. 1+1+1+1+1=5. Knowing the answer is 5 doesn't allow you to figure out what was added together to get 5. It could have been 76 and minus 71.
Your bias for your own personal theory blinds you to reality.
Ed
Cryptoanalysts trying to break Chinese codes EXPECT to get information about CHINESE SECRETS.
Delete============================================
Eventually, yes. But you'll find that most signals intelligence traffic, whether encrypted or not, is routine chatter, of no real intelligence value. The arduous, indeed herculean task is to sift through the routine and rather valueless chaff (usually better than 90% of what's intercepted) to find the intelligence 'wheat'. Which is why the tendency of NSA and similar monitoring agencies is to develop software that automates, at least partially, the sifting process.
In the Amerithrax case, there were NO CRYPTOANALYSTS.
ReplyDelete---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If there were none then it was because the investigators realized their 'decryption' wouldn't pass peer-review in that field. But I wouldn't preclude the possibility that
there was a consultation on the code with this unit of the FBI
(http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/lab/scientific-analysis/crypt ) and that that evaluation of what the Task Force had come up with was a negative one and that the paperwork of that evaluation remains hidden from the public to this day, collecting dust.
R. Rowley wrote: "If there were none then it was because the investigators realized their 'decryption' wouldn't pass peer-review in that field."
DeleteThere were none because the guy who broke the code wasn't one. He was a microbiologist. There is no requirement or need to consult cryptoanalysts if a layman breaks a code. If the code breaking process is explainable to others and to a jury, that is all that is needed. The microbiologist would just testify to how he did it and what the results were, and the jury would be free to believe or disbelieve his testimony.
A crypotanalyst could not possibly disagree, because there is no basis for a disagreement. If the decoding process works, it works. And if the cryptoanalyst agrees, who cares? There is no need for his testimony.
Ed
To argue that he somehow knew the solution before he did the investigation is idiotic.
ReplyDelete-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The decryptor knew the solution TO THE SO-CALLED CODE had to point to Ivins; that's why 'FNY' isn't presented as:
Fabius, New York Fairfield, New York Fallsburg, New York Farmersville, New York
Farmington, New York Fayette, New York Fenner, New York Fenton, New York Fine, New York Fishkill, New York Fleming, New York Florence, New York
Florida, New York Floyd, New York Forestburgh, New York Forestport, New York
Fort Ann, New York Fort Covington, New York Fort Edward, New York
Fowler, New York Frankfort, New York Franklin, New York Franklin, New York
Franklinville, New York Freedom, New York Freetown, New York Fremont, New York Fremont, New York French Creek, New York Friendship, New York
Fulton, New York.
All such 'solutions' to FDY (including abbreviations for non-geographic entities, people's initials etc.) were rejected out of hand, because there was no way to connect them to Ivins. Same way with 'PAT': only Ivins-connected breakouts of those letters were seriously entertained. THAT'S a self-fulfilling prophecy.
R. Rowley wrote: "The decryptor knew the solution TO THE SO-CALLED CODE had to point to Ivins"
DeleteThe "decryptor" didn't know anything until the CLUES and FACTS led him to a decoded message. He didn't even know he was going to serve as a "decryptor" in the case. All he knew was that Ivins threw away one of his favorite books and a science magazine for some unknown reason. Following the clues in the book, the microbiologist ended up decoding a message and thus becoming a "decryptor."
The exact meaning of the decoded message cannot be known without a confession from Ivins. The jury would understand that.
If the defense attorney wanted to argue that it could also mean "Fabius New York," let him try to convince the jury that that is what Ivins would put in the hidden message.
Ed
If the defense attorney wanted to argue that it could also mean "Fabius New York," let him try to convince the jury that that is what Ivins would put in the hidden message.
Delete========================================
Why would the DEFENSE attorney claim Ivins would put any message in the Brokaw letter?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?
That would be tantamount to an admission of guilt! (Boy, Mister Lake really blew that one!)
No, you STILL aren't getting the point: the burden of proof is on the prosecutor. He/she has to prove, on this skein of evidence:
1) there's a hidden message (impossible to do without proving that a decoding readout RELIABLY reveals a hidden message, as per cryptoanalytic standards).
[inability to do this will short-circuit the whole process before it makes its way in front of a jury: judges are 'gate keepers' whose job includes
screening out unreliable and prejudicial skeins of evidence; potential gibberish that the prosecution claims is really a hidden Ivins-produced 'code' would fall into that category]
2) the hidden message in question was done in a way familiar to the defendant (that Ivins had/liked/read the book wouldn't NECESSARILY mean that every reader of Hofstadter's book paid attention to/read the section on codes, a mere fraction of the book).
3) the message bore a message that the defendant would likely be sending (and to whom?!?!?)!
===========================================
This skein fails on all three criteria.
R. Rowley wrote: "No, you STILL aren't getting the point: the burden of proof is on the prosecutor. He/she has to prove, on this skein of evidence:
Delete1) there's a hidden message (impossible to do without proving that a decoding readout RELIABLY reveals a hidden message, as per cryptoanalytic standards)."
YOU still aren't getting the point. No one has to prove anything is "reliable." This is LAY witness testimony. It is what an FBI agent found and deduced as part of his job.
This is NOT "expert testimony."
R. Rowley wrote: "[inability to do this will short-circuit the whole process before it makes its way in front of a jury: judges are 'gate keepers' whose job includes screening out unreliable and prejudicial skeins of evidence"
Judges do NOT prevent this kind of LAY WITNESS evidence. It is only because of your FANTASIES and your misunderstanding of circumstantial evidence and your misunderstanding of the Rules of Evidence that you believe this to be true. YOUR BELIEFS ARE NONSENSE.
They stem from the fact that you do not understand circumstantial evidence. But you also make it clear that you do not understand the "Rules of Evidence."
It is a FANTASY that a judge would not allow the hidden message evidence. It is what a lay witness FBI agent found. It is admissible in any court in the land. PERIOD.
Ed
Upthread Mister Lake addressing Max:
ReplyDelete-----------
Max wrote: "And you believe this with serene confidence despite the fact that the decoded "message" is a mere 3 letters of gibberish?
You have a strange idea of solid evidence."
You have some INEXPLICABLE BELIEF that a hidden message cannot consist of just three characters. There can be no intelligent basis for such a belief. Why can't a hidden message consist of just "YES" or "NO"?
===============================================
It could but:
1) you, as a third party, would have no way of knowing that 'NO' wasn't a chance coming together of two letters that was completely unintentional (that's why Max wrote upthread that (message) length matters). Meaning that there was no code there whatsoever.
2) the 'yes' or 'no' would have to be in response to something like a yes or no question. Unless you ALSO have that (the question) you are just guessing that the 'yes' or 'no' is intentional.
3) and a 'Yes' or "no', even if it could be taken as a legitimate decipherment of a real encoded message, wouldn't tell you anything about the identity of the sender.
R. Rowley wrote: "3) and a 'Yes' or "no', even if it could be taken as a legitimate decipherment of a real encoded message, wouldn't tell you anything about the identity of the sender."
DeleteIt would tell you that following the rules in the code book resulted in something that was NOT gibberish and could have meaning. Thus, it connects the code books to the letter.
The jury would understand that only Ivins can truly know what the "yes" or "no" means, and he won't say. That's why he is on trial, because he won't confess and the FACTS say he appears to have committed the crime. It's the jury's job to determine if the facts are sufficient to convict.
Ed
The jury would understand that only Ivins can truly know what the "yes" or "no" means, and he won't say
Delete------------------------------------------------------------------
Mister Lake, all you are saying here is that 'the jury' (ie the Ed Lake rhetorical stand-in) takes the author to be Ivins REGARDLESS OF THE MESSAGE. That's just silly.
R. Rowley wrote: "Mister Lake, all you are saying here is that 'the jury' ... takes the author to be Ivins REGARDLESS OF THE MESSAGE. That's just silly.
ReplyDeleteThe jury takes Ivins to be the author of the message because he threw away the code books used to decode the message. Plus, of course, there is all the other evidence that says he was the anthrax mailer. They look at all the evidence together. Knowing the exact meaning of the coded message with absolute certainty is not essential -- except in your fantasies.
Ed
Mr. Rowley,
ReplyDeleteI'm trying to work on a new novel. Responding to endless posts which only show that you do not understand circumstantial evidence is getting rather tedious.
We need to get you to understand how circumstantial evidence works, otherwise we're both just wasting our time.
So, let me try once again:
Let's assume that there were just 26 people who are known to have access to a building where a murder occurred, thus they are all possible suspects. Their names are A thru Z.
Only A, J, K, L, O, P, W and X had the MEANS to get to the murder weapon used to kill the victim.
Only B, J, K, R, and S had a known MOTIVE to murder the victim.
Only C, D, K, M and R had no alibi for the time of the crime, therefore had the OPPORTUNITY to do it.
So, no item of evidence points to only one suspect, but there is only one suspect to which ALL the evidence points: K
Only K had the means, motive and opportunity.
It is the nature of circumstantial evidence that any single item of evidence can point to many different people. But, when all the evidence is combined, all the evidence together points to only one person. In this case it is K.
Do you understand? If not, what is the problem?
Ed
In the previous thread Mister Lake already wrote something nearly identical to the
ReplyDeleteabove (see his post of January 19, 2014 at 8:04 AM )
My response of January 19, 2014 at 12:22 PM which generally had to do with the inapplicability of his theoretic rendition of the role of circumstantiality to Amerithrax evidently did not satisfy him. Therefore I'm at a loss. Someone else, perhaps Max?,
needs to respond at this point. Some repetition in discussing the Case is inevitable
but repetition here on this point would serve no purpose, neither mine nor Mister Lake's.
R. Rowley wrote: "My response of January 19, 2014 at 12:22 PM which generally had to do with the inapplicability of his theoretic rendition of the role of circumstantiality to Amerithrax evidently did not satisfy him."
ReplyDeleteYour response of January 19 merely showed that you do not understand circumstantial evidence. With the post above I removed all references to the Amerithrax case. Circumstantial evidence is a LEGAL CONCEPT. I'm trying to get you to understand the LEGAL CONCEPT. The LEGAL CONCEPT applies to ALL criminal cases brought to court were the evidence is circumstantial. And, nearly ALL criminal cases that end up being tried in court ARE circumstantial evidence cases. Cases involving prima face or direct evidence are generally resolved via plea bargaining.)
Arguing that you can dream up alternative ways for something to have happened just demonstrates that you do not understand circumstantial evidence. Your daydreams are not relevant to a circumstantial evidence case.
Until you learn how circumstantial evidence works in court, there is no hope of any kind of intelligent discussion with you. You can refuse to accept circumstantial evidence as a valid legal concept, and you can demand that all the world courts change their methods to fit your personal way of doing things, but that would NOT be an discussion of interest to me.
Do you refuse to understand circumstantial evidence?
Do you claim you do understand it but refuse to accept it as valid?
Or do you fail to understand that you do not understand?
Ed
Way upthread, Mister Lake posting:
ReplyDelete---------------------------------------
"Godel, Escher, Bach" was a favorite book of Ivins YEARS before the anthrax attacks. Nancy Haigwood had recommended the book to him TWENTY YEARS BEFORE THE ATTACKS. He'd tried to get Pat Fellows to read it long before the attacks.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Again, that Ivins liked the book* (which is about far more than a code or codes) does not establish that he used that book to ENCODE a message in the Brokaw letter (or anywhere else!) in 2001. It is just as likely, (well, in my opinion more likely!) that he used that book's section dealing with codes to try to DECODE the highlighted portions of the text, this sometime, and probably sporadically, in the 2001-2007 period.
*How many readers of that book used it as a basis to write their own coded messages? 1%? .1%? .01%? .001%?. People with a deep-seated interest in the subject of codes go to such standards as:
http://www.amazon.com/The-Code-Book-Science-Cryptography/dp/0385495323/ref=pd_bxgy_b_text_y/180-2775259-5939360
Even Ivins using Hofstadter's book to DECODE what he took to be a message in the Brokaw letter would be an availability error on his part: going with a book that was at hand and familiar rather than a more comprehensive treatment of the subject.
R. Rowley wrote: "Again, that Ivins liked the book* (which is about far more than a code or codes) does not establish that he used that book to ENCODE a message in the Brokaw letter (or anywhere else!) in 2001. It is just as likely, (well, in my opinion more likely!) that he used that book's section dealing with codes to try to DECODE the highlighted portions of the text, this sometime, and probably sporadically, in the 2001-2007 period."
ReplyDeleteAgain you demonstrate that you do not understand circumstantial evidence.
So, let me try for a fourth time:
Let's assume that there were just 26 people who are known to have access to a building where a murder occurred, thus they are all possible suspects. Their names are A thru Z.
Only A, J, K, L, O, P, W and X had the MEANS to get to the murder weapon used to kill the victim.
Only B, J, K, R, and S had a known MOTIVE to murder the victim.
Only C, D, K, M and R had no alibi for the time of the crime, therefore had the OPPORTUNITY to do it.
So, no item of evidence points to only one suspect, but there is only one suspect to which ALL the evidence points: K
Only K had the means, motive and opportunity.
It is the nature of circumstantial evidence that any single item of evidence can point to many different people. But, when all the evidence is combined, all the evidence together points to only one person. In this case it is K.
In court, the jury would see that ALL THE EVIDENCE POINTS TO K. They would convict K of the murder. The judge would have explained to them how circumstantial evidence works. Dreamed up fantasies that someone else could have gotten into the building or gotten to the murder weapon, OR arguments that determining a motive is equivalent to "mindreading" might be used by a stupid defense attorney, but the judge would most likely instruct the jury to ignore such nonsense, since fantasies are not valid evidence in court.
Fantasies about other ways Ivins may have used "Godel, Escher, Bach" are just fantasies. A judge would probably not allow the defense to voice FANTASIES in court. Such fantasies to not change what would be presented in court as evidence against Bruce Ivins.
Do you understand? If not, what is the problem?
Ed
Mr. Rowley,
ReplyDeleteI'll try to simplify it further: YOUR FANTASIES do not change what the prosecution would present in court.
So, you can dream up all the alternative reasons you want for why Ivins might have thrown away the code books, but in court the prosecutors would explain to the jury that Ivins threw away a code book that can be used to decode the hidden message in the media letter. If the DEFENSE wants to bring up your fantasies, they may be allowed to do so. But your fantasies do not change what the PROSECUTION would present in court.
If you think it does, then you do not understand circumstantial evidence.
Ed
So, you can dream up all the alternative reasons you want for why Ivins might have thrown away the code books, but in court the prosecutors would explain to the jury that Ivins threw away a code book that can be used to decode the hidden message in the media letter.
Delete-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No, that's illogical. The logical first step is: to establish that there is a 'hidden message" in the media letter to begin with. Qualified defense witnesses would point out the absurdly tendentious, unprofessional, and therefore unreliable methodology used in 'decoding' and therefore in the conclusion that there was a hidden message there to begin with.
(And this would be done in a hearing outside of the jury's earshot).
R. Rowley wrote: "No, that's illogical. The logical first step is: to establish that there is a 'hidden message" in the media letter to begin with. Qualified defense witnesses would point out the absurdly tendentious, unprofessional, and therefore unreliable methodology used in 'decoding' and therefore in the conclusion that there was a hidden message there to begin with."
DeleteAgain you demonstrate that you do not understand circumstantial evidence.
The first step would be for the FBI agent to explain to the jury that it was common practice after a search of a suspect's home to watch his trash to see if he might throw away something the search failed to find.
Then he'd explain how they found the book and magazine that Ivins threw away.
Then he'd explain how it was known to be one of Ivins' favorite books and that it seemed suspicious that he would suddenly throw it away.
Then he'd explain how he'd studied the material and the image of a highlighting code in "Godel, Escher, Bach" caught his eye.
Then he'd explain how he stepped through the procedure described in the book and the magazine and ended up with "PAT" and/or "FNY" as a hidden message in the media letter.
Then he'd explain how he interpreted those decoded messages as pertaining to the two co-workers Ivins was obsessed with.
When the FBI agent finished testifying, the defense might argue that it was all "guesswork," but the FBI agent would say it was just what an investigator does.
During the Defense's part of the trial, the Defense attorney might bring in some "experts" to challenge the validity of what the FBI agent found, but they cannot challenge the FACT that it IS what a key witness found AND that it fits with all the other circumstantial evidence against Bruce Ivins.
Ed
Do you refuse to understand circumstantial evidence?
ReplyDelete----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Circumstantial evidence, like other types, can be: 1) very very good 2) so-so, and
3) poor-to-laughable (and all shadings in between those three invented-by-me categories). The whole purpose of sifting through the evidence at preliminary hearings, trials etc. is not to determine a label ('circumstantial' or 'direct' or 'eye witness' or whatever) but to tell us how much bearing a skein of evidence has on a crime and on its(the skein's) reliability vis-a-vis establishing the guilt of the suspect/defendant.
As far as I know, ALL the major skeins of evidence against OJ Simpson at his murder trial were "circumstantial' (as that word is generally used). I'm very confident, was very confident in 1995, that he committed both murders. But my confidence had/has nothing to do with the category or label of circumstantiality. It has to do with what each skein of evidence indicated in a RELIABLE way.
To wit:
1) a cut on Simpson's hand when he returned from Chicago*
2) blood on the door handle of his Bronco discovered that very night*
3) Nicole's blood and Ron's blood** INSIDE the Bronco.
4) Blood eventually found on the socks Simpson was wearing that day*
Etc.
This stuff was directly related to the commission of a pair of murders-by-knife and the attendant bloodletting: you expect that the murderer might become contaminated with blood in such a struggle (but that doesn't mean you aren't open to other plausible explanations for the skeins of evidence).
* The temporal stipulation is critical; Simpson may have gotten blood on the vehicle on other occasions via innocent cuts having nothing to do with the commission of a crime. He must have cut his hand(s) accidently on other occasions in his life too.
**Ron Goldman had never been in that Bronco.
For more, see: http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/index/nns25.htm
So, what is the analogue of all that blood evidence (OJ Simpson Case) in Amerithrax?
ReplyDeleteIt isn't exact, but the closest thing is: finding dried anthrax power of the right strain (Ames) and substrain (derived from flask RMR-1029) at the residence or in the vehicle of the suspect.
No such powder was ever found in Ivins' vehicle or residence. If found, that powder too would have been 'circumstantial' but would have been circumstantial evidence directly related to the commission of the crimes in question...................
Mr. Rowley,
ReplyDeleteYour ramblings about the OJ case only show that you do NOT understand circumstantial evidence.
You wrote: "Circumstantial evidence, like other types, can be: 1) very very good 2) so-so, and
3) poor-to-laughable (and all shadings in between those three invented-by-me categories).
What "other types"?
You only seem to understand that circumstantial evidence is not always conclusive. Everyone knows that. What you do not seem to understand it how it works in court.
YOUR FANTASIES about finding anthrax powder in Ivins car being "circumstantial evidence" just shows you understand YOUR FANTASIES, nothing else.
What you need to understand is the CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE CASE AGAINST BRUCE IVINS.
If you just continue making up FANTASIES, you will just continue demonstrating that you do not understand how circumstantial evidence works in court.
Focus on this sentence: It is the nature of circumstantial evidence that any single item of evidence can point to many different people. But, when all the evidence is combined, all the evidence together points to only one person.
Ed
You wrote: "Circumstantial evidence, like other types, can be: 1) very very good 2) so-so, and
ReplyDelete3) poor-to-laughable (and all shadings in between those three invented-by-me categories).
What "other types"?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Evidently, you didn't read the whole post, which includes
"('circumstantial' or 'direct' or 'eye witness' or whatever) ".
When you look up 'circumstantial evidence' it is generally counterposed to:
'direct evidence'/'eyewitness testimony'/?some other category?
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Circumstantial+Evidence
http://www.criminallawconsulting.com/circumstantial-vs-direct-evidence.html
http://www.rotlaw.com/legal-library/what-is-circumstantial-evidence-what-is-direct-evidence/
------------------------------------------------------------------
You are so eager to trash my every word and sentence, Mister Lake, you don't give my posts a fair reading. Plus ca change....
R. Rowley wrote: "Evidently, you didn't read the whole post, which includes "('circumstantial' or 'direct' or 'eye witness' or whatever) ".
DeleteEye witness testimony is circumstantial evidence. Eye witnesses are often mistaken.
What I was trying to point out to you is that there is just circumstantial evidence and direct evidence. Direct evidence is NEVER "laughable" or any shade of "laughable."
The reference you cite is about the worst I've ever seen. Is that why you didn't quote from it?
Here's a quote for a definition of "circumstantial evidence" found HERE:
Circumstantial Evidence is also known as indirect evidence. It is distinguished from direct evidence, which, if believed, proves the existence of a particular fact without any inference or presumption required. Circumstantial evidence relates to a series of facts other than the particular fact sought to be proved. The party offering circumstantial evidence argues that this series of facts, by reason and experience, is so closely associated with the fact to be proved that the fact to be proved may be inferred simply from the existence of the circumstantial evidence.
Ed
"You only seem to understand that circumstantial evidence is not always conclusive."
ReplyDelete------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Again, you are talking about a category/label, I'm talking about the concrete evidence brought to bear in a particular case. The weak case against Bruce Ivins isn't helped by you waving around the term 'circumstantial', something you've been doing now for years: a more recent example, from about 10 months ago, is here:
http://anthraxdebate.blogspot.com/2013/03/subject-circumstantial-evidence.html
Oddly enough, Mister Lake was using the term 'direct evidence' in talking about
the 'amino acid code' back in 2010:
http://anthraxvaccine.blogspot.com/2010/02/fbis-anthrax-case-nyt.html
Back in December of 2008 a very smart man named Kenneth Dillon wrote:
"[...] FBI’s effort to show that Ivins drove to New Jersey to mail the letters relies on exceptionally flimsy circumstantial evidence."
Dillon's complaining not about the circumstantiality of the evidence, but its flimsiness.
http://www.bloggernews.net/118931
R. Rowley wrote: "Again, you are talking about a category/label, I'm talking about the concrete evidence brought to bear in a particular case."
ReplyDeleteAgain you demonstrate that you do not understand circumstantial evidence.
You have to understand how circumstantial evidence works in court or you cannot understand the case against Bruce Ivins.
Ken Dillon may think the case against Ivins is "flimsy," but that is just his opinion. OPINIONS are irrelevant. What's relevant is understanding how circumstantial evidence works in court.
You need to understand that ALL the circumstantial evidence is presented to the jury before they make any kind of formal decision about it.
Presenting FANTASIES about other possible explanations would probably not be allowed in court, since it is ASSUMED that there is another POSSIBLE explanation for EVERY item of circumstantial evidence. Other possible explanations are IRRELEVANT. The only thing that is relevant is how all the pieces of circumstantial evidence, when viewed together, PROVE that the defendant committed the crime.
Ed
Ken Dillon may think the case against Ivins is "flimsy," but that is just his opinion. OPINIONS are irrelevant.
ReplyDelete=================================================
Okay, I'll start this way: I'll ignore your opinion that I don't know how circumstantial evidence works. Furthermore I'll ignore your opinion that the case against Ivins is strong (or 'non-flimsy').
You need to understand that ALL the circumstantial evidence is presented to the jury before they make any kind of formal decision about it.
ReplyDelete=========================================================
No, only that deemed admissible by the court (the judge). In SOME instances the judge may actually 'split the difference' on admissibility (see: Judge Ito eventually allowing the jury to hear a limited number of recorded uses of the N-word by LAPD detective Mark Fuhrman at that OJ Simpson murder trial, but not the whole tape and the full use of the word). But usually it's all or nothing at all on a skein of evidence.
R. Rowley wrote: "You need to understand that ALL the circumstantial evidence is presented to the jury before they make any kind of formal decision about it.
ReplyDelete=========================================================
No, only that deemed admissible by the court (the judge)."
You are creating IMAGINARY rules that do not apply, BECAUSE you do not understand circumstantial evidence.
You are arguing that if you can dream up some alternative explanation for an item of circumstantial evidence, then it is not valid evidence. That is TOTAL NONSENSE.
From HERE: On its own, it is the nature of circumstantial evidence for more than one explanation to still be possible. Inference from one piece of circumstantial evidence may not guarantee accuracy. Circumstantial evidence usually accumulates into a collection, so that the pieces then become corroborating evidence.
From HERE: "Circumstantial evidence is evidence that does not directly indicate that something is true; it can however, be used to deduce what is highly probably to be true. ..... While circumstantial evidence may often be "explained away" with alternate explanations, increasing amounts of circumstantial evidence allow the improbable and impossible to be factored out, making it easier to deduce the truth.
From HERE: Circumstantial evidence is evidence that requires an inference to connect it to a certain fact or conclusion. Circumstantial evidence by itself is not really enough to prove an inference, that is why investigators usually look for multiple pieces of circumstantial evidence to form collaborating evidence that together can prove one inference over another.
Circumstantial evidence IS allowed in court. No judge is even going to question it. It is only in your FANTASIES due to your lack of understanding of circumstantial evidence that you think a judge would not allow it.
Ed
R. Rowley wrote: "You need to understand that ALL the circumstantial evidence is presented to the jury before they make any kind of formal decision about it.
Delete=========================================================
No, only that deemed admissible by the court (the judge)."
You are creating IMAGINARY rules that do not apply, BECAUSE you do not understand circumstantial evidence.
==============================================
It's an 'imaginary rule' that only skeins of evidence deemed admissible by the judge are presented to the jury?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?
That's not my imagination, that's legal procedure 101.
http://www.indianasnewscenter.com/news/local/Judge-To-Decide-On-The-Admissability-Of-Evidence-Collected-In-Murder-Case-198500661.html
http://explorevenango.com/pretrial-hearing/
http://news.yahoo.com/fla-judge-decide-whether-911-scream-analysis-admissible-044818897.html
http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/Hearing-to-Rule-Whether-Paralyzed-Victim-Who-IDed-Suspect-by-Blinking-Can-Be-Used-at-Trial-230214771.html
http://westcapenews.com/?p=5137
http://www.logandaily.com/news/judge-to-decide-on-admissibility-of-tire-track-evidence/article_a1658bc6-7f6c-11e1-91ec-0019bb2963f4.html?mode=jqm_gal
http://www.chron.com/neighborhood/katy-news/article/Judge-to-decide-admissibility-of-Temple-incident-1829766.php
http://www.wksu.org/news/story/34140
http://elkodaily.com/news/local/judge-to-decide-if-confession-admissible/article_612ea744-9e77-11e0-a562-001cc4c002e0.html
http://video.foxnews.com/v/2289209831001/judge-needs-more-time-to-decide-fate-of-fox-news-reporter/#sp=show-clips
https://www.wral.com/news/local/story/106249/
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/451576/JUDGE-TO-DECIDE-IF-EVIDENCE-SEIZED-IN-RAID-IS-ADMISSIBLE.html
http://www.websterpost.com/x85608650/Following-hearing-today-judge-to-decide-which-statements-will-be-admissible-at-teens-trial
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2012/sep/28/judge-rules-fathers-interview-admissible-trial-abo/
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/08/02/judge-denver-movie-theatre-shooters-online-dating-profile-is-admissible-at-murder-trial/
The following one is from Jamaica but the same basic principle applies:
http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/news/Jurors-sent-home-to-allow-court-to-decide-on-admissibility-of-evidence
http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/evidenceprof/2008/09/statements-agai.html
Etc.
R. Rowley wrote: "It's an 'imaginary rule' that only skeins of evidence deemed admissible by the judge are presented to the jury?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?
DeleteThat's not my imagination, that's legal procedure 101."
No, it's an imaginary rule YOU CREATED arguing that a judge would examine ALL evidence before a trial. It's an imaginary rule that a judge would have some reason to disallow testimony from a FBI agent about what the agent found in a case. There is no such rule except in your imagination.
The links you cite are IRRELEVANT and have no bearing on the case against Ivins.
The first is about evidence collected during an illegal search. That does not apply.
The second is about whether statements made to police by a suspect are admissible. That does not apply.
The third is about identifying a scream heard on a 911 call tape. That does not apply.
I didn't bother looking through the others, since it is clear you are just putting up a smokescreen of nonsense.
There is NO CAUSE for a judge to even question statements made by an FBI agent on what he found during the course of his investigation if it relates to the issue being tried.
Ed
R. Rowley wrote: "It's an 'imaginary rule' that only skeins of evidence deemed admissible by the judge are presented to the jury?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?
DeleteThat's not my imagination, that's legal procedure 101."
No, it's an imaginary rule YOU CREATED arguing that a judge would examine ALL evidence before a trial.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If I wrote that, then quote me! Copy and paste me saying that. You won't be able to do that. Judges don't have to make rulings on 'all evidence' because not 'all evidence' is objected to by the other side. So, I would never make such a statement. You are just inventing stuff (and not for the first time!) and pretending that I wrote the stuff you invented! Not a strawman argument, but a sea of strawman arguments.
Again, here is what was written above:
"You need to understand that ALL the circumstantial evidence is presented to the jury before they make any kind of formal decision about it.
=========================================================
No, only that deemed admissible by the court (the judge)."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So Mister Lake, as always, makes a sweeping statement 'ALL the circumstantial evidence' (as though circumstantial evidence were a holy cow that no judge under any circumstances could bar from being presented to the jury). I point out that judges bar evidence of all categories based on legal principles: direct evidence, circumstantial evidence, whatever.
R. Rowley wrote: I point out that judges bar evidence of all categories based on legal principles: direct evidence, circumstantial evidence, whatever."
DeleteAnd I point out that there is NO BASIS for a judge to bar anything IN THIS INSTANCE.
If you believe there is, then you just do not understand the law. You are interpreting it to fit your own personal beliefs.
Ed
So, let me try explaining the CONCEPT behind circumstantial evidence for a FIFTH time:
ReplyDeleteLet's assume that there were just 26 people who are known to have access to a building where a murder occurred, thus they are all possible suspects. Their names are A thru Z.
Only A, J, K, L, O, P, W and X had the MEANS to get to the murder weapon used to kill the victim.
Only B, J, K, R, and S had a known MOTIVE to murder the victim.
Only C, D, K, M and R had no alibi for the time of the crime, therefore had the OPPORTUNITY to do it.
So, no item of evidence points to only one suspect, but there is only one suspect to which ALL the evidence points: K
Only K had the means, motive and opportunity.
The circumstantial evidence proves that K is guilty.
You argue that A, J, L, O, P, W and X also had the MEANS to get the murder weapon, therefore it means nothing that K also had the means. That is a FALSE belief. It is a misunderstanding of circumstantial evidence.
On its own, it is the nature of circumstantial evidence for more than one explanation to still be possible. Inference from one piece of circumstantial evidence may not guarantee accuracy. Circumstantial evidence usually accumulates into a collection, so that the pieces then become corroborating evidence. Click HERE for the source.
While circumstantial evidence may often be "explained away" with alternate explanations, increasing amounts of circumstantial evidence allow the improbable and impossible to be factored out, making it easier to deduce the truth. Click HERE for the source.
By itself, an item of circumstantial evidence proves NOTHING. Together, ALL the items of circumstantial evidence support each other and PROVE a fact.
Ed
By itself, an item of circumstantial evidence proves NOTHING
ReplyDelete------------------------------------------------------------------------
Once again: wrong! Fingerprints are generally called circumstantial evidence.
Are you saying that a fingerprint matching that of Steve Hatfill (or some other scientist) found ON the Brokaw or other Amerithrax letter would have 'proved nothing'? It would have proved (just about) everything! Not because it was 'circumstantial' but because it bore such a direct, even intimate relation to the commission of the crime(s).
http://www.rotlaw.com/legal-library/what-is-circumstantial-evidence-what-is-direct-evidence/
I wrote: By itself, an item of circumstantial evidence proves NOTHING
DeleteAnd R. Rowley asked, "Fingerprints are generally called circumstantial evidence. Are you saying that a fingerprint matching that of Steve Hatfill (or some other scientist) found ON the Brokaw or other Amerithrax letter would have 'proved nothing'?"
If they prove anything, they prove it ONLY IN CONJUNCTION WITH OTHER CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.
In the instance you cite, the fingerprints probably would NOT be called "circumstantial evidence." They would probably be called "DIRECT" evidence. But, I'm not positive of that.
By themselves the fingerprints would prove NOTHING if there was solid proof that the owner of the fingerprints (Hatfill or whoever) could NOT have mailed the letters; for example, if he had been in Tahiti for a year at the time of the mailings.
Assume that they find the fingerprints on the letter that match a dead man, someone who was DEAD for years before the attacks. What do the fingerprints prove?
Answer: They prove there's some other explanation for why the fingerprints are on the letter. Perhaps the real killer used paper the dead man had touched.
Circumstantial evidence is used in conjunction with other circumstantial evidence to prove something.
If a person's fingerprints are on the letter AND he had the means to send the letter, then those two items of circumstantial evidence together are very damning. If he had no opportunity to actually mail the letters, then the evidence says there must have been another person involved. If he had no alibi for the times of the mailings, then the evidence indicates he COULD have done it alone.
Ed
Assume that they find the fingerprints on the letter that match a dead man, someone who was DEAD for years before the attacks.
Delete===============================================
My example was of a LIVING person (Hatfill or another scientist), why have you changed the circumstances?!?!?!?!?
In my opinion----------yes, it's just an opinion----------finding the fingerprints of ANY living scientist on one of those letters would count for more than all the 'circumstantial' evidence against Ivins, even though fingerprints ARE circumstantial.
This just shows how limited the label 'circumstantial' is. But Mister Lake, who lives and breathes labels and abstract categories, cannot see that the fingerprints, unless there was a mistake, are the very 'smoking gun evidence' that he claims for the 'amino acid code'.
R. Rowley wrote: "My example was of a LIVING person (Hatfill or another scientist), why have you changed the circumstances?!?!?!?!?"
ReplyDeleteTo answer the question you asked: "Are you saying that a fingerprint matching that of Steve Hatfill (or some other scientist) found ON the Brokaw or other Amerithrax letter would have 'proved nothing'?"
The fingerprints would have proved NOTHING if that scientist was dead or had been out of the country for months at the time of the crime.
There was a case recently where a fingerprint was found on a bomb component in a bombing case in Spain. The fingerprint belonged to someone in Oregon who had never been to Spain. Therefore, the fingerprint evidence meant NOTHING -- except that fingerprints are not as reliable as most people believe.
The point is: An item of circumstantial evidence BY ITSELF proves NOTHING. The fingerprint BY ITSELF proves nothing. It ONLY means something if there is ALSO evidence that the owner of the fingerprint COULD have committed the crime.
R. Rowley also wrote: "In my opinion----------yes, it's just an opinion----------finding the fingerprints of ANY living scientist on one of those letters would count for more than all the 'circumstantial' evidence against Ivins, even though fingerprints ARE circumstantial."
Maybe. But there was no such fingerprint. So, it's a moot point.
There IS evidence connecting Ivins to the anthrax letters -- TONS of evidence. One PART of that evidence is the hidden message in the anthrax letter sent to the media.
You can mindlessly rant all you want that there could be some other explanation for why Ivins threw out the code books that the FBI used to decode the hidden message, but your rants MEAN NOTHING, since it is KNOWN that an item of circumstantial evidence BY ITSELF means NOTHING.
It's when the item of circumstantial evidence is combined with other items of circumstantial evidence that the COMBINATION BECOMES MEANINGFUL and HELPS prove a person's guilt or innocence.
Using YOUR IMAGINARY EXAMPLE:
If a fingerprint of Joe Blow was found on the anthrax letter,
1. It would mean one thing if Joe Blow was a living scientist working at USAMRIID,
2. It would mean something else if Joe Blow was a minister in Tahiti who hadn't been out of Tahiti in a decade,
3. It would mean something else if Joe Blow was once an employee of USAMRIID but died a year before the attacks.
The fingerprint means NOTHING by itself. But it COULD mean a great deal when COMBINED with other evidence. That's why "circumstantial evidence" is sometimes called "indirect evidence." It requires logic and OTHER EVIDENCE to give it meaning.
Ed
Since I think this topic (the 'code') is all but exhausted, I thought I would remind once again that the true technical term for the (sub?) field is: steganography, the writing of concealed messages. See:
ReplyDeletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steganography#Printed
If a fingerprint of Joe Blow was found on the anthrax letter,,
ReplyDelete2. It would mean something else if Joe Blow was a minister in Tahiti who hadn't been out of Tahiti in a decade,
===============================================
No that simply wouldn't happen. Not unless the lab made a mistake. You are a marvel at dreaming up completely impossible scenarios and totally unable to deal with concrete cases (reread this thread: I cite: the Enigma decodings when we are talking about evaluating the reliability of messages; the OJ Simpson Murder trial when we are talking about circumstantial evidence and how it is evaluated; I give a dozen or so links to news items dealing with judges making rulings on skeins of evidence when you deny that judges make such determinations. You, by contrast, have your head in the clouds: inventing theoretical alphabet soup conditions that have little basis in reality. On 'alibis', on 'motives', on just about everything.
If you are going to make up contrary-to-paradigm permutations, at least make them realistic: say the fingerprint belonged to an employee of Kinko's who put more xerox paper in the machine before the Anthrax Gang got there to run off a copy of the Brokaw text! Minister in Tahiti!
R. Rowley wrote: No that simply wouldn't happen. Not unless the lab made a mistake."
DeleteCan't you read? IT DID HAPPEN. It happened recently in a bombing case in Spain where the fingerprint belonged to a guy in Oregon who had never been to Spain. It was a "mistake," but the rules were followed. It's just that fingerprint evidence is NOT ABSOLUTE. It IS POSSIBLE to have two people with identical fingerprints, particularly if you do not have a clear example of the fingerprint from the crime.
A link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandon_Mayfield
Another: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/05/26/fbi_madrid_blunder/
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/17/politics/17fbi.html?_r=0
Ed
R. Rowley wrote: "Since I think this topic (the 'code') is all but exhausted ..."
ReplyDeleteYes, I think it is time for you to change the subject, since you are evidently incapable of changing your mind.
For the record, here is what I posted a few minutes ago in response to a different post of yours:
Here is another lawyer's opinion from July 3, 2013: "Basically, there is nothing that would specifically prevent the officer from testifying about the code just like there would be nothing that would prevent you or me from doing so. He would not be considered an expert and there may be some limit on what he could testify about regarding the code but generally speaking he could probably say what he believed the code meant.
My belief, and others may disagree, is that code breaking could be accomplished by a lay person and they could then testify to the code (but probably not code breaking as a skill or details regarding other codes or other specific information). Think of it like solving a Sudoku puzzle. Anyone could do it if given the time. That person would not be barred from testifying about the solution simply because they are not a professional trained Sudoku puzzle solver. "
Another lawyer wrote: "If the officer has the personal experience of cracking the code, he or she can certainly testify as a lay witness. The officer's testimony is relevant and has no problem on admissibility as to the process and result of his or her own experiences without expert qualification."
Just go through my 2013, part 2 web page HERE and search for "rules of evidence". You will find that the BELIEF that an officer cannot testify to what he found if it is some kind of code is NONSENSE. PERIOD. It is beyond nonsense, it is STUPID.
I've got a book to write. I'm also fed up with arguing about the law with someone who does not understand the law.
Ed
My understanding is: you did not explain to the lawyers you contacted that the fundamental controversy in the case is:
DeleteWhether there is a hidden code to begin with.
THAT'S most of what Max and I have been writing about in this thread.
There is NO WAY to determine whether such a code exists except by employing standard cryptanalysis to the alleged 'text' and that text is simply too short to do that. The lawyer(s) was/were responding under the assumption that the 'code' existed, that there was no controversy that the code existed etc.
Mister Lake has failed in this thread and others to supply an alternate method of verification that such a code exists. He takes it as a 'given' and thinks it a holy grail because he has sanctified it with the word 'circumstantial'.
(When Max used the word 'gibberish' to characterize the results, I'm fairly sure he wasn't attempting to be pejorative. He was attempting to be descriptive. A more neutral word might be 'noise' as in 'noise to signal ratio'. Using that methodology, you are ALWAYS going to get 3 letters as an end result. That does not indicate that the 3 letters arrived at were intended, by anyone. And if they weren't intended by anyone, they did not constitute a hidden coded message.
R. Rowley wrote: "My understanding is: you did not explain to the lawyers you contacted that the fundamental controversy in the case is:
DeleteWhether there is a hidden code to begin with.
THAT'S most of what Max and I have been writing about in this thread."
There would be no purpose in mentioning that to a lawyer. There's no purpose if having a lawyer can give an opinion on whether there is or isn't a hidden message in the letter. Who cares what his opinion is?
The issue was NOT about what you believe or don't believe was in the letter. The issue was whether or not the FBI agent could testify to what he found, or whether such testimony could only be given by some cryptoanalyst. I asked the lawyers for an impartial interpretation of Rules of Evidence regarding testimony by lay and "expert" witnesses.
You can read their answers. They appear TWICE in this thread, they appear on my web site, and they appear on the attorney blogs where the question was asked. The FBI agent CAN testify to what he found. There is NO QUESTION ABOUT THAT, except in your mind (and Max's).
"There is NO WAY to determine whether such a code exists except by employing standard cryptanalysis to the alleged 'text' and that text is simply too short to do that."
In court, the code exists because an FBI agent FOUND it to exist. Period. What some people on the Internet believe is irrelevant.
"Mister Lake has failed in this thread and others to supply an alternate method of verification that such a code exists."
Again, the code exists if the FBI agents says it exists, until someone else finds evidence that it does NOT exist.
"He takes it as a 'given' and thinks it a holy grail because he has sanctified it with the word 'circumstantial'."
It's a given if an FBI agent (or any other witness) testifies to what he found. It's a given until someone proves it doesn't really exist.
"Using that methodology, you are ALWAYS going to get 3 letters as an end result. That does not indicate that the 3 letters arrived at were intended, by anyone. And if they weren't intended by anyone, they did not constitute a hidden coded message."
And, if they WERE intended by Ivins to be a message, then they DID constitute a hidden coded message. It's for the JURY to decide, NOT YOU, NOT a judge, and certainly NOT any cryptoanalyst.
You simply do not understand how evidence is presented in court. And, of course, you just continue to demonstrate that you do not understand how circumstantial evidence works in court. The testimony about the hidden message would very likely be at the end of WEEKS of testimony and the presentation of other evidence showing Ivins was the anthrax killer. NO ONE is going to be looking at it as some stand-alone item of evidence that needs to be evaluated all by itself.
Ed
And, if they WERE intended by Ivins to be a message, then they DID constitute a hidden coded message. It's for the JURY to decide, NOT YOU, NOT a judge, and certainly NOT any cryptoanalyst.
Delete==============================================
No. Ivins' attorney, Kemp, would have objected right off the bat to any such 'code evidence', probably even before a jury was impaneled. If the prosecutor persisted, then there could be no one else BUT the judge to decide. Again, this is court procedure 101. I'm not saying the judge would decide on a whim, he would likely call a mini-hearing to hear from both sides (including experts) before making his/her decision.
R. Rowley wrote: "Ivins' attorney, Kemp, would have objected right off the bat to any such 'code evidence', probably even before a jury was impaneled."
DeleteHe would have NO LEGAL BASIS for any objection. And no judge outside of your fantasies is going say that an FBI agent cannot testify to what he found. That is just plain STUPID.
You just do not understand how things work in court. Your misconceptions are ridiculous.
This subject has been argued before. I've shown you what REAL LAWYERS say. Your fantasy about what you BELIEVE Kemp would have done is just a screwball FANTASY.
Ed
R. Rowley wrote: "Ivins' attorney, Kemp, would have objected right off the bat to any such 'code evidence', probably even before a jury was impaneled."
DeleteHe would have NO LEGAL BASIS for any objection.
==============================================
Yes, he would have: the basic legal principle is: evidence or testimony which is unreliable or prejudicial to the defendant is GENERALLY excluded. The prosecution in Amerithrax would have been unlikely to have tried to get the 'amino acid code' admitted, but if it did then the defense would have objected on those general grounds (unreliability and prejudicial nature).
=-================================================
How Courts Work
Steps in a Trial
Discovery
To begin preparing for trial, both sides engage in discovery . This is the formal process of exchanging information between the parties about the witnesses and evidence they’ll present at trial.
Discovery enables the parties to know before the trial begins what evidence may be presented. It’s designed to prevent "trial by ambush," where one side doesn’t learn of the other side’s evidence or witnesses until the trial, when there’s no time to obtain answering evidence.
One of the most common methods of discovery is to take depositions. A deposition is an out-of-court statement given under oath by any person involved in the case. It is to be used at trial or in preparation for trial. It may be in the form of a written transcript, a videotape, or both. In most states, either of the parties may take the deposition of the other party, or of any other witness. Both sides have the right to be present during oral depositions.
Depositions enable a party to know in advance what a witness will say at the trial. Depositions can also be taken to obtain the testimony of important witnesses who can’t appear during the trial. In that case, they’re read into evidence at the trial.
Often a witness's deposition will be taken by the opposing side and used to discredit the witness's testimony at trial if the trial testimony varies from the testimony taken during the deposition. (A lawyer might ask a witness at trial, “Are you lying now or were you lying then?”)
Usually depositions consist of an oral examination, followed by cross-examination by the opposing side. In addition to taking depositions, either party may submit written questions, called interrogatories , to the other party and require that they be answered in writing under oath. If one party chooses to use an interrogatory, written questions are sent to the lawyer representing the other side, and that party has a period of time in which to answer.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The deposition(s) by Darin Steele or any other 'decryptors' would have revealed both the arbitrary nature of determining the existence of the code (basically, no method at ALL!) and the steps in its decryption.
This would have revealed to those competent in the proper fields (cryptographic science etc.) how unreliable the methodology was.
R. Rowley wote: "Yes, he would have: the basic legal principle is: evidence or testimony which is unreliable or prejudicial to the defendant is GENERALLY excluded."
DeleteYou are misunderstanding that "legal principle." You're distorting it to an absurdity.
Testimony from eye witnesses is NOTORIOUSLY UNRELIABLE. But eye witnesses still routinely testify in court. Why? Because they are WITNESSES, and, in this one instance, they could be giving reliable testimony. And, if they have meaningful testimony to give, it's up to the jury to decide whether to believe them or not.
By your standards, EVERYTHING THE PROSECUTION PRESENTS TO THE JURY IS "prejudicial." By legal standards, it's only "prejudicial" if (1) it doesn't help PROVE anything and (2) it merely shows the defendant to be a bad person.
The code helps prove Ivins was guilty. It is not prejudicial.
If the prosecution wanted to put someone on the stand to testify that Ivins was a disgusting person who repeatedly farted in church, that would not prove anything in the case, and it would not help the jury determine Ivins' guilt or innocence. It would simply be "prejudicial" against Ivins. Such testimony would not be allowed.
R. Rowley also wrote: "The deposition(s) by Darin Steele or any other 'decryptors' would have revealed both the arbitrary nature of determining the existence of the code (basically, no method at ALL!) and the steps in its decryption.
This would have revealed to those competent in the proper fields (cryptographic science etc.) how unreliable the methodology was."
Absolute nonsense.
You're assuming that the DEFENSE would go out and find some crypoanalyst somewhere who would testify IN COURT that the code is unreliable.
That probably wouldn't be allowed, since the presentation of the code evidence wasn't given by an "expert witness." It was given by a lay witness. If the judge allowed a DEFENSE "expert witness" to testify that the decoding was "unreliable," the PROSECUTION would then have to produce a different "expert witness" to testify that the decoding WAS reliable. And nothing would have been accomplished but to waste the time of the court. So, the judge would probably not allow either side to give such "expert testimony."
If you are suggesting that the judge would DECIDE before the trial that the code didn't mean anything. That's not for the judge to decide. That's for the JURY to decide. Besides, the judge is not a cryptoanalyst, so there would be no basis for him to make such a decision. And, if he was a cryptoanalyst AND felt that way, he would have to recuse himself. He could not hold a fair and impartial trial. Only the JURY's opinion matters.
You BELIEVE the code is meaningless, and you somehow think everyone else is going to see it is meaningless, too. The PROSECUTION thinks it is IMPORTANT TO THE CASE. No one can PROVE otherwise. So, the prosecutor can present that evidence to the jury and the JURY can decide whether to believe it or not.
Ed
R. Rowley also wrote: "The deposition(s) by Darin Steele or any other 'decryptors' would have revealed both the arbitrary nature of determining the existence of the code (basically, no method at ALL!) and the steps in its decryption.
DeleteThis would have revealed to those competent in the proper fields (cryptographic science etc.) how unreliable the methodology was."
Absolute nonsense.
You're assuming that the DEFENSE would go out and find some crypoanalyst somewhere who would testify IN COURT that the code is unreliable.
==============================================
Or, to begin with, just give a deposition in discovery stating that the methodology for determining the presence of an encoded message was faulty.
This would have been a capital homicide case, so obviously the defense would try to knock down ANY skein they thought questionable and/or prejudicial to Ivins. Very important PART of a defense attorney's job.
You write as though you were TOTALLY unfamiliar with the discovery phase (always, as far as I know, before the jury is impaneled).
http://www.lawfirms.com/resources/criminal-defense/criminal-defense-case/discovery.htm
R. Rowley wrote: "Or, to begin with, just give a deposition in discovery stating that the methodology for determining the presence of an encoded message was faulty. "
DeleteWhat are you saying? That just a deposition given during discovery by some hired gun cryptoanalyst is going to change something? Without ever bringing the cryptoanalyst into court?
Why would it? Because of what you BELIEVE? Do you seriously think that the Department of Defense is going to throw in the towel because some "expert" questions the presence of the code in the letter. That's CRAZY.
Besides, as has already been explained to you, the judge would probably NOT allow competing cryptoanalysts to testify in court. It would just be a waste of the court's time, since it would mean that the PROSECUTION would have to go out and get an "expert witness" to testify that the decoding process was NOT faulty. So, no purpose is served except to generate some income for a couple cryptoanalysts.
Ed
From Wiki: Hidden message
ReplyDelete--------------------------------------------------------------------------
A hidden message is information that is not immediately noticeable, and that must be discovered or uncovered and interpreted before it can be known. Hidden messages include backwards audio messages, hidden visual messages and symbolic or cryptic codes such as a crossword or cipher.
Although there are many legitimate examples of hidden messages, many so-called hidden messages are merely the fanciful imaginings of conspiracy theorists.
========================================================
Oddly enough, the 'conspiracy theorists' for the so-called 'amino acid code' dealt with in the Amerithrax Investigative Summary are: the Task Force members involved. And the 'conspiracy' is that of one man!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hidden_message
It takes some really screwball thinking to suggest a definition in Wikipedia explains what the FBI did in the Amerithrax case.
DeleteEd
It takes some really screwball thinking to suggest a definition in Wikipedia explains what the FBI did in the Amerithrax case.
Delete=====================================
Gee, I thought you would like it, especially since it dovetails with your obsession with 'conspiracy theorists'!
R. Rowley wrote: "Gee, I thought you would like it, especially since it dovetails with your obsession with 'conspiracy theorists'!"
DeleteI'm trying to write a novel. I'm being constantly interrupted by you and "Max" arguing and preaching your beliefs. Right now, there are 100 comments in this thread, which was created less than a week ago. And you think I'm the one who is obsessed? Why? Because I respond to your comments in which you preach about how the government is lying and just making stuff up, and how only you know what is really going on?
Ed
From Mister Lake's comment of today (Sunday), after going over Max's posts for a considerable stretch, THIS is how Mister Lake summarizes Max's arguments:
ReplyDelete"So, according to Max's understanding of the law: There is no message."
==================================================
No. Reread Max's posts. NONE of what he wrote has anything to do with "the law".
Max wrote entirely and exclusively about 'hidden messages' and the methodology
of determining whether a 'hidden message' exists. That is only derivatively a legal question (ie it comes up, I guess, from time to time); it is primarily a cryptographical/cryptanalytic/steganographic question. One which Mister Lake STILL hasn't addressed in a thread of over 100 posts.
So a TRUE summary of Max's position would be:
'So, according to Max's understanding of steganography/cryptography/cryptanalysis there is no message.'
R. Rowley wrote: "So, according to Max's understanding of steganography/cryptography/cryptanalysis there is no message.'"
DeleteBut that's just a BASELESS OPINION.
I don't CARE about ridiculous OPINIONS. I wonder WHY he believes such nonsense. The reason SEEMS to be that he doesn't think the presence of a code could be proven in court.
It's NOT a cryptographical question, since the code undeniably follows what is described in "Godel, Escher, Bach." He hasn't even attempted to argue that it doesn't follow what is in "Godel, Escher, Bach," except, perhaps to argue, that it isn't word for word, letter for letter, IDENTICAL to what is in "Godel, Escher, Bach."
Does he believe no one can follow the rules and still come up with a NEW message that is not in the book? How could anyone believe such a thing?
If "Max" BELIEVES "There is no message," and the code is what is described in "Godel, Escher, Bach," then, perhaps, "Max" must simply feel that his BELIEFS are as if handed down from God. They are the "UNDENIABLE TRUTH" and are not to be questioned by us mere mortals.
Is that why, in his OPINION, "there is no message?"
Ed
R. Rowley wrote: "So, according to Max's understanding of steganography/cryptography/cryptanalysis there is no message.'"
DeleteBut that's just a BASELESS OPINION.
================================================
No, it's not. It's connected to one of the things that Max is interested in:
information theory. And it's connected to something I believe Mister Lake brought up on a previous thread: SETI (the search for extra-terrestrial intelligence), particularly as related to being open to 'messages' from extraterrestrials via electromagnetic wave transmission. Obviously, to get a good understanding of how to detect/decode* a putative message, you have to have thought long and hard about: how to establish there is a message, and just the most fundamental question(s): What is a message? How can anyone know it is a message WITHOUT decryption? Etc.
=============================================
R. Rowley wrote that I wrote: "But that's just a BASELESS OPINION." And he responded:
Delete"No, it's not."
Okay, if he believes there is some basis for his opinion, it may not technically be "baseless," but it is still just an OPINION. And, as I've told him many times, I'm not interested in arguing opinion versus opinion. It never gets anywhere.
In my OPINION, his OPINION is of no value to this discussion.
Ed
Okay, if he believes there is some basis for his opinion, it may not technically be "baseless," but it is still just an OPINION.
Delete============================================
No, both Max and I gave (general) CRITERIA for determining the likelihood that there's a hidden message in a putative encoded text (see below).
Criteria do not=opinion
(and I've repeatedly asked Mister Lake to supply some counter-criteria, ie so that we could have a REAL discussion on this question)
One Max formulation was as follows: (his first post this thread)
"how do you prove that a 3 letter "message" is actually a message? Well, if you had a prior guess about what the message would be, then you could calculate the odds of decoding the guess by chance (1/8000). Then you would have something, because 1/8000 is a low probability.
You don't have that. All you have is an after the fact rationalization for what you found. Huge difference."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
That Max characterization is a sort of complement to my own emphasis on: an intelligible message, grammatically correct (in some language),
expressing a complete idea. I gave examples from German and observed that "der" (ie a putative decryption of the same length as "PAT" and in German) would not have been considered confirmation by the Bletchley Park code breakers of a successful readout of an encoded German message, because it simply wasn't long enough and didn't express a complete idea. This could have been explored further, had Mister Lake engaged me on the SUBSTANCE of message detection.
R. Rowley wrote: "No, both Max and I gave (general) CRITERIA for determining the likelihood that there's a hidden message in a putative encoded text (see below).
DeleteCriteria do not=opinion"
You are once again failing to understand circumstantial evidence AND deductive reasoning.
You are once again looking at the code in the letter as if it happened in a vacuum, as if it has no connection to all the other evidence in the case against Bruce Ivins.
You ask for "criteria" for determining if there is a message as if you were asking about criteria for determining if there is a message in the tea leaves in the bottom of a tea cup.
cri·te·ri·on (krī-tîr′ē-ən)
n. pl. cri·te·ri·a (-tîr′ē-ə) or cri·te·ri·ons
A standard, rule, or test on which a judgment or decision can be based.
There ARE NO STANDARD RULES for finding hidden messages in a criminal case. A criminal may use a code that no one has ever used before. It may be something he devised himself.
This matter IS NOT ABOUT "CRITERIA." It is about EVIDENCE and DEDUCTIVE REASONING.
1. In November 2007, Ivins was already the prime suspect in the anthrax case.
2. Ivins was known to have a fascination with codes.
3. Ivins was known to have sent coded messages to people before.
4. It is understood that, after the police search their homes, suspects will often throw away evidence that the police failed to find.
5. After his home was searched, Ivins threw away a copy of "Godel, Escher, Bach" and a science magazine.
6. An FBI agent examined the book and the magazine and discovered that there is a coding process in the book and magazine that allowed him to EXPLAIN the previously unexplained highlighted A's and T's in the anthrax letter sent to the media.
7. The decoding steps in the book and magazine will produce "PAT" and/or "FNY."
8. Both decoded messages can be related to Ivins obsession with two of the women he worked with.
9. The coding process directly links Ivins to the anthrax letter.
10. The decoded message appears to link Ivins to the anthrax letter.
What are the chances of this all being a coincidence? Virtually zero.
Does it mean anything that no criminal has ever used this code before? NO.
R. Rowley and Max want people to ignore all these FACTS and just look at the message as if it were something discovered by looking at the shapes of clouds, or looking at the locations of stars in the night sky, or looking at the cracks in the pavement on Main Street.
WE'RE NOT COMMUNICATING.
We're not talking about the same thing. I'm talking about FACTS and EVIDENCE, and you and Max are talking about "CRITERIA for determining the likelihood that there's a hidden message in a putative encoded text." THERE CAN BE NO SUCH CRITERIA. It's not about "criteria." It's about FACTS and EVIDENCE in a criminal case, "A Crime Unlike Any Other."
Ed
I'm trying to write a novel. I'm being constantly interrupted by you and "Max" arguing and preaching your beliefs. Right now, there are 100 comments in this thread, which was created less than a week ago. And you think I'm the one who is obsessed?
ReplyDelete=========================================
I wrote "obsession with 'conspiracy theorists'". Yes, you do seem to be obsessed with that topic. Am I wrong?
R. Rowley wrote: "I wrote "obsession with 'conspiracy theorists'". Yes, you do seem to be obsessed with that topic. Am I wrong?"
ReplyDeleteYes, you are wrong. I've always been interested in (but certainly not obsessed with) PSYCHOLOGY. I'm interested in trying to figure out what makes people think they way they think.
Conspiracy Theorists and True Believers are very common on the Internet, and they certainly have lots of things to say about the anthrax attacks of 2001. So, we discuss things and I try to figure out how they think, why they believe the absurd things they believe. Every one of them has a slightly different view on the case, but they ALL think they are right and the FBI is wrong. I find that very interesting. It doesn't seem to bother them one bit that others like them have different theories about who did it. All that matters is that they all believe the FBI is wrong. That is VERY interesting.
Ed
Conspiracy Theorists and True Believers are very common on the Internet, and they certainly have lots of things to say about the anthrax attacks of 2001.
Delete================================================
Well, maybe, but isn't it partially a matter of you being eager to 'put the convict's badge' on people? You labelled Max a 'truther' (after how many posts?!?!?) when the only thing he'd written about here* and on this topic was: method of detecting whether something is an encoded message or not! What sort of basis is THAT?!?! That is not the first time you've raced to label someone unfairly.
Essentially in your idiolect:
'truther'=someone who disagrees with Ed Lake (at least on Amerithrax!)
(But prove me wrong: list people with whom you've disagreed on Amerithrax since August 2008 and whom you have never called a 'truther'!)
And in your retelling of 'how all this came to be' , you referenced yourself arguing ON OTHER TOPICS with 'conspiracy theorists' pre-Amerithrax!
For how many years/?decades???
If it IS for decades, then=obsession.
*only thing he'd written about here=meaning as far as I know.
As I've said. I'm interested in the psychology of the people who believe they know the "truth" and that the FBI is wrong. (I'm also VERY interested in find new evidence, but it is VERY rare that anyone provides new evidence.)
DeleteSo, I generalize because all the "truthers" have very similar thought processes and identical beliefs that they are right and the FBI is wrong.
If someone were to actually discuss NEW FACTS AND EVIDENCE INSTEAD OF BELIEFS AND OPINIONS, then I would NOT refer to that person as a "truther.." But, to me, people who can only argue beliefs and opinions are just "truthers" and giving them that label helps me show on this blog that they are all very much alike. No "Truther" has anything meaningful to argue.
Max began the discussions in this thread by arguing, "You don't know whether there's a message in the first place. If there is a message, you don't know whether you correctly "decoded" it. All you have are guesses piled on top of guesses piled on top of guesses. "
What in his OPINION are just "guesses," is in the EXPERT OPINION of criminal investigators properly called "deductive reasoning." And criminal investigators can show that it is indeed DEDUCTIVE REASONING, not just "guesses."
So, Max's OPINION that it is all "guesses" is just more blather from a new "Truther" who feels he knows the "truth" and it is not what the FBI says it is.
Ed
From Sunday's comment:
ReplyDelete----------------------
In the world of Anthrax Truthers, what the jury believes is immaterial. The jury is only allowed to see and hear direct evidence, which is undeniable PROOF they MUST fully accept. And, no competent judge would allow a jury to see or hear circumstantial or indirect evidence, because it isn't really evidence and cannot possibly prove anything
=================================================
TOTAL distortion of what I wrote on this thread. You have this thing about categories/labels: they are talismanic for you. And BECAUSE they are talismanic for you, you imagine they are talismanic for: your debate 'partners' and other people in general.
The ideas I actually expressed on this thread were:
1) indirect or circumstantial evidence is generally treated like other evidence: direct evidence/eye-witness testimony etc.
2) whether a judge admits a given skein of such evidence depends on a) whether it has been objected to by the other side and b) whether the evidence/testimony is reliable and/or non-prejudicial.
3) much of this is hashed out in the discovery phase, long before the voir dire and the impaneling of the jury.
Standard stuff that I have been writing now for some time. Alas, Mister Lake distorts it into what he thinks my opinion should be, based almost entirely on the label 'truther' and what a 'truther' SHOULD think based on Mister Lake's stereotyping.
R. Rowley wrote: "3) much of this is hashed out in the discovery phase, long before the voir dire and the impaneling of the jury."
ReplyDeleteI think you have a wildly distorted view of the "discovery phase." Very little is "hashed out" during discovery.
Read the depositions in the Stevens v USA lawsuit -- or any other case. Basically, all they do is set ground rules about what can be asked on the stand, and the lawyers try to figure out whether the potential witness will be valuable, devastating or worthless on the stand.
The purpose of the depositions is to advise the other side of what is going to be said. They do NOT argue over whether someone's testimony is reliable or not. That will be done when the witness is on the stand.
If you read the depositions in the Stevens v USA lawsuit, you'll see that they give their opinions about Ivins guilt or innocence. That wouldn't be allowed in court. The JURY decides Ivins guilt or innocence. The testimony will be what the witness saw or heard or felt or smelled. It will NOT be about what they BELIEVE regarding Ivins' guilt or innocence.
Ed
Mister Lake,
ReplyDeleteYou, in your comments section, misspelled Maserati consistently (6 times at least!) as Masurati.
How do I know you aren't Max?
R. Rowley wrote: "You, in your comments section, misspelled Maserati consistently (6 times at least!) as Masurati."
ReplyDeleteThey've been fixed. Thanks.
"How do I know you aren't Max?"
Because you're not overly sensitive about spelling mistakes I make. If "Max" made the spelling mistakes, why are YOU so upset about me pointing it out?
Ed
OMG !
ReplyDeleteThis philosophical problem of truth has been with us for a long time. In the first century AD, Pontius Pilate (John 18:38) asked “What is truth?” but no answer was forthcoming. The problem has been studied more since the turn of the twentieth century than at any other previous time. In the last one hundred or so years, considerable progress has been made in solving the problem, like this:
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/true
http://www.iep.utm.edu/truth/
http://virtuefirst.org/virtues/wisdom/
"accurately representing real events or objects" is a good definition but someone has to be the Judge or arbitrator, one who makes estimates as to worth, quality, or fitness.
Here you are the judge, one capable of making rational, dispassionate, and wise decisions but in this case you have not been designated or approved by consent of the parties in dispute.
" The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt." Bertrand Rusell
...because "If you would be a real seeker after truth, it is necessary that at least once in your life you doubt, as far as possible, all things." Rene Descartes
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/keywords/doubt.html
Joseph from Spain says Rene Descartes wrote: ""If you would be a real seeker after truth, it is necessary that at least once in your life you doubt, as far as possible, all things."
ReplyDeleteI believe I've posted similar quotes many times.
The problem is: Truthers are CERTAIN they know the truth, and the rest of us are uncertain. We give percentages of certainty. I'm 99% certain that Bruce Ivins was the anthrax killer. That 1% covers the possibility that all the facts could be misleading and there just MIGHT be some unknown fact that changes everything. It's extremely unlikely, but it IS a "possibility."
The Truthers see this as "uncertainty." They are certain. We are uncertain. By their reasoning, that alone is PROOF that they are right. If it is possible that they could be right, then they ARE right.
To us, it is proof that "Truthers" cannot be swayed by facts or logic. The only "judge" they will accept is someone who agrees with them.
Ed
A math problem is easier to solve and people accept the outcome.
ReplyDeleteI have a solution to a mystery of the CIA but people has a objection.
+ Kryptos is an encrypted sculpture by American artist Jim Sanborn located on the grounds of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) in Langley, Virginia. Since its dedication on November 3, 1990, there has been much speculation about the meaning of the encrypted messages it bears. Of the four messages, three have been solved, with the fourth remaining one of the most famous unsolved codes in the world.
The artist of the sculpture, Jim Sanborn, revealed six of the 97 letters of the final fourth part of the sculpture in 2010, after he was surprised that it had gone unsolved for so long. The letters — NYPVTT — when deciphered, spell out “Berlin.”
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/20/us/code.html?ref=us
+ iF Letters 64-69 “NYPVTT” = “BERLIN” then 4 message can be:
“…..PEOPLE TO CREATE A SAFER FREER WORLD AND SURELY THERE IS NO BETTER PLACE THAN BERLIN THE MEETING PLACE OF EAST AND WEST.”
— By Ronald Reagan, address at the Brandenburg Gate, June 12, 1987. (fragment)
Because if K4 is a real text (like K3), then i should find key phrases/quotes related to Berlin (place). I look for the most important and beautiful texts (Kennedy & Reagan speeches)
And here I found this fragment:
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/ronaldreaganbrandenburggate.htm
This is a very nice solution but I have not a mathematical explanation.
it’s a shame.
Bye from Spain.
NYPVTT. Forget Berlin. NYPVTT= New Yorkers Perpetually Violate Thomas' Taste.
DeleteSince Bruce Ivins had a(n) (estranged) brother named Thomas, this is exactly the sort of message that we would expect him to write: an expression of the common antipathy Ivins and his brother had for New Yorkers!
But remember, we have to be open to dual solutions. So:
NYPVTT = Northern Yankee Personally Visits Tantalizing Tomatoes.
Since Ivins, born and raised in Ohio, was a Northern Yankee who indeed, we know for a FACT surreptitiously visited the 'tomatoes' of KKG, in order to steal their code book(s) and sorority stuff, and we can infer from same that he found the 'tomatoes' of that sorority tantalizing, I find this 'smoking gun' evidence of Ivins' involvement with that particular code! After all, this is a one-of-a-kind code, whose decryption cannot partake of any traditional standards in the fields of cryptography, cryptanalysis, steganography and the like. Thank you, Joseph from Spain!
R. Rowley,
DeleteI know you are trying to be sarcastic, but you are just showing you don't understand anything.
NVPVTT is not a coded message to be decoded. IT'S A CLUE provide by the person who created the code.
The encryptor is saying that NVPVTT = BERLIN, and that you need to USE that clue to figure out the rest of the message.
So, your sarcastic post makes it appear that you do not believe the person who created the code, and are trying to tell him that you know more than he does and that there could be other ways to decode NVPVTT. That's not sarcasm. That's an inability to understand what's going on.
Ed
MR Rowley
DeleteHave you forgotten the history of AF = MIDWAY?
In the few weeks before the battle, the US Navy's Combat Intelligence Office, in charge of analyzing and deciphering Japanese naval radio communications, received indications hinting that the Japanese Navy is preparing for a major attack. Deciphered Japanese messages referred to the attack target only by its code name, AF. There were several possible targets for such a major attack, and knowing which one was code named AF was critical. Commander Joseph P. Rochefort, head of the Combat Intelligence Office, thought that the gathered intelligence indicate that AF is Midway island, but he needed a proof.
In order to prove it, he called Midway via the underwater cable phone line, which the Japanese could not tap, and asked them to transmit a message that the water desalination facility in Midway is broken, a juicy piece of (fake) information for the Japanese intelligence, indicating that the American defenders at Midway are about to suffer a severe shortage of drinking water.
Soon after, Rochefort's staff deciphered a Japanese radio message saying that target AF is suffering a water shortage problem. This was the proof he needed, an extremely important piece of intelligence. It was achieved by a simple trick, but only thanks to the endless prior work of American radio listeners and code breakers.
http://www.2worldwar2.com/battle-of-midway.htm
Unfortunately I can not to mislead the CIA or the sculptor, Mr. Rowley.
Joseph from Spain,
DeleteGood point!
Also, the code-breakers weren't really sure of a lot of things in the Japanese Navy JN-25 code. Here's what one source says:
"Breaking the Japanese code known to Americans as JN-25 was daunting. It consisted of approximately 45,000 five-digit numbers, each number representing a word or phrase. For transmission, the five-digit numbers were super-enciphered using an additive table. Breaking the code meant using mathematical analysis to strip off the additive, then analyzing usage patterns over time, determining the meaning of the five-digit numbers. This complex process presented a challenge to the officers and men of Station Hypo, but Rochefort and his staff were able to make progress because the system called for the repetitive use of the additive tables. This increased the code's vulnerability. Even so, the work was painfully slow. Prior to the attack on Pearl Harbor, only 10% to 15% of the code was being read. By June of 1942, however, Rochefort's staff was able to make educated guesses regarding the Japanese Navy's crucial next move."
Click HERE for the source.
So, Rochefort's staff was making "educated guesses" on life and death matters. I'm certain Mr. Rowley would strongly disapprove of this.
After all, "AF" could have meant "Air Force" or "Aunt Fannie" or "Africa" or "Asparagus fondue." Rochefort and his decoding team where obviously just PREJUDICED in thinking it had something to do with Japanese war plans.
Ed
Joseph From Spain,
ReplyDeleteAn interesting post. But, I'm not sure how to respond. When I get some free time, I'll study what you wrote more carefully and check out the links.
Thanks.
Ed
There's a couple reasons why Ivins is not the culprit, but, the one everyone should be considering right now is that the suspect is closely tied with this J-Lo letter, which in greater consideration means he's from NJ, because that is where she is famous, in reality.
ReplyDeleteWelcome to the discussion, Keri.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I don't think anyone is going to consider that the "suspect is closely tied with this J-Lo letter" without a LOT of explanation for why they should do so.
If you click HERE, you'll be shown a detailed analysis of the J-Lo letter which more or less proves it did not contain anthrax and was almost certainly totally unconnected with the anthrax attacks.
There is, however, some evidence that Bruce Ivins also sent the J-Lo letter. But that evidence is far from conclusive.
Ed