Subject: Mohamed Atta's Handwriting

One of the more bizarre beliefs about the anthrax letters expressed by a certain True Believer is that the handwriting on the anthrax letters and envelopes is Mohamed Atta's handwriting.

In reality, there are enormous differences between Mohamed Atta's handwriting and the handwriting on the anthrax letters and envelopes.  But, the True Believer seems to argue that if you look hard enough in a big enough sample you will find that some of the characters of the alphabet drawn by Mohamed Atta on some occasion kind of - sort of - look a little bit like the same characters on the anthrax letters and envelopes.  And, to the True Believer that's evidence that Atta wrote the letters.

I've created a web page HERE comparing Atta's handwriting to that on the anthrax documents, proving beyond any reasonable doubt that the handwriting on the anthrax document does NOT look like Mohamed Atta's normal handwriting.

In my analysis, I show how Mohamed Atta typically drew characters of the alphabet (and numbers), I provide various examples, and (where possible) I compare those multiple examples to multiple examples of the same characters and numbers on the anthrax documents. The differences are obvious.  For example, Mohamed Atta typically drew his 1's in a manner that made them look like 7's.  The illustration above shows an example of that.  There's no similarity whatsoever to the 1's on the anthrax documents.  BUT, if you include the lines on the form as part of the writing, the 1 drawn by Atta would have a line across the bottom, and Atta's single-stroke 1 would look a little bit like a 1 drawn with three strokes on the anthrax documents.  That is bizarre reasoning used to argue that handwriting that is truly different can be viewed as somewhat similar in order to justify a True Believer's beliefs. 

Ed

Subject: Truthers

 "Truthers" are people who believe that the government is wrong or lying about something, and the "Truther" believes he or she knows what the "truth" really is.    

After studying and arguing with "Truthers" for over 11 years, it seems to me that "Truthers" can be divided into two sub-classifications: Conspiracy Theorists and True Believers.

Conspiracy Theorists generally believe that the government is deliberately covering up "the truth" about some event for evil, manipulative purposes as part of some massive conspiracy.  The Conspiracy Theorists generally believe they have seen through the plot by spotting similarities to past known "conspiracies." 

True Believers generally do not believe that the government is covering up the truth.  Instead, they generally believe that the government and everyone in it is just incompetent and cannot figure out the truth.  The True Believers believe that they (and everyone who agrees the government is wrong) have figured out "the truth."

Professor James Tracy, for example, is generally considered to be a Conspiracy Theorist.  He sees the government as having concocted various complex plots with the cooperation of the media (and everyone else required to make the theory work) to mislead the American public in order to manipulate them into accepting some new program or law -- gun control being a prime example.  He fantasizes such government conspiracies as being behind the Newtown massacre and the Boston Marathon bombings.  His argument is that those events were just staged "enactments" made to frighten and manipulate people.  And, he seems to believe that anyone who disagrees must be part of the conspiracy.  If proof is found to debunk his conspiracy theory, he sees the proof as proof of his theory, since it means the government has planted false evidence in an attempt to debunk his theory.

Other individuals believed or considered to be Conspiracy Theorists are Professor Lance deHaven Smith (whose theories are very similar to those of Professor Tracy), Professor Francis Boyle, Dr. Barbara Hatch Rosenberg, author Edward Jay Epstein and numerous others.

One unusual but telling fact about most Conspiracy Theorists and True Believers is that they very often think that all other conspiracy or similar theories are ridiculous and totally unlike their own.  9/11 Truthers often think Anthrax Truthers are stupid, and vice versa.  Sometimes, to avoid using the word "conspiracy," the "Truthers" will argue that the manipulations could be the work of just one key criminal who does all the thinking, and countless government underlings simply go along and do as they are told.

On this forum, "Anonymous" is clearly a True Believer, since he never talks about any "conspiracy," only about how the FBI is wrong in pointing at Dr. Bruce Ivins as the anthrax mailer.   His mantra is "Amerithrax represents the greatest intelligence analysis failure in the history of the United States."  "Anonymous" clearly feels that he knows the "truth," even if he cannot provide any solid facts and doesn't seem to be able to fully explain his reasoning.

R. Rowley appears to be another True Believer - but at times he also seems to be a conspiracy theorist.  He also never talks about any government conspiracy, but he has a theory that the anthrax letters were sent by some mastermind, and many other hoax letters and other types of mysterious letters were sent by the same person or by fellow conspirators.  And, of course, only Mr. Rowley has been able to figure out the "truth" about how all those happenings are connected.

One attribute that seems to apply to all Conspiracy Theorists and True Believers is that they have a double standard for evidence.  If the "evidence" supports their theory, anything goes.  If the evidence disproves their theory (or helps prove a different theory), they set very strict and often unrealistic standards for what they will accept as evidence.

Another attribute that applies to nearly all Conspiracy Theorists and True Believers is that they do not like being labeled as "Conspiracy Theorists" or "True Believers," since that puts them into a category with many others with whom they do not agree.  Generally speaking, each individual Conspiracy Theorist and True Believer has independently developed his own theory.  Therefore, since they have a "unique" theory of their own, they feel they are unlike all other Conspiracy Theorists and True Believers.  In reality, that makes them just like all other Conspiracy Theorists and True Believers.

Yes, we all know there have been people who had facts about some event that might happen, and in hindsight, more attention should have been paid to what facts they had.  But they had FACTS not beliefs. So, they weren't Truthers.  And, too, real conspiracies have been uncovered by reporters and others digging for facts - the Watergate Scandal being the prime example.  Those people produced FACTS to dispute beliefs.  "Truthers" argue beliefs to counter solid facts.  Or they present their beliefs about facts.  And, they usually want the FBI to do the investigating for them to prove that they are right.     

For every person who truly knows facts that no one else knows, there seem to be thousands of "Truthers" who only believe they know "the truth" but have no solid facts to support their beliefs. 

Ed

Subject: Rationalizing

The three images above are used by Professor James Tracy in his article "Witnessing Boston's Mass Casualty Event" to argue his conspiracy theory that the whole event was staged by "the government" and isn't what it appears to be.  Here's what Professor Tracy says about the whole event:

What exactly took place on April 15 at the Boston Marathon is unclear, yet what is now evident is a stark divergence between the narrative description of excessive carnage meted out as a result of the explosive devices and at least a portion of the video and photographic documentation of the bombing itself.

The corporate media proceeded in lockstep with dutifully propagating the authorized narrative of a combat-like environment at the marathon finish line.

Professor Tracy starts with a belief that the whole explosion event was faked and rationalizes that smoke going upward does not equal shrapnel moving parallel to the ground, therefore proving it's all faked:

Available video of the first bomb detonating at the Marathon finish line suggests a direct upward discharge rather than the horizontal dispersion that would have wreaked the havoc to lower limbs so widely reported in physicians’ statements.

He then rationalizes that the pieces of the pressure cooker the FBI found prove his theory of a conspiracy because the pieces prove what the police claim, not what Professor Tracy claims.  If something doesn't confirm his theory, Professor Tracy rationalizes that means it's faked, not that he's wrong. 

Moreover, the fact that whole pieces of the pressure cookers were produced by police further points to a more channeled dispersal of the bombs’ force–indeed, one that may not have involved a broad lateral distribution of shrapnel.

Professor Tracy claims it was all just a realistic drill, not a real event.

In short, the event closely resembles a mass-casualty drill, which for training purposes are designed to be as lifelike as possible. Since it is mediated, however, and primarily experienced from afar through the careful assemblage of words, images, and the official pronouncements and commentary of celebrity journalists, it has the semblance of being for all practical purposes “real.”

He also rationalizes that the absence of visible shrapnel is proof of his theory.  The shrapnel, of course, was tiny BBs and tiny half-inch brad-type nails, which wouldn't be visible as shrapnel even if the shrapnel wasn't moving too fast to be seen or was on the ground afterward.  And he even suggests that the video of the explosion may have been photoshopped:

Further, there is whispy smoke with no sign of any shrapnel piercing the smoke, the race sideline fabric, or anything outside of the sidewalk perimeter.

If this is the case the highly-circulated photo showing an orange-hued “fireball” explosion may have been embellished.

More of his rationalizing is about the pictures at the top of this thread, particularly the area enclosed in red boxes which show one man laying on his back with his head toward the camera, another man in a gray hat or "hoodie" sitting and bending over the first man, and a black woman sitting between them:

The photo[s at the top of this thread] shows what appears to be either a man with his legs blown off or an amputee with his stump curled around the head of a woman. A man in a “hoodie” jacket is also sitting upright behind the woman. The injured man or amputee, later identified in major media outlets as Jeff Bauman Jr. who also participated in helping the FBI identify the alleged bombers, appears preoccupied with something in his hands that are close to his face. This is unusual behavior for a man who has just sustained a severely traumatic and mortal injury.

The [first and second] photos show the man wearing the hoodie garment apparently helping the injured man/amputee with his right leg. Could he be removing this man’s prosthetic?

Note that Professor Tracy is asking a question.  If cornered, Professor Tracy will say he made no claim that the person in the photo was removing a prosthetic to feign a blown-off limb.  He was "just asking questions."  And he seems to believe he's an expert on what is "normal" in a chaotic situation.


Anthrax Truthers also constantly rationalize away facts which show they are wrong.

In a recent discussion, "Anonymous" rationalized that an adult will write in a way that will look just like a first grader's handwriting to me when learning to write in a new language. To him, that's why the writing on the anthrax letters and envelopes just looks like the writing of a first grader to me.

But, in reality, adults who already know how to write in one language, do not have to learn once again how to write small or when to use punctuation when learning a second language. I know that because I learned to write Japanese as an adult.  When an adult starts writing in a new language (even one as different as English is from Arabic or Japanese is from English) they already have the hand-eye coordination needed to write in the size of normal adult writing.  They already know about punctuation will incorporate it into the very first sentence they write.  And, they do not need to learn out to draw characters by first copying from a blackboard in kindergarten and then learning the correct way in first grade.  They start by learning the proper way to draw each character of the alphabet.

Likewise, R. Rowley rationalizes that the Assaad letter sent to authorities after 9/11, accusing Ayaad Assaad of being a "potential terrorist," is just another in a long list of letters sent by some mysterious criminal mastermind who Mr. Rowley believes was also behind the anthrax attacks.  If the letter bears absolutely NO resemblance to the anthrax letters, Mr. Rowley rationalizes that that could mean it was done by a henchman or that the mastermind deliberately made the writing look different.  He says the same thing about the St. Petersburg anthrax hoax letters, the Dallas anthrax hoax letters, the Goldman Sachs letters and anything else he wants to make fit his theory that the criminal mastermind was behind them all.

There's a BIG difference between looking at what the facts say and rationalizing things to make them fit a preconceived theory.

Ed

Subject: Double Standard for Evidence

I've come to realize that there's a key point that I haven't used enough when I argue with Anthrax Truthers: Anthrax Truthers use a "double standard" when discussing their evidence versus the FBI's evidence.

If it's evidence for something they believe, it's solid evidence.  If it's evidence pointing to Bruce Ivins as the anthrax mailer, it's meaningless and not evidence.

The gash on al Haznawi's leg that Dr. Tsonas thought might have been an anthrax lesion is seen as solid proof that the 9/11 hijackers brought a supply of anthrax with them.  The fact that Ivins had all the anthrax needed for the attacks with the same DNA attributes and made the same way as the attack spores is seen as proof of nothing by Anthrax Truthers. 

The evidence showing that Ivins controlled the murder weapon is seen as meaningless, since the Truthers claim that hundreds of others could have accessed flask RMR-1029 in secret.  However, false positives encountered during tests of a lab in Afghanistan are seen as solid proof that al Qaeda made "the murder weapon."

The fact that no spores were found in Ivins' car is seen as proof that Ivins did NOT mail the letters.  The fact that no spores were found anywhere the 9/11 hijackers went isn't seen as proof of anything.

Etc., etc., etc., etc.

I'm thinking that I should try to prevent Anthrax Truthers from using a double standard for the evidence - or I should point out that they are using a double standard when I can't prevent it.  That could be the key to showing that Anthrax Truthers really have no case -- no matter who they think sent the anthrax letters.

Ed

Subject: Anthrax Truthers

After 11 years of debating with Anthrax Truthers, it's clear that they all think the FBI is wrong because each one has his own personal theory about the case.

Interestingly, not a single Anthrax Truther seems capable of fully explaining his or her own theory.  It seems that all they can talk about is reasons why they think the FBI's evidence is inadequate to convince anyone that Dr. Ivins was the anthrax mailer.  Yet, inexplicably, they cannot explain why their own evidence about their own suspect is better than the FBI's evidence.  They hesitate to even attempt to explain their case against their own suspect.  Instead, they look upon all the others with theories as agreeing with them because all the others disagree with the FBI.

The logic for each individual Anthrax Truther is: Everyone agrees that the FBI is wrong, that means I'm right.

In reality, it just means that they have a theory that no one else in the world fully agrees with.  Yet, they believe it is a better theory than the FBI's case against Dr. Ivins because no Anthrax Truther agrees with the FBI.

"I never cease to be dumbfounded by the unbelievable things people believe."
                                                        - Leo Rosten

Ed

Subject: My book

I probably should have created a thread on this blog about my book "A Crime Unlike Any Other: What the Facts Say About Dr. Bruce Edwards Ivins and the Anthrax Attacks of 2001" months ago.  Click HERE to view the ad on Amazon.com.  Above are images of the front and back covers.  It's a 6x9 paperback, and it's also available on Kindle.

The book isn't just the story of how and why Dr. Ivins created the anthrax powders and sent the anthrax letters of 2001, and how he was identified as the killer.  It's also about how the facts of the case gradually became clear.

Some have found that the most interesting part of the book is how little was known about anthrax before the letters, and how nearly everyone was making wildly false assumptions.  Even Dr. Ivins made some critical false assumptions which later came back to haunt him.  He thought the Ames strain of anthrax that he used in the letters was a very common strain used by "countless" laboratories all over the world.  He thought it could never be traced back to him.  However, the FBI investigation showed it to be a very rare strain used in only 18 laboratories, and 17 of those laboratories got their samples of the Ames strain from the 18th lab, the lab where Dr. Ivins worked, the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute for Infectious Diseases (USAMRIID).

That's a blunder that's truly "stranger than fiction," since no one would believe it if it were in a work of fiction.

The book also shows how other false beliefs got started.  Some of those false beliefs are still held by people today as they endlessly argue conspiracy theories or that Dr. Ivins couldn't have made the anthrax powders.  They believe the powders were "weaponized" in some supersophisticated way only possible in a government-run bioweapons laboratory, when the facts clearly show that they were routine powders that almost any microbiologist could make.  Dr. Ivins was just an expert at purifying anthrax spores.  Many mistaken beliefs were started by the media.  The Amerithrax investigation involved some of the worst and most inaccurate reporting by the media in modern times.

The book also explains things that are not part of the official case against Dr. Ivins, such as when he appears to have first gotten the idea for using an anthrax-filled letter to get more funding for anthrax vaccine research.  The idea appears to have occurred to him a full year before the actual attacks.  And, the facts clearly indicate that the first anthrax letter was written weeks before 9/11.  So, unlike most beliefs about the case, the facts say Ivins was planning a crime using anthrax before 9/11 focused his attention and spurred him to actually do what he'd only been thinking about for over a year.       

I think it's a fascinating story.  It's kept me fascinated for over 11 years.  But, it's mostly forgotten by the public.  They generally remember the attacks, but they don't remember who did it or why.

My hope is that my book will show true crime buffs that there's "a crime unlike any other" that they have totally overlooked and should read more about.

Ed

Subject: Handwriting evidence

For over ten years, I have claimed that the FACTS say a child wrote the anthrax letters and addressed the anthrax envelopes.  The "Burden of Proof" is on me to support the claim.  Here is that proof:

There are at least TWELVE FACTS which together combine to show that Dr. Ivins almost certainly manipulated a child into writing the anthrax letters and addressing the anthrax envelopes:

Fact #1. Between the writing of the Brokaw letter and the addressing of the Brokaw envelope, the writer seems to have learned the correct way to draw the letter R (and other characters of the alphabet).

Fact #2. Adults do not generally learn the correct way to draw letters of the alphabet between writing a letter and addressing an envelope.

Fact #3. Children are generally taught the correct way to draw letters of the alphabet in the first weeks of first grade.

Fact #4. The writing on the media letter and envelopes was roughly twice the size of the writing on the senate letter and envelopes.

Fact #5. Adults go not generally change the size of their handwriting.

Fact #6. Children are generally taught to write smaller in the first weeks of first grade.

Fact #7. The media letter did NOT use punctuation, while the senate letter mailed three weeks later DID use punctuation.

Fact #8. Adults generally write from habit and do not switch from not using punctuation to using punctuation.

Fact #9. Children are taught about punctuation in the first weeks of first grade.

Fact #10. The anthrax letters were sent out at about the same time as children were beginning the first weeks of first grade (September & October 2001).

Fact #11. Adults who attempt to disguise their handwriting generally do so by (A) writing with their "wrong" hand, (B) writing upside down, or (C) copying someone else's handwriting.

Fact #12. None of the above methods of disguising one's handwriting would result in a change in how characters of the alphabet are drawn, a change in writing size OR a change in the use of punctuation.  Differences generally result from fluctuations between the disguised style they are attempting to use and the habitual style they regularly use.

I challenge anyone to explain how these TWELVE facts are not facts.  If they cannot do that, I challenge anyone to provide ADDITIONAL facts which prove that those 12 facts are misleading and that an adult actually DID write the letters.

These facts were true when it was not yet known who sent the anthrax letters.  The facts predicted that the anthrax killer would have access to a child just starting first grade.  That was many years before it was known that Ivins' wife ran a day care center in their home.  (There are other facts which also support the above facts and evidence, but for discussion purposes, the above facts should be sufficient. 

Click HERE to view a YouTube video which describes the above 12 facts in much greater detail.  Click HERE to view my 2009 analysis on the handwriting (updated as of 2011).  Click HERE to view my 2002 analysis on the handwriting (updated as of 2005).  

Ed