Subject: Illogical Logic

 

An Anthrax Truther has provided an excellent example of "illogical logic" in a post to a different web blog HERE. He sees indications of Hebrew characters within the writing on the anthrax letters - mostly in the letter sent to Tom Brokaw and The New York Post.

He says the similarities he sees are "unnatural and contrived" in the way the Hebrew characters were drawn, and this evidently indicates to him that the writer of the anthrax letters was trying to deliberately draw characters that resemble Hebrew characters in an "unnatural and contrived" way.  Some of the characters he has mentioned are drawn using the formal calligraphy style called "Ashuri" and some are drawn using the informal script or "cursive" style as shown in the illustration above.  The anthrax letter sent to Tom Brokaw is shown below. (You can click on any of the illustrations to view larger versions).

Here are some details about the Anthrax Truther's "hypothesis" or "theory":

The Anthrax Truther's first claim is that the Hebrew "Ashuri" writing style involves a lot of thick horizontal lines.  The anthrax letter writer drew thick horizontal lines atop some of the T's in the media anthrax letter.  The Anthrax Truther views this as a "contrived" attempt to resemble Hebrew writing.  Of course, in order to arrive at that illogical conclusion he has to ignore the horizontal lines in the H and E and in other characters in the letter, like the L in PENACILIN and ISRAEL.  Plus, the "Ashuri" style of writing also includes a thick diagonal line, but there is no thick diagonal line in the X in NEXT.  The anthrax truther's "logic" is illogical.

The Anthrax Truther's second claim is that the T in the second writing of the word "DEATH" in the media letter resembles the Hebrew "Ashuri" style character "Dalet," which is drawn like the top and right sides of a box.  That particular T does not have the horizontal bar darkened, which the Anthrax Truther probably feels is "unnatural and contrived" rather than good evidence that he is seeking similarities to prove a belief, instead of seeing what is most likely and most logical: the writer simply drew a T with a vertical line that was a bit off-center. The anthrax truther's "logic" is illogical.

The Anthrax Truther's third claim is that the way the I and C are drawn close together in the word "AMERICA" is an "unnatural and contrived" way of drawing the Hebrew cursive letter Aleph. Of course, it could also be that that particular  "I" was simply drawn a bit too far to the right, which is perfectly natural for a human being who does not print like a machine. The Anthrax Truther's "logic" is illogical.

The Anthrax Truther's fourth claim is that the G in GREAT looks like an "unnatural and contrived" way of drawing the cursive Hebrew character Tet.  Actually, to most people the G probably looks more like the number 6 than the Hebrew character Tet. But, the Anthrax Truther argues that the differences between the G and the cursive Tet are evidence that the writer was drawing a Tet in an "unnatural and contrived" way, instead of simply drawing a G in the writer's natural style.  The Anthrax Truther's "logic" is illogical.

The Anthrax Truther's fifth claim is that the question mark in the Senate letter is an "unnatural and contrived" way of drawing the cursive Hebrew character Kaf.  Why anyone would draw a Kaf (which is pronounced like the K in King) where a question mark should be is undoubtedly the Anthrax Truther's proof that it is "unnatural and contrived."  But, to anyone else looking at it, it's probably good proof that the Anthrax Truther's "logic" is illogical.  His theory is unnatural and contrived.  He's making connections where there almost certainly are no real connections.  According to Wikipedia, someone writing in Hebrew who wants to write a question mark will write it the same way as it's written in English.

The Anthrax Truther seems to believe all this "unnatural and contrived" writing of pseudo-Hebrew characters was done to mislead the FBI into thinking Israelis were behind the anthrax letter attacks.  The Anthrax Truther clearly sees no problem with believing at the same time that writing the phrase "ALLAH IS GREAT" in the letters was done to mislead the FBI into thinking that the attack was done by Muslims.  

On the other hand, to me it seems that the entire Hebrew alphabet may simply look "unnatural and contrived."   Who creates an alphabet where so many characters look so much alike?  The Daled merely has a slightly shorter vertical line than the Khaf, and both are similar to the character Reish, except that the Reish is drawn with a single stroke.  And, what's the difference between a Samekh and a Mem Sofi?  And look at Chet, Hey and Tav.  And Beit and Kaf.  One would think that over the course of 2,400 years, someone would have come up with something better!  (That's a joke, folks.)   

Ed

Subject: Deductions versus Theories

Some people posting to this blog do not seem to understand the difference between making a logical deduction based upon obvious facts, and theories that are simply made up to fit a belief.

If there was no snow on the ground last night, and when you wake up in the morning the ground is covered with snow, it is a reasonable deduction that it snowed during the night.

But, to conspiracy theorists and True Believers, if you didn't actually see it snow, then you do not know it snowed for certain, and it's possible there is some other explanation -- like a sinister government plot.

This is evidently why conspiracy theorists and True Believers cannot accept or understand circumstantial evidence. Circumstantial evidence requires making a deduction about things not actually witnessed, but for which there is sufficient evidence to make a logical deduction.  Example:

1.  An abundance of facts say that Bruce Ivins was the anthrax mailer.

2.  The facts say that the letters were mailed from Princeton, 200 miles from where Ivins lived.

3.  The facts say that Ivins would sometimes drive hundreds of miles to play tricks on people.

4.  The facts say Ivins acted alone to send the anthrax letters.

5.  The facts say Ivins could do this without his family knowing what he did.   

It can be deduced from the facts that Ivins drove to Princeton and back to mail the letters.

But, to conspiracy theorists and True Believers, if there are no actual witnesses who saw Ivins drive to Princeton and mail the letters, then there is no proof or evidence that Ivins drove to Princeton.

Nothing could be further from the truth, and that reasoning is disputed by countless thousands of criminal trials which successfully used circumstantial evidence. 

Conspiracy theorists and True Believers seem totally incapable of understanding that circumstantial evidence can be as damning as direct evidence.  Yet, somehow, they believe their own "evidence" for their own theory is better, even though they have neither direct evidence or compelling circumstantial evidence.  They seem to just believe they are right, and they want the FBI to find the evidence that will prove them right. 

Ed

Subject: How Ivins Made the Attack Powders

Recently, in the Frederick News-Post, some "experts" who were co-workers of Dr. Ivins were still arguing that it was "impossible" for Ivins to have made the attack powders without his co-workers noticing what he was doing.  That is just plain ignorant.

But, I can see the problem.  In the Amerithrax Investigation Summary, the Department of Justice didn't describe how Ivins "most likely" made the anthrax powders.  They wouldn't have done that in court, either.  They'd just have proved that Ivins had the means to make the anthrax powders. 

When you start talking about which means Ivins most likely used, then you are getting into "speculation."  And, the defense would argue that it is "just speculation."  So, it's better to prove in court with expert testimony that Ivins could have created the attack spores in a number of different ways, and then leave it to the defense lawyers to try to "prove the negative" - that Ivins could NOT have made the anthrax powders.

But, there will never be any trial, so "experts" can continue to argue that it was "impossible" for Ivins to have made the powders unnoticed, because making spores using the STANDARD methods involved lots of time and lots of specialized equipment - some of which was inoperable.  And the media can continue to print their silly claims without serious fear that some real expert is going step forward and prove them wrong.

The facts which say that Ivins used spores grown on plates inside autoclave bags that had been left to grow for weeks seem UNDENIABLE.  It's easy to understand.  It's relatively simple to do.  There's solid evidence to support it.  It's something that a "normal" scientist would very likely do when committing such a crime, since it is so simple.  Yet, it appears to be something that Ivins co-workers haven't even considered.

Or, if they have considered it, they don't want it discussed because it places some of the blame on them for allowing Ivins to keep hazardous waste in the form of bags full of inoculated plates around for WEEKS, instead of demanding that they be immediately sterilized and then incinerated as any "normal" scientist in any "normal" microbiology lab would be expected to do.

Why isn't the media making a big deal of this?  You'd think that the Frederick News-Post would be concerned about scientists in their community leaving dangerous biohazard waste laying around for weeks in violation of every known protocol.  Instead, however, they ignore the facts and allow scientists to make totally silly claims that it would have been "impossible" for Bruce Ivins to make the attack spores unnoticed.
  
So, it's up to a NON-expert like me to do a better job of arguing against the "experts" whenever they repeat their silly claims.  The next time the Frederick News-Post or any other media outlet publishes such ignorant claims, I'll try to have a rebuttal ready to post as a comment after the article.  The 12th anniversary of the anthrax attacks will be coming up very soon.  The Truthers can continue to ignore the facts, but they cannot dispute them.   And, History says that gradually the facts will be accepted, particularly since NO ONE has ever disputed the facts on this issue.  

Ed

Subject: Circumstantial Evidence - Part 2

Here's some information about "Circumstantial Evidence":

Circumstantial evidence is evidence in which an inference is required to connect it to a conclusion of fact, like a fingerprint at the scene of a crime. By contrast, direct evidence supports the truth of an assertion directly—i.e., without need for any additional evidence or the intervening inference.

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. Together, they may more strongly support one particular inference over another. An explanation involving circumstantial evidence becomes more valid as proof of a fact when the alternative explanations have been ruled out.

Circumstantial evidence allows a trier of fact to deduce a fact exists.  In criminal law, the inference is made by the trier of facts in order to support the truth of assertion (of guilt or absence of guilt).

And a definition from another on-line dictionary:

Circumstantial Evidence: Evidence not bearing directly on the fact in dispute but on various attendant circumstances from which the judge or jury might infer the occurrence of the fact in dispute. 

An Anthrax Truther arguing on this blog persists in arguing that the fact that the hidden message in the anthax letters sent to the media decodes to "PAT" doesn't mean anything, because there are countless people named "Pat" in the world.  It doesn't have to pertain to Ivins' co-worker Pat Fellows. 

No one disagrees that "Pat" doesn't have to pertain to Pat Fellows.  As stated in the explanation of "circumstantial evidence" above, "it is the nature of circumstantial evidence for more than one explanation to still be possible." 

However, in court, it would be explained to the jury that (1) Bruce Ivins had sent other types of "coded messages" to Pat Fellows; (2) that Ivins was somewhat obsessed with his female co-workers, including Pat Fellows; (3) that the other way to decode the message produced "FNY," which appears to pertain to friendly arguments Ivins had with his other female co-worker, Mara Linscott, who was a fan of the New York Yankees, while Ivins disliked the Yankees; (4) and that Ivins once loaned a copy of the book Godel, Escher, Bach to Pat Fellows, and that book contained the key to decoding the hidden message Ivins had put in the media letter.

So, it would be explained to the jury that it is very likely that the decoded name "Pat" refers to Ivins' co-worker Pat Fellows.  It is a more likely explanation than any other explanation. 

The Anthrax Truther will probably argue that being "very likely" isn't good enough.  It must be a certainty.  In reality, it does NOT have to be a certainty.  It just has to be a logical way to decode the hidden message.  The jury will decide if it is "very likely" that was what Bruce Ivins intended the coded message to mean.

No one disputes that, by itself, the name "Pat" doesn't mean anything.  But when explained to the jury as part of a mass of evidence showing that Bruce Ivins was the anthrax killer, the jury will decide for itself if the explanation is logical and if it helps to convince them that Bruce Ivins was the anthrax killer.

Ed

Subject: Rule of Evidence #701-C

In the thread titled "Claims, Arguments and Evidence" there has been a LONG debate over the correct interpretation of Rule 701c in the federal Rules of Evidence.

THE  ARGUMENTS:

An Anthrax Truther has argued that if Dr. Bruce Ivins had been brought to trial, FBI Special Agent Darin Steele would not have been allowed to testify to decoding the hidden message in the anthrax letters sent to Tom Brokaw and The New York Post because Agent Steele was not a certified cryptographer.  The Anthrax Truther uses his personal interpretation of Rule #702c as the basis for his arguments.  He claims that Rule #701c says no one can testify about a scientific, technical or other specialized field UNLESS he is a certified expert in that field.  A quote from the Anthrax Truther:

Lay witnesses are explicitly prevented from testifying in scientific/technical areas by 701c

My interpretation follows what the experts say: Agent Steele's testimony is what he rationally perceived as part of the FBI's investigation of Dr. Ivins, it's obviously relevant to determining Dr. Ivins guilt or innocence, and thus it is fully admissible under Rule 701 for "Opinion Testimony by Lay Witnesses."  Rule 701c merely says that IF Agent Steele had decoded the message as part of his job as a cryptographer, then he would have had to testify as an EXPERT witness.  Agent Steele was not a cryptographer, therefore it was okay for him to testify as a LAY witness.  There is no rule that says he cannot testify to what he found.  In other words:

Experts in a field who testify to what they found as experts using their expertise are explicitly prevented from testifying as lay witnesses by 701c and MUST testify as expert witnesses

Lay witnesses who testify to what they rationally perceived, even if it is in a technical area, are NOT prevented from testifying by rule 701c 

THE FACTS:

Click HERE to view the entire Rules of Evidence.  Below are Rules #701 and #702 with 701c highlighted in red:

Rule 701. Opinion Testimony by Lay Witnesses

If a witness is not testifying as an expert, testimony in the form

of an opinion is limited to one that is:

(a) rationally based on the witness’s perception;

(b) helpful to clearly understanding the witness’s testimony

or to determining a fact in issue; and

(c) not based on scientific, technical, or other specialized

knowledge within the scope of Rule 702.

Rule 702. Testimony by Expert Witnesses

A witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill,

experience, training, or education may testify in the form of an

opinion or otherwise if:

(a) the expert’s scientific, technical, or other specialized

knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the

evidence or to determine a fact in issue;

(b) the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data;

(c) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and

methods; and

(d) the expert has reliably applied the principles and methods

to the facts of the case.

The best explanation of Rule #701c that I've been able to find so far is HERE.  That article says:

Rule 701 now provides that any part of a witness' testimony that is based on scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge must comply with the standards of Rule 702 and the expert disclosure requirements. Specifically, a new subsection (c) was added which provides that for testimony to be admissible under rule 701, the testimony of a lay witness is limited to opinions or inferences "not based on scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge within the scope of Rule 702." The effect of this change is that if testimony could qualify under 702, then it cannot qualify under 701. The focus of the amendment is on the subject matter of the testimony, rather than whether the witness is a layperson or an expert.

There are other interesting discussions of Rule 701c HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE and HERE, which may contain what is needed to resolve this question, but there is a lot of legalese to dig through, and it's too easy to post a finding and have it disputed because of a disagreement over the meaning of a single word.  

ANALYSES  & INTERPRETATIONS:

Rule #701c was added to assure that no expert witness testimony which could qualify under Rule #702 is made instead under Rule 701 as lay witness testimony.  The focus is on the subject matter of the testimony, not on who is giving the testimony.  For example, if the testimony is "the product of reliable principles and methods" and "the expert has reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts of the case," then the testimony must be given by an expert witness.  It cannot be given by a lay witness.  Agent Steele was NOT an expert testifying about principles and methods used to decode the message, so neither Rule #702 or Rule #701c would apply to him, and thus he could testify as a lay witness about what he did. 

It is also important to note that Rule #701c was added in the year 2000.  Was it okay prior to 2000 for Agent Steele to testify as a lay witness, and after 2000 would he no longer be able to testify at all?  That implies a MAJOR change in who can testify.  Rule #701c was merely added to prevent lawyers from putting experts on the stand as lay witnesses to avoid any challenges to their expertise and to avoid having to disclose during Discovery what each expert witness is going to say.   

The questions now are: How do we determine who is right?  Would Agent Steele have been able to testify to what he found?  Or would he have been prevented from testifying by Rule #701c as the Anthrax Truther claims?

I'm going to look for other web pages which discuss Rule #701c, but I suspect that the Anthrax Truther will continue to believe what he wants to believe, no matter what I find.  

Ed

Subject: Discussion Impasse

There is no hope for an intelligent discussion to resolve a disagreement when one side merely wants to make speeches and discuss personal beliefs.

The only hope for a resolution to a disagreement is when there is a reasonable way to find out who is right and who is wrong.

The FBI and DOJ have presented a mountain of evidence showing that Dr. Bruce Ivins was the anthrax mailer.  Those who disagree, not only fail to present better evidence to support their beliefs, they often present no evidence at all on key issues.  They present only questions or opinions.

For example, there is solid evidence that Dr. Ivins had full access to the "murder weapon,' i.e., flask RMR-1029 which contained "morphs" identical to the "morphs" found in the powders in the anthrax letters. Ivins helped create the contents of the flask and controlled who had access to it.

Those who believe Dr. Ivins was innocent, however, have no evidence that someone else took a sample from flask RMR-1029, grew more bacteria from the sample, and then used it in the anthrax letters.  All they have are endless "possibilities" which have not been disproved.  Instead of proving that their own suspects sent the anthrax letters, those who disagree with the FBI attempt to shift the burden of proof to the FBI to prove that their suspects could not possibly have made the powders and sent the anthrax letters.

Asking the other side to prove themselves wrong is not a reasonable way to resolve a disagreement.

Some issues in dispute should be easily resolvable.  For example, R. Rowley (in an email) CLAIMS that the misspelled word "PENACILIN" in the media letters is a deliberate attempt to appear "foreign."   The FBI, on the other hand, agrees that the misspelling is deliberate, but they provide compelling evidence that it was part of a coded message Dr. Ivins put in the media letter.  (Click HERE for details.)  They CLAIM that the misspelled word is part of a coding technique explained in the book Godel, Escher, Bach, which Dr. Ivins was observed throwing away after a search of his home.

Mr. Rowley's CLAIM is just a CLAIM, without evidence. (Unless you have a confession, there is no way to prove that the writer deliberately misspelled a word in order to appear foreign or semi-literate.)  And Mr. Rowley refuses to accept the FBI's evidence-supported CLAIM, bizarrely arguing his new CLAIM that the FBI's evidence wouldn't be allowed in court because the FBI agent who deciphered the hidden message was not a certified cryptographer.

That last CLAIM seems like it could be resolvable.  But, even if enough facts were found to convince Mr. Rowley that there would be no problem with the FBI agent presenting his findings in court though he is not a certified cryptographer, Mr. Rowley would just argue that it doesn't make any difference, he's still going to believe what he wants to believe about who sent the anthrax letters.

So, at this point in time, it appears that the only real question worthy of discussion is: Is there any way to get someone who refuses to compare facts and evidence to stop making baseless claims and to argue only whose evidence makes a better criminal case proving who sent the anthrax letters?

Ed      

Subject: Claims, Arguments and Evidence

Here are the Google definitions of three important words everyone should know:

CLAIM  /klām/

Verb
State or assert that something is the case, typically without providing evidence or proof.

Noun
An assertion of the truth of something, typically one that is disputed or in doubt.

AR·GU·MENT  /ˈärgyəmənt/

Noun
1. An exchange of diverging or opposite views, typically a heated or angry one: "I've had an argument with my father".

2. A reason or set of reasons given with the aim of persuading others that an action or idea is right or wrong.

EV·I·DENCE   /ˈevədəns/

Noun
The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

Verb
Be or show evidence of.


Examples of claims:

From the Department of Justice: Dr. Ivins perpetrated the anthrax letter attacks

From "Anonymous": "Amerithrax represents the greatest counterintelligence failure in the history of the United States."

From Mr. Rowley: "The multiple Hebrew elements [in the Amerithrax documents] all but preclude someone who ISN'T thoroughly familiar with the Hebrew alphabet as being the printer."

From Ed Lake: "The facts say a child wrote the anthrax letters and addressed the envelopes."

Arguments come when someone disagrees with or fails to see any reasoning or proof behind any of the above claims.

Arguments resulting from the three claims above:

The claim by the Department of Justice is disputed by various "Anthrax Truthers," who each seem to have a unique theory about who did it, and they only seem to agree on one thing: The government is wrong.

The claim by "Anonymous" is disputed by the FBI and the DOJ which concluded that Bruce Edwards Ivins was the anthrax mailer, and thus there was no "counterintelligence failure" involved in the case.

The claim by Mr. Rowley is disputed by Ed Lake (and probably by everyone else) because there is no discernible evidence to support such a claim.

The claim by Ed Lake is disputed by "Anonymous" because "Anonymous" doesn't believe the claim.

Examples of supplying evidence to support a claim:

The evidence supplied by the Department of Justice begins with the 92 page Amerithax Investigative Summary, which is supported by 2,720 pages of detail documents HERE. Additional documents related to the scientific aspects of the case may be obtained in the form of a CD from the National Academy of Sciences.

The evidence supplied by "Anonymous" in support of his claim seems to consist of just 2 undisputed facts: (1) al Qaeda had a motive for the attacks, and (2) al Qaeda was considering an anthrax attack upon America before the actual attacks.  He has supplied no meaningful evidence that al Qaeda actually carried out the attacks.  Click HERE to view what "Anonymous" considers to be "evidence."

Mr. Rowley has presented no meaningful evidence to support his claim.  He mostly just points to more of his claims while arguing over words and interpretations.

The evidence supplied by Ed Lake HERE consists of 12 indisputable facts (and more can be presented if needed) which point to only one logical conclusion: A first grader was used to write the anthrax letters and to address the envelopes.

Current results:

The evidence supplied by the Department of Justice showing that Bruce Ivins was the anthrax mailer is generally accepted, but is highly disputed by people who continue to have their own unique theories about who "really did it." 

"Anonymous" doesn't accept or believe any of the evidence which the FBI found to prove Ivins' guilt.  "Anonymous" continues to believe Islamic militants were behind the anthrax attacks.  He appears to argue possibilities instead of facts: It's possible that that the FBI is totally mistaken, it's possible that Islamic militants obtained a sample from flask RMR-1029 somewhere, and it's possible that unidentified Islamic militants wrote and mailed the anthrax letters.

Mr. Rowley continues to believe in his theory and seemingly argues that his claims are evidence.  He doesn't accept the FBI/DOJ's findings because (apparently) he believes they are just covering up a failure to find the right person (e.g., Mr. Rowley's "suspect").

"Anonymous" continues to argue that "There is no support for [Ed Lake's] theory."  "Anonymous" refuses to discuss the facts presented by Ed Lake or even to comment on them.

Conclusion:

Some people on this blog need to understand that a CLAIM is just an unsupported opinion or belief UNLESS it can be successfully ARGUED against other opinions by using valid, acceptable, unbiased EVIDENCE.

Ed