New book - front cover

Click HERE to Order
from the Printer!

Click HERE to order from!

Analyzing the Anthrax Attacks
(2009-2014 Edition)

& Analysis
Ed Lake

detect (at) newsguy (dot) com

The discussion blog for this web site is at

New book - front cover

Click HERE to Order
from the Printer!

Click HERE to order from!
Click HERE to buy the Kindle version!

Click Here to order from Barnes & Noble!
My original analysis and working hypothesis,
and everything from prior to January 1, 2005, 

can still be accessed by clicking HERE.
All the information gathered and analyzed from
January 1, 2005, through December 31, 2008,
can still be accessed by clicking HERE.
Click HERE to buy the Kindle version!

Click Here to order from Barnes & Noble!

(click on the Section to go to it)

Thoughts and Comments
  Latest references (top)
Latest references (end)

  12 FACTS which  show that a child wrote the anthrax letters
Ed Lake describes his book "A Crime Unlike Any Other"


(click on the name to link to the page)
Where & When Bruce Ivins Made the Anthrax Powders ... Allegedly
How Bruce Ivins Made the Anthrax Powders ... Allegedly
FOIA Pictures of Bruce Ivins' Laboratory
FOIA Pictures of Bruce Ivins' Office
The Bruce Ivins Timeline
The Errors That Snared Dr. Bruce Ivins
Bruce Ivins' Consciousness of Guilt
The Coded Message in the Media Letters (the "smoking gun")
Dr. Ivins' "Non-Denial Denials"
Evidence vs. Beliefs
The Mysteries of the AFIP "Report"
The Facts Say: A Child Wrote The Anthrax Letters

The Attack Anthrax Pictures
The annotated version of the Aug. 18, 2008, roundtable discussion
Van Der Waals Forces & Static Electricity: How they affect bacillus spores
The Steven Hatfill Timeline/The Attempted Lynching of Steven Hatfill
The Campaign to Point the Finger at Dr. Hatfill
Dr. Hatfill & The "Clueless" Media
The Media & Iowa State University
PBS Frontline vs. The Anthrax Facts
Anthrax, Assaad, Terror and the Timeline
Other Theories About the Anthrax Case
The Illogical al Qaeda Theory
Mohamed Atta did NOT write the anthrax letters
Reviews of my first book
My comments about other anthrax-related books


This web site was started on November 22, 2001 to keep track of facts related to the anthrax attacks which had become a major news event during the previous month.  I found that most people only wanted to discuss beliefs, opinions and conspiracy theories.  I wanted to see what the facts said.  Plus, news stories were appearing and then being deleted, and I needed a place to retain the articles which contained new information.  So, for the next seven years I accumulated facts and references and analyzed all the data I could find.  In March of 2005, I even self-published a book describing what the first three years of my analysis had found. 

On August 1, 2008, the news broke that the person the FBI believed to be the anthrax mailer had committed suicide.  His name was Dr. Bruce Ivins, and he worked at the USAMRIID labs at Ft. Detrick, MD.

The conspiracy theorists and True Believers who had argued their beliefs and opinions for the prior seven years were not persuaded by the FBI's evidence.  They continue to argue their beliefs and opinions, claiming that the FBI cannot prove Dr. Ivins was guilty.  After all, if the FBI was right, that would mean they have been wrong for seven years.  And that couldn't be, even though they don't even agree with each other about key facts:

Some still believe al Qaeda was behind the attacks.
Some still believe Saddam Hussein was behind the attacks
Some still believe a vast Jewish conspiracy was behind the attacks.
Some still believe the Bush administration was behind the attacks.
Some still believe the CIA was behind the attacks.
Some still believe pharmaceutical companies were behind the attacks.
Some still believe a writer was behind the attacks in order to sell books.
Some still believe Dr. Steven Hatfill was behind the attacks.
Some still believe a different scientist was behind the attacks.
Some still believe that a military person was behind the attacks.
Some still believe their next door neighbor was behind the attacks.

Some still believe the attack spores were "weaponized" with silica or silicon and that anyone who says otherwise is either lying or incompetent.  They still believe there must be some vast criminal conspiracy to cover up the real facts, because they simply do not believe anything the government - and particularly the FBI - says.

Some still believe that Dr. Ivins did not have the ability to make the attack anthrax. 

And, perhaps most bizarre of all, some still believe that there is some similarity between the "investigation" of Dr. Steven Hatfill (who was eventually exonerated) and the investigation of Dr. Bruce Ivins.  The facts show that the two cases could not be more different.  Dr. Hatfill was the victim of an attempted lynching by conspiracy theorists, people in the media and some politicians.  They worked together for six months to get Dr. Hatfill arrested for a crime he didn't do.  The FBI's Hatfill "investigation" was purely political and based upon "tips" from those same conspiracy theorist scientists who claimed the FBI was "covering up" for Dr. Hatfill when the FBI's investigation found nothing to tie him to the mailings.  The Ivins investigation, on the other hand, was the result of years of detailed scientific analysis and an equally detailed criminal investigation.

The Case Against Dr. Ivins

The facts say that Dr. Ivins was the anthrax mailer:

1.  He was in charge of the RMR-1029 flask containing the "mother" spores which produced the attack anthrax "daughter" spores.  He was in charge of "the murder weapon."

1.1  He tried to destroy "smoking gun" evidence that he had encoded a hidden message inside the media letters, but the evidence was recovered and clearly points to Dr. Ivins as the anthrax mailer.

1.2  He was a diagnosed sociopath.  In 2000, a year before the anthrax mailings, Ivins had talked with his mental heath counselor about his plan to poison a "young woman."  The counselor called the police, but because Ivins hadn't provided a name, there wasn't anything they could do.  The facts indicate the woman was Ivins' former assistant, Mara Linscott.  Ivins evidently changed his mind about poisoning her.

2.  The FBI investigated everyone else who had access to the RMR-1029 flask and eliminated all of them as suspects.  Eliminating potential suspects is routine police procedure.

3.  He had worked with Bacillus anthracis for over 20 years and had all the necessary expertise and equipment to prepare the spores in the anthrax letters.  He could routinely make a trillion spores a week.

4.  He accessed the locked suite (B3) where the RMR-1029 flask of spores was stored at the times the attack anthrax would have been prepared.

5.  He worked alone and unsupervised in his lab for long hours at night and on weekends during the time the attack anthrax would have been prepared.

6.  He had no scientific reason or verifiable explanation for working those hours or at those times.

7.  In December of 2001, Dr. Ivins secretly swabbed and bleached more than 20 areas in his lab, destroying possible evidence.   In April of 2002, he did it again.  Both cleanings were unauthorized and against protocol.  His explanations for doing it were contradictory to his actions.

8.  Investigators examined another flask of Ames anthrax spores created by Dr. Ivins for his own use in his work and found that a percentage of the spores in flask RMR-1030 contained silicon just like what was in the attack spores.

9.  It was not commonplace for him to work long evening hours in the Bacteriology Division's Suite B3 before the anthrax attacks or in the months after the anthrax attacks.  His long hours in Suite B3 at that time broke his normal work pattern.  Suite B3 was a BioSafety Level-3 area.

10.  He had multiple motives for sending the anthrax letters.

11.  He tried various ways to mislead investigators when they started to suspect him.

12.  He had no verifiable alibi for the times when he could have driven to New Jersey to mail the letters.

13.  He was known to drive long distances and to use various methods to mail letters and packages so they could not be traced back to him.

14.  He had various connections to the New Jersey area where the anthrax letters were mailed.  The ZIP Code used in the return address on the senate letters was 08852.  It belongs to Monmouth Junction, NJ.  According to a letter in Ivins' files, his ancestors on his father's side came from an area then known as Monmouth, NJ.  Plus, Monmouth College in Monmouth, IL, is where the Kappa Kappa Gamma sorority (an obsession of Ivins') was founded.

15.  He had serious mental problems, which appear to include murderous impulses.   He'd been seeing psychiatrists since 1978.

16.  The pre-stamped envelopes which were used in the attacks had print defects, and one of the post offices which sold those envelopes was a post office which Dr. Ivins used.

17.  His wife ran a day care center at the time of the attacks, Ivins had many contacts with children, and the facts indicate that a child of about 6 was used to do the actual writing on the anthrax letters.

18.  Investigations found no evidence that someone other than Dr. Ivins sent the letters.

19.  There is no evidence that Dr. Ivins could not possibly have sent the anthrax letters.

20.  People commit suicide to escape justice.  People who are unfairly accused sue their tormenters.

Although the case was officially closed on February 19, 2010, there may still be some additional facts pointing to Dr. Ivins' guilt which have not yet been disclosed by the FBI, specifically information related to his sessions with his psychiatrist or psychologist.  That information is still "under seal" by court order.

Meanwhile, those who cannot accept the FBI's findings continue to use every tactic they can to cast doubt upon the FBI's findings.  They have no proof of Dr. Ivins' innocence, so all they can do is try to make it appear that if there is any doubt - reasonable or not - about Dr. Ivins' guilt, then he must be innocent.

Conspiracy Theorists and True Believers 

Because they often support each other in opposing the FBI's official findings, it is sometimes difficult to tell a Conspiracy Theorist from a True Believer.  But, there is really are very distinct differences:

Conspiracy theorists often do not know or care who sent the anthrax letters, they only know that "the government" cannot be trusted, "the government" is lying about something, and they want to expose it.

True Believers feel they know beyond any doubt who sent the anthrax letters, and anyone who does not believe as they believe - including the FBI - is just not looking at the right facts.

Both will do anything and everything they can to get the undecided and uncertain to join with their cause.  And there are differences in their tactics as the go about their recruiting: 

The #1 tactic used by conspiracy theorists is junk science.  They wildly misinterpret facts about the case, they claim their bizarre misinterpretations prove something, and they demand that those misinterpretations and baseless claims be either accepted or disproved.
The #1 tactic used by True Believers is to accuse the non-believer of being "closed minded" and to wear down the non-believer as he tries to prove he is not "closed minded."

There's really no point to arguing with a True Believer.  Back in 1951, Eric Hoffer published his landmark book "The True Believer" in which he stated that the only way to change a True Believer's mind is to convert him to a different belief.  So, unless you are prepared to do that, it's best to just avoid them.  They will bury you in irrelevant facts if you don't avoid them, they'll claim that if you do not read everything they read and interpret everything the way they interpret them, then you are ill-informed and your opinion is worthless.

Conspiracy theorists, however, appear ready to debate some of the relevant facts of the case.  They just move on to different facts if they are proven wrong about their first set of facts.  Example:

The initial theory about the anthrax being "weaponized" was that the attack spores were coated with bentonite and the government was covering up that fact.  That theory was quickly shown to be false.  When the next theory that the attack spores were coated with fumed silica was also disproved, they moved on to a new theory that the attack spores had tiny particles of silica glued to them to defeat van der Waals forces.  When that was shown to be nonsense, they moved on to a theory that the spores were treated with a waterproofing substance that would coat the spore coat without leaving any trace on the exosporium. 

The conspiracy theorists and True Believers seem to have a few followers in Congress.  Perhaps there will also be some Congressional hearings.  I hope so.  Congressional hearings seem to be the only way to clarify certain details about others who were caught up in the investigation. 

Thoughts and Comments
by Ed Lake

Updates & Changes: Sunday, October 19, 2014, thru Saturday, October 25, 2014

October 25, 2014 - This morning, "DXer" (a.k.a. "Anonymous") attempted two posts to my interactive blog.  I just wrote a comment about them, showing the two posts in their entirety.  Both posts nicely illustrate how DXer persists in arguing about things that everyone knows Ivins did not do, while ignoring what the facts say Dr. Ivins DID do

DXer is also on a similar rant on Lew Weinstein's blog, arguing that Dr. Ivins couldn't have used a fermenter to make the anthrax spores for the letters.  Everyone knows that.  The facts say Ivins grew the spores on 546 plates used to test dosages for animal experiments.  Those test plates were supposed to be destroyed after readings were taken, but Ivins evidently didn't destroy the plates until after he used the spore contents in the anthrax letters.  DXer adamantly refuses to address what Ivins most likely did, and just endlessly argues about what Ivins could not have done.  I can't think of a better illustration of just how meaningless and absurd DXer's arguments are.

October 23, 2014 (B) - Ah!  I just noticed that "DXer" (a.k.a. "Anonymous") posted some interesting new messages to Lew Weinstein's blog this morning.

Click HERE for a post that says:

Below is some of “science” that the FBI relied upon in accusing Dr. Hatfill for a half decade. Why is it acceptable for the FBI toss it into the dumpster in back, out of sight, when it proves inconvenient to its next theory?

The "science" he cites is an article about bloodhounds.  DXer explains that he doesn't understand why dubious evidence pointing to Dr. Hatfill can be believed while dubious evidence that does not point to Dr. Ivins can be ignored. 

Answer: It was dubious evidence that was overridden and replaced by solid evidence.

Click HERE to view a truly informative post by DXer in which he clearly demonstrates his thinking processes.  He wrote,

Hypothesis 2: Adnan El-Shukrijumah, the current head of Al Qaeda operations against targets North America, was the anthrax mailer.

I can't find any reference or mention of "Hypothesis 1," but clearly "Hypothesis 2" isn't supported by any evidence.  Instead, it is supported by a list of documents that should be obtained by the government to "resolve the hypothesis':  DXer wrote:

As for documentary analysis that might be helpful in resolving the hypothesis, the following should be obtained:

All documents from any US agency or cooperating non-US agency relating to Adnan El-Shukrijumah, including but not limited to:

[he lists 27 documents which should be obtained}

DXer has made it as clear as anyone could hope for that he doesn't understand the scientific method.  His "hypothesis" is a BELIEF, a conclusion that el Shukrijumah was the anthrax mailer.  Then, instead of providing evidence to support that hypothesis (or belief or conclusion) he explains how the government MIGHT be able to do it: by providing documents to him that he can look through to find the proof he believes must exist somewhere.  And, if he can't find the evidence in the 27 sets of documents he is currently requesting, then he'd just ask for 27 more.   If the documents are not provided, then that is proof that the government is hiding the "truth."  If the documents are provided but do not prove anything, then he'll just ask for more documents.

That's "The Truther Method" in a nutshell.

Added NOTE:

Later in the day, DXer posted a message HERE which shows his "Hypothesis 1," which is another belief unsupported by any real evidence.  Here it is:

Hypothesis No. 1: Al Qaeda’s anthrax lab director Yazid Sufaat, assisted by two lab technicians, processed the virulent anthrax into the powder used in the Fall 2001 anthrax mailings.

The "evidence" DXer uses is a series of wild theories and unanswered questions.  When compared to the real evidence against Dr. Ivins, DXer's "evidence" it is mostly just a list of past blog threads where DXer attempts to justify his irrational, incoherent beliefs.

October 23, 2014 (A) - "DXer"  (a.k.a. "Anonymous") persists in demonstrating a total lack of understanding of the scientific method.  In an attempted post to my interactive blog this morning he seemed to argue that if the government investigates any issue that turns out to be fruitless or inconclusive, that issue can be used as proof of Ivins' innocence.

That's a good illustration of how a "Truther" thinks.  "False leads" are either proof of government incompetence or proof of Dr. Ivins innocence.  In the "Truther's" world, "competent investigators" evidently start with a belief and only accept evidence that supports their belief, ignoring anything that doesn't support their belief.  There are no such things as "false leads," only incompetent investigators who cannot see "the truth."

"DXer" also sent me a couple emails which I describe on my blog.   One distorts what I said in order to continue the handwriting argument.  The other was just meaningless blather that evidently means something to "DXer," but he cannot explain what it means.

October 22, 2014 - I don't know if anyone cares or would be interested, but "DXer" from Lew Weinstein's blog has been sending me more rambling, pointless emails about the handwriting on the anthrax documents.  This time they're not about him disbelieving that the handwriting is that of a child.  Instead, it's about him disapproving of the way the FBI and DOJ presented the Amerithrax handwriting evidence in their Summary report and in various news conferences. 

Since I want all of our discussions to be PUBLIC discussions, in order to show how DXer does not seem able to discuss anything intelligently, I've been responding to his emails on MY interactive blog

Meanwhile, DXer has also been posting similar comments to Lew's blog.  One recent message is identical to what he sent me via email. 

As far as I can tell, DXer's latest gripe is - once again - that the Department Of Justice doesn't do things the way DXer feels they should be done.  So, it's not really an argument.  It's a personal opinion and a complaint that is only of interest to DXer.  Here it is as written on Lew's blog where it's buried in a mass of irrelevant material:

If the FBI wanted to argue that its expert in the above opinion was wrong, it was free to do so. But what was not acceptable was for it to fail to disclose the opinion at the press conference in August 2008 or in the Amerithrax Investigative Summary — and to misreprsent the written opinion that had been rendered.

DXer is resurrecting the argument I discussed in detail in my August 3, 2013 comment.  He feels the statements in a 2007 report written by USPIS handwriting expert Rober J. Muehlberger should have been made public earlier.  The FBI is NOT arguing that the USPIS expert is "wrong."  They make no argument at all about what Muehlberger wrote.  Muelberger's report was INCONCLUSIVE.  It was about what was "probably" true, based on examining an inadequate number of handwriting samples.      

DXer evidently wants to argue his OPINION that Muehlberger's report should have been made public earlier against my OPINION that it makes no difference to the case against Ivins when the report was released.  

The problem is: DXer's argument has to be dug out of an endless stream of meaningless blather, and when it is dug out, it's just an opinion versus opinion argument.  And I have no interest in opinion versus opinion arguments -- especially if I have to dig them out of a heap of meaningless blather. 

October 21, 2014 - I've probably mentioned this before, but it appears that the reason why Anthrax Truthers seem to spend all their time attacking the FBI's case against Bruce Ivins, instead of promoting their own theories, is because the Truthers know they have nothing but beliefs, opinions and pure baloney to support their personal theories.  As a result, they cannot defend their theories.  That means they have no choice but to attack the theories of others as a way of arguing that their own theory is superior.  They follow the adage: "The best defense is a good offence." 

Yesterday, I started a new thread titled "The Scientific Method" on my interactive blog. I suppose "The Truther Method" would be a good name for the process that Truthers use.  It appears that the steps in "The Truther Method" are as follows:

Come to a conclusion.
Attack others who do not believe.
Demand that others find evidence for you.
Ask irrelevant questions.
Cite irrelevant articles and sources.
Ignore all disputing evidence.
Twist facts to make them fit your conclusion.
Argue nonsense until your opponents give up.
Claim that opponents gave up because they have no case.

In the world of Truthers, that method probably works 99% of the time.  It takes someone with a lot of patience and spare time to argue against Truthers for year after year after year after year after year after year after year after year and not give up.

October 19, 2014 - Last week, for some reason, "DXer" from Lew Weinstein's blog attempted several posts to my interactive blog (where he uses "Anonymous" as his ID).  He's barred from posting directly to my blog because of the vile and disgusting personal attacks he makes at every opportunity, and also because he mostly just wants to post lengthy, totally irrelevant documents that evidently mean something to him, but clearly mean nothing to me or anyone else.  However, I'm sometimes willing to show how meaningless his posts are, and he seems fully willing to continue to attempt to post his meaningless arguments.  It gives me something to write about.  My latest comments on my blog about his attempted posts can be read by clicking HERE and HERE.

I could also comment on this web site about his latest string of incomprehensible rants against former FBI Agent Scott Decker.  DXer's most recent posts on that topic can be viewed by clicking HERE or HERE.  There are at least ten more ranting posts in those same two threads, all written today or yesterday.  I have no idea what caused DXer to suddenly rant on and on and on against Agent Decker, and, of course, DXer never explains himself.  It could be just that he doesn't have anything else to rant about at the moment.  Or it could be the result of some email discusson about Agent Decker with conspiracy theorist Kenneth Dillon.  There are indications that DXer has been talking with Mr. Dillon.  Mr. Dillon believes that
Abderraouf Jdey was the anthrax mailer:

Atta appears to have handed over the vials of anthrax to Jdey in Portland, Maine on September 10, which powerfully explains Atta’s otherwise anomalous trip to Portland on the day before the September 11 terrorist attacks. Jdey, whose modus operandi involved travelling to sites in the northeastern U.S., wrote and mailed the anthrax letters in September and October.

So, Mr. Dillon not only disagrees with DXer about who wrote the letters (DXer believes Mohamed Atta wrote the letters)
, but also about who mailed them.   By far, the most interesting post by DXer that I've seen lately is the one where he says,

Someone in effect has asked: If Jdey was part of the “planes operation” (and connected to Hambali, KSM etc.) — and he was strongly motivated by the Blind Sheik’s detention — why couldn’t he have been the anthrax mailer rather than Adnan Shukrijumah? It is an especially interesting proposition because the top CIA person in the Harvard WMD report has said that Jdey was detained (I don’t know by who) at the same time as Moussaoui but then released.

In other words, why should Shukrijumah coming to the US (according to the FBI) sometime after September 1, 2001, exclude Jdey as the mailer?
(Indeed, might Jdey have met Atta in Portland?)

That reasonable question is why I’m a big supporter of Ken Dillon’s efforts in a pending lawsuit under FOIA. I would be pleased as peach if it turns out that Jdey is the mailer.

DXer has been arguing for a decade that Shukrijumah was the anthrax mailer, so why would he be "pleased as peach if it turns out that Jdey is the mailer"?

That seems to indicate that he has no clue who actually mailed the anthrax letters, he just believes it was some al Qaeda terrorist and not Bruce Ivins.   He totally believes al Qaeda terrorists were behind the anthrax attacks, and he cannot believe that Bruce Ivins did it, no matter how solid the evidence may be against Ivins.

That's why talking about evidence has no meaning to him.  The only "evidence" of interest to him is "evidence" he can twist to support his beliefs.

So, discussing the "scientific method" with him would just be a waste of time. 

I spent a couple hours last week researching "the scientific method," mostly just looking for something to write about in today's comment.  One
interesting YouTube video I found is titled "The Scientific Method Made Simple."  It explains the method from a unique angle, providing "Ten Commandments" for using the method:

1.  Thou shalt base thy conclusion on the evidence.
2.  Thou shalt measure objectively, not guess subjectively.
3.  Thou shalt back up thy statements with evidence (in other words, just claiming something is a fact doesn't make it a fact).
4.  Thou shalt use large sample numbers.
5.  Thy tests shalt be blind.
6.  Thy tests shalt have controls.
7.  Thou shalt cite thy sources of information.
8.  Thy sources of information must be reliable, verifiable and backed by evidence.
9.  Opinion is not fact.
10. Thou shalt not bear false witness (don't cheat).

The video also says that all scientific research has to follow those rules, or it's not science.  Moreover, the same rules also apply to how a legal case is presented in court.

Those who believe that al Qaeda sent the anthrax letters (along with all the Anthrax conspiracy theorists) routinely break all the Commandments.

Virtually all conspiracy theorists and True Believers begin by breaking the "First Commandment."  They do not reach a conclusion based upon the evidence.  They start with a conclusion and then subjectively look for evidence to support it while ignoring all the evidence that shows they are wrong.

While looking for simple explanations of "the scientific method"last week, I also found a YouTube video of scientist Richard Feynman explaining the "scientific method."  It's probably the best explanation I've seen anywhere.  At about the 40 second mark, Dr. Feynman explains that if experiments (a.k.a. facts and evidence) disagree with the proposed explanation (or hypothesis), then it's wrong.  Dr. Feynman put it this way:

"If it disagrees with experiment, it's WRONGIn that simple statement is the key to science.  It doesn't make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it doesn't make any difference how smart you are, who made the guess or what his name is, if it disagrees with experiment, it's wrong.  That's all there is to it."

In the legal world (as opposed to the scientific world), that comment could be translated to mean,

If a claim disagrees with the evidence, it's WRONGIn that simple statement is the key to law.  It doesn't make any difference how beautiful your claim is, it doesn't make any difference how smart you are, who made the claim or what his name is, if it disagrees with the evidence, it's wrong.  That's all there is to it.

DXer claims that el Shukrijumah mailed the anthrax letters.  But, DXer has absolutely NOTHING that would be accepted in court as evidence to support his belief.  All he has are wild interpretations of what he read in the media or what he believes some FBI agent meant when the agent spoke to some reporter.  

This morning, I compiled a chart that illustrates the evidence in the FBI's case against Bruce Ivins versus DXer's theory that Adnan el Shukrijumha mailed the letters:

Evidence against Bruce Ivins
Evidence against Shukrijumah
Ivins' job was to make spores just like
those in the anthrax letters.
Shukrijumah must have gotten the
attack spores from somewhere.
Ivins lived about 200 miles from where
the anthrax letters were mailed.
Shukrijumah must have gotten into the
US somehow to mail the letters.
Ivins made spores with the same silicon
signature as the attack spores.
Shukrijumah must have gotten
weaponized spores from somewhere.
Ivins was in charge of the "murder
weapon," flask RMR-1029.
Shukrijumah must have gotten spores
from some identical source somewhere.
Ivins had no alibi for the times of the
Shukrijumah must have been in the US
at the times of the mailings.
Ivins lived where the envelopes were
Shukrijumah must have gotten the
envelopes from the 9/11 hijackers.
Ivins attempted to destroy evidence
which would incriminate him.
Shukrijumah must have done everything
without leaving any evidence anywhere.

Or maybe the issue can be better illustrated with a cartoon:

cartoon about being biased

I'm not sure of the best way to deal with that kind of "logic."

Updates & Changes: Sunday, October 12, 2014, thru Saturday, October 18, 2014

October 18, 2014 - Yesterday, someone sent me a YouTube video of health care workers at
Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital in Dallas talking with ebola victim Nina Pham.  The video was also on the news.  The reason it was sent to me was for me to check out the comments after the video.  Yesterday, there were 1,930 comments.  This morning there are 3,975.  It looks like some people think it's the end of the world.  Others think it's a another government conspiracy. But mostly it's just people posting their thoughts, which are sometimes mean, sometimes stupid, sometimes heartwarming, sometimes puzzled, sometimes worried, sometimes angry, and very often totally incomprehensible.

This morning I got another email from that same person (he's a first responder) with a link to an article in The New York Times titled "Waste From Ebola Poses Challenge to Hospitals."  The article begins with this:

When the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention assured the public this month that most American hospitals could treat cases of Ebola, it was technically correct. Hospitals routinely treat highly contagious diseases, and top-tier ones are extensively equipped to isolate patients who pose special risks.

But the infection over the past week of two Texas hospital workers betrayed what even many of the best hospitals lack: the ability to handle the tide of infectious waste that Ebola generates.

Ebola’s catastrophic course includes diarrhea, vomiting and hemorrhaging of blood, a combination difficult enough to contain in less-communicable illnesses. When they are highly contagious, disposing of the waste and cleaning up what is left behind require expertise and equipment that some specialists said are lacking even in highly regarded medical facilities.

Those shortcomings are compounded, they said, by surprising gaps in scientists’ knowledge about the Ebola virus itself, down to the time it can survive in different environments outside the body.

I think it's important to remember that the two nurses who contracted ebola probably didn't get it from any kind of normal "contact" with Thomas Eric Duncan.  They evidently got it from having to deal with his soiled bed linens and waste products.  That's not something a passenger on a plane or a next door neighbor has to deal with.   Plus, it takes time - even for health care workers - to stop automatically doing things the same way they've been doing them for years and years, and to start doing things that are required when dealing with a new and different kind of threat.

To err is human.  Making a mistake doesn't mean the person is incompetent.  It just means that the person is human.  We learn from our mistakes.  Unfortunately, when the media is involved, a simple mistake can make national headlines.  And a top notch hospital could be ruined by the publicity and the irrational fears caused by the publicity.

On the positive side, the rest of us can also learn some very valuable lessons when bad things happen to other people.

October 17, 2014 - Each morning I do a Google news search for anthrax+2001.  Lately, all I've been getting back are reviews of the conspiracy theory book "The 2001 Anthrax Deception" and articles about ebola.  According to one new article about ebola, it seems that a Dallas health care worker on vacation on a cruise ship is now being isolated.  According to a Reuters article:

The worker and a companion voluntarily isolated themselves in their cabin.

"We are working with the cruise line to safely bring them back to the United States out of an abundance of caution," [State Department spokeswoman Jen] Psaki said in the statement.

The government of Belize said in a statement it had denied a request by U.S. officials to use a Belizean airport to transport a cruise ship passenger who was considered very low risk for Ebola.

"The passenger never set foot in Belize," the statement said. "When even the smallest doubt remains, we will ensure the health and safety of the Belizean people."

It's difficult to tell how dangerous ebola really is. Adding to the confusion is a recent blog post by Dr. Meryl Nass titled "Aerosolization tests of Ebola in Animals at USAMRIID confirms disease can spread via air."  She cites a National Institues of Health (NIH) article where mice were evidently sprayed with a version of the ebola virus.

I'm no "expert," but I don't think spraying an animal with ebola indicates that the ebola disease can be "spread via air."

According to the CDC,

Ebola is not spread through the air or by water, or in general, by food. However, in Africa, Ebola may be spread as a result of handling bushmeat (wild animals hunted for food) and contact with infected bats. There is no evidence that mosquitos or other insects can transmit Ebola virus. Only mammals (for example, humans, bats, monkeys, and apes) have shown the ability to become infected with and spread Ebola virus.

That poses the question: Why doesn't ebola spread through the air?  Scientific American seems to say it may be able to float through the air, but breathing in the viruses doesn't get it into the bloodstream the way ebola infections most commonly happen:

Currently, Ebola typically gains entry into the body through breaks in the skin, the watery fluid around the eye or the moist tissues of the nose or mouth. Then it infects various cells of the immune system, which it tricks into making more copies of itself. The end result: a massive attack on the blood vessels, not the respiratory system.

So, if ebola viruses are floating around in the air, what difference does it make if it gets into someone's mouth instead of down someone's throat and into someone's lungs?

According to another article,

When a patient vomits, has diarrhea, undergoes medical procedures, or even flushes the toilet, “there’s just a cloud that contains pathogen virus particles,” says Dr. [Jane] Orient [executive director of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons].

Dr. Orient says that when an aerosol dries up, droplet nuclei remain suspended in the air for a long time. A recent research study suggests that Ebola could remain infectious in an aerosol for more than an hour.

So, it appears that the primary issue preventing "spreading by air" is that the virus doesn't live for very long in the air.  It dries up and dies. 

There's probably some web site somewhere that explains the limitations and mechanics which "prevent" ebola from readily speading by air, but I haven't been able to find it. 

It's not something I'm worried about, but I think it would help quell the growing panic if there was more information on what "spread by air" involves and means.  If someone with ebola sneezes in my face, isn't that "spread by air"?  Or is it an example of "spread by contact with bodily fluids"?  Where's the dividing line?  I can't be the only person wondering about this.

October 15, 2014 - This is about as far off-topic and anything can get, but there's breaking news today that Lockheed has discovered how to make a practical fusion reactor.  According to Scientific American,

Lockheed Martin Corp said on Wednesday it had made a technological breakthrough in developing a power source based on nuclear fusion, and the first reactors, small enough to fit on the back of a truck, could be ready in a decade.

I'm old enough to remember back about 40 years or more when they were also saying that a practical fusion reactor should be available in a decade.  But, this time it seems to be a bit more likely to happen.  I don't know exactly what the "technological breakthrough" is, but the problem for the past forty or fifty years has been that it took more energy to run the reactor than you could get out of it.

I doubt that it will be as simple to use as the one in the movie "Back to The Future" (see images below), but, if it works, it could certainly change the world. 

fusion reactor 1 - back to the future
fusion reactor 2 - back to the future

The Scientific American article also says,

Lockheed sees the project as part of a comprehensive approach to solving global energy and climate change problems. Compact nuclear fusion would also produce far less waste than coal-powered plants, and future reactors could eliminate radioactive waste completely, the company said.

McGuire said the company had several patents pending for the work and was looking for partners in academia, industry and among government laboratories to advance the work.

Lockheed said it had shown it could complete a design, build and test it in as little as a year, which should produce an operational reactor in 10 years, McGuire said.

The article also contains some errors, specifically about reactors in nuclear submarines.  Check the comments after the article.   I found this comment very interesting:

This Lockheed claim has been floating around for years now. I am positive Transatomic Power's molten salt reactors will succeed. Lockheed's claims sound like the ones they had about EESTOR storage devices. Very skeptical of anything Lockheed says. Sounds like they want others to risk the money on this device rather than themselves. That shows a strong lack of confidence.

Those are very good points.  It's getting so that you can't trust anyone these days.

However, Business Insider says:

What Lockheed has managed to do is develop a new way to constrain the plasma, using what is called a compact fusion reactor (CFR) with a specifically shaped magnetic field inside. The CFR can contain the plasma with less energy input by creating a self-regulating system, so when the plasma tries to expand — which would lower its overall energy and reduce the chance of nuclear fusion — the magnetic field fights back to contain it. So, the plasma actually works to contain itself.

That seems like scientific gibberish to me, but maybe there's something to it.  I hope so.

October 14, 2014 - I'm still not seeing any news about the General Accountablity Office's review of the Amerithrax investigation, which is supposed to be released "sometime this fall."  And ebola seems to have killed off all anthrax news.

On Sunday, I made a breakthrough on learning how to use my new laptop.  I discovered that things I do with one hand on my old computer using a mouse have to be done with two hands on my laptop using the touchpad.  Copying things being the #1 example.  That little discovery resolved all sorts of problems I was having.

I also discovered Microsoft Paint, which allows me to do a lot of things my new laptop that I feared I could only do by buying a new copy of Corel Draw and Photopaint (which I've had on my old computers for decades).  It appears I've also always had a copy of Microsoft Paint on my old computer, but I didn't know it and never used it.  So, now I have to figure out how to do things on it.  It does most of the things I previously did by utilizing Corel Draw and Photopaint.  Here's a test:

Microsoft Paint - test image

I'm now spending more time on my new laptop than on my old computer. 

I can reserve movies to rent from Redbox on my laptop.
I can borrow ebooks from the library using my laptop.
I can check my book sales using my laptop.

I can't maintain this web site via my laptop, but I think the software is available somewhere in the Microsoft ACCESS application which I have.   I just need to find it and figure out how to use it.

I can't read emails from my personal email account on my laptop, but I don't want to do that until I'm ready to switch to using my laptop as my primary computer.  I have a new email account on my laptop.  The address is detect at outlook dot com, which I'm never going to spell as an email address on any web site or blog.  Hopefully that will keep my new inbox from being flooded with junk mail.

Using my laptop, I set up a new interactive blog to discuss subjects not related to the anthrax attacks of 2001.  I wanted to use OldDogNewTricks as the name, but that was taken.  So was OldDogNewProblems, OldGuyNewTricks and a half dozen other names I tried.  I finally set it up at OldGuyNewIssues.   

I'm having a problem getting accustomed to the new keyboard on the laptop.  I can now only type about 10 words in a row without making a mistake.   But, it's just a matter of practice.  One way to "practice" is to start working on the second draft of my new sci-fi novel by using my laptop.

But, there are a bunch of other things I need to figure out first.

October 12, 2014 - On Thursday, someone calling himself "Steve H" posted a message to my interactive blog.   The message asked:

Was the kid who wrote the anthrax letters a boy ... a girl? ... 50/50?

I immediately assumed the poster was "DXer" from Lew Weinstein's blog.  The  anthrax handwriting is DXer's favorite subject for arguments with me, plus the question makes no sense, and DXer rarely makes any sense.  What does "50/50" mean?  50% boy, 50% girl?

When I pointed that out, "Steve H" responded:

By 50/50, I meant is it equally likely based on the handwriting whether a boy wrote it or whether a girl wrote it. Do girls and boys write the same or are there differences you discern in the handwriting?

So, just as DXer always does, "Steven H" was going off on a tangent.  But, I was willing to go along for awhile.  I replied:

I don't know. I'm not a handwriting "expert." I just know the "basics." There might be some way for a true "expert" to sometimes tell whether the writing is that of a boy or girl. But, I think when a child is just copying material, instead of writing something original, it could be extremely difficult - if not impossible - to definitively tell if the writer is a boy or girl.

So, just as DXer always does, "Steve H" went off on another tangent.  He wrote:

Young girls are easier to manipulate than young boys.

Young boys are very skeptical.

I responded:

That's an interesting opinion, but I doubt that it has any basis in reality. My opinion would be that young girls are smarter than boys, so it would be easier to manipulate a young boy. Click HERE for and article from Psychology Today titled "Girls Are More Intelligent Than Boys, But Men Are More Intelligent Than Women".

However, it's still a pointless argument, since this is not a situation where the "average boy" or "average girl" was involved. In this situation, it would depend on the individual child and how well he (or she) knew Bruce Ivins.

So, just as DXer always does, "Steve H" then made some vague references without providing links or quotes:

Hartley does a good job in his article addressing Spear's article in explaining that there are differences in handwriting between girls and boys.

I responded:

You continue to argue just like "DXer" (a.k.a. "Anonymous"). You twist what I say. And you force me to look up "Hartley" and "Spear," instead of providing links and quotes. [Such links can be found] HERE and HERE.

And, it's all irrelevant. Unless you can PROVE that the handwriting on the anthrax documents is that of a young girl, all you are doing is saying that some "experts" claim that there is a difference between a typical young girl's handwriting and a typical young boy's handwriting. And that means nothing, since the writer of the letters may not be "typical."

Then using the full name "Steve Howell," he went off on another tangent and wrote:

Your theory, Mr. Lake, also does not take into account whether the child you imagine wrote the letters, is right-handed or left-handed.

Interestingly, Google flagged that post as "SPAM."  I had to take it out of the SPAM folder to publish it on my blog.  (It was also the only time he posted using the full name "Steve Howell.")  My response was:

And why is that relevant? Just like "DXer" (a.k.a. "Anonymous"), you seem to be able to discuss only things that are not relevant.

I think some "handwriting experts" have indicated the writing was done by someone who is right handed. But, I don't know if the child used by Ivins is right-handed or left-handed. So, the issue is not relevant.

The only way the subject would be relevant is (1) if a specific child were named, (2) it was known whether he (or she) was right- or left-handed, and (3) ALL the handwriting experts said the handwriting was done by a child who wrote with his other hand.

All that would prove was that Ivins used a different child.

Then "Steve H" wrote:

I agree it wasn't written by that Ivins scientist. But it wasn't written by a child either. It was written by someone sending a lethal letter ... such a person would have no reason to involve a kid... who would go tell his parents. I don't know if you know kids but they are big blabbers. They say whatever they are thinking.

It's a standard argument from Anthrax Truthers.  "Steve H" is arguing that he (or some typical or average criminal) wouldn't do things that way, therefore Bruce Ivins simply could not have done things that way, either.  It's a nonsense argument.  I responded:

I understand that is your opinion or belief, but your opinions and beliefs do not agree with the facts and evidence.

You are talking about the way YOU would do things. You aren't Bruce Ivins. Bruce Ivins may have had several good reasons to involve a kid.

And "Steve H" responded just the way I would expect DXer to respond:

There are NO facts and evidence say that Ivins used a child to write the anthrax documents. Your theory is absurd.

And I responded:

There is a MOUNTAIN of facts and evidence showing that Bruce Ivins was the anthrax killer. Click HERE to read the FBI/DOJ's "Amerithrax Investigation Summary." And you can go to my web site for details about how Ivins most likely made the anthrax powders, etc. Plus, my book will tell you further details.

There are many UNCHALLENGED FACTS and evidence showing that a child just starting first grade wrote the anthrax documents. Click HERE to go to my web page where some of the facts are explained. Click HERE to view a YouTube video where I explain 12 FACTS which show that a child just starting first grade wrote the anthrax documents.

If Ivins was the anthrax killer and the letters were written by a child just starting first grade, then Ivins MUST have used a child to do the writing. Plus, it makes total sense for Bruce Ivins to have used a child that way, although it might not make sense for the "average" criminal to do it.

"Steve H" (who seems more and more like "DXER" a.k.a. "Anonymous" every day) also wrote: "Your theory is absurd."

That is your OPINION. I've been trying to make it clear to you that I have no interest in arguing opinions. It is pointless.

The only way to resolve an issue like this is through an objective look at the facts and evidence.

The facts and evidence say Bruce Ivins was the anthrax killer.

The facts and evidence say that a child just starting first grade wrote the anthrax documents.

The facts and evidence therefore say that Ivins used a child to write the anthrax documents.

No beliefs or opinions will change what the facts and evidence say.

I realize that anyone reading this web site could just go to my interactive blog and read the entire conversation there, but I've learned that some readers of this blog do not like clicking on links, and I thought it was a very interesting discussion that was also worth summarizing. 

The discussion ended at that point two days ago.  When Anthrax Truthers cannot find a way to argue opinions and beliefs, they usually just go away -- for awhile.  Then they return in a week or a month to argue the same thing all over again.   DXer often ends an argument by attacking me in vile and disgusting ways, which is why I don't allow him to post directly to my interactive blog.  "Steve H" didn't do that.

Nevertheless, I'd say it's a 70% probability that "Steve H" was really "DXer" utilizing another false name to argue things that only he seems to want to argue -- apparently because he thinks it annoys me.  And he seems to really enjoy annoying me.  This time, the discussion was relatively civil, even though, as usual, "Steve H" was using standard Anthrax Truther arguments involving opinions and beliefs, while I kept trying to get him to discuss facts and evidence. 

The discussion seems to show - for the umpteenth time - that there is no way to get Truthers to discuss evidence and facts.  They just seem to pretend that the facts and evidence don't exist.  When you point them to the evidence, they argue that it isn't the kind of evidence they accept.  However, when it comes to arguing their own theories, anything goes  -- opinions, beliefs, rumors, hearsay, outright nonsense and meaningless questions are all they have.  Yet, they view it as solid evidence that they are right.

Meanwhile, on Friday, "DXer" posted to Lew Weinstein's blog his most interesting message in a long long time.  He evidently stumbled across an article from 2004, either HERE or HERE (as usual, DXer doesn't provide any links), titled "The 'Official' Operative Clique For The Next 9/11?" by Chaim Kupferberg.  DXer wrote:

In 2004, in a well-written essay “The “Official” Operative Clique For The Next 9/11?”, someone was taking my focus on El-Shukrijumah and turning it inside out. The author seems to make me out to be part of the grand conspiracy that (in his mind, falsely) attributed 911 to Al Qaeda and set up El-Shukrijumah and his associates as the patsy for any future anthrax or other WMD attack.

I found it highly amusing that someone would think that "DXer" (the article uses his real name) would be viewed as part of a U.S. government conspiracy to blame el-Shukrijumah (DXer's pick as the anthrax mailer) for some future bioweapons attack.  

The theory that el-Shukrijumah was the anthrax mailer, and that e-Shukrijumah will commit a similar crime someday unless he is blamed for the 2001 attacks and caught, is exactly what DXer seems to have been arguing for years.  But, I seriously doubt he's doing it as part of some complex US Government conspiracy to blame al Qaeda for something that will supposedly be done someday by the US Government.

I think it goes to show that there isn't any idea so bizarre and preposterous that you can't find someone around somewhere who believes it totally and wholeheartedly.

Updates & Changes: Sunday, October 5, 2014, thru Saturday, October 11, 2014

October 10, 2014 - Last night I used my DVR to watch the NOVA program "Why Planes Vanish" that aired on Wednesday.   It was mostly about Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370.  It got into some controversial areas (like the cargo of lithium batteries), but I think it explained things nicely.  It seemed to advocate the use of a satellite system to track aircraft, instead of relying on radar - which doesn't have the range to follow an aircraft across an ocean.  It also explained a bit about Secondary Surveillance Radar, which isn't really "radar."  It's a radio system connecting a radio transmitter-receiver on an aircraft (a "transponder") with a radio receiver connected to a radar system on the ground.  The radio and radar operate on the same wave length, so the transponder will send out a radio/radar signal that is much stronger than the bounceback signal from the radar.  As a result of all this, I think I now understand another scientific subject that may never again come up in any conversation.  But, I'm ready if it does come up. 

October 9, 2014 - Three days ago, I wrote that I didn't plan to write anything more about Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370 until some actual evidence was found.

Yes, that was the "plan."  But, the best laid plans of mice and men ... Gang aft a-gley.

This morning I found an article from Der Speigel titled "Emirates Head Critical of MH 370 Investigation," which provides a very good example of an "expert" displaying his total ignorance in an interview with the media.  This time, the "expert" is head of the United Emirates Airline.  He says:

The transponders are under the control of the flight deck. These are tracking devices, aircraft identifiers that work in the secondary radar regime. If you turn off that transponder in a secondary radar regime, that particular airplane disappears from the radar screen. That should never be allowed to happen. Irrespective of when the pilot decides to disable the transponder, the aircraft should be able to be tracked.

I'm certainly no expert, but I can look at the FACTS, and the facts say that when you turn off the transponder, all that happens is that your plane stops sending information to radar stations telling them who you are.  The blip indicating your aircraft is still on the radar.  Many radar systems do not get or use transponder data.  They just track blips.  Here's what a radar screen looks like when it includes transponder data:

transponder radar information

Nearest the center, JBU1048 142 E190 is the transponder data from a specific plane giving its call sign and other information.  There's also a short line connecting that data with the "blip" that shows the location of the aircraft.

And here is what a radar screen looks like when it shows only blips and no transponder information associated with the blips:

radar screen without transponder info

What a transponder does is help a radar operator determine which blip is which specific aircraft.   If the pilot could just turn off your transponder and "disappear" from radar screens, there wouldn't be any need for the U. S. military to spend billions developing "stealth" technology to prevent its warplanes from being picked up by radar.

Military radar stations were tracking MH370 after the transponder was turned off.  They tracked it for a long while -- until it flew out of radar range.  But, without the transponder data, they couldn't be certain of the identity of the plane they were tracking.

I'm not sure what a "secondary radar regime" is, but there might be circumstances where air traffic controllers only want to see which aircraft have their transponders turned on.  There would have to be solid reasons to prevent controllers from doing that.

The rest of the interview shows that the head of Emirates Airlines seems totally ignorant of all the work being done to locate the wreckage of MH370.  He says:

There hasn't been one overwater incident in the history of civil aviation -- apart from Amelia Earhart in 1939 -- that has not been at least 5 or 10 percent trackable. But MH 370 has simply disappeared. For me, that raises a degree of suspicion. I'm totally dissatisfied with what has been coming out of all of this.

He's suspicious because he's ignorant of the facts, or he doesn't believe the facts.  The facts do not fit with his notion of the way the world works. 

And the media is ready, willing, able, and anxious to print his controversial views - ignorant as they may be - because he's an "expert" who wants to tell the world about his controversial opinions.  Controversy helps sell magazines and newspapers.

And conspiracy theorists are now undoubtedly using his ignorant views as "proof" of whatever screwball conspiracy theory they might have about the disappearance of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370

October 8, 2014 - In case anyone is interested, on Monday I got my new laptop back from the "repair shop."  They removed the viruses.  This morning, I thought I may have acquired a new virus - even though I don't have any email connections and I haven't been browsing the Net.  A new "app" for a kid's game seems to have appeared on my "app list" recently.  (It's marked as a "new app.")  But, I didn't download anything.  I was considering calling "the shop" to ask them if it belongs there or not.  Then I decided to do a Google search for "Farmville 2."   It appears to be a legitimate game, but one I'll never use.  Someday I'll figure out how to delete it.  

It appears I'm going to have to go very slowly through the learning process.  There are so many differences in every application, and in using a touchpad instead of a mouse, and in using Windows 8.1 instead of Windows XP, that I sometimes feel that all my 50 years of experience working with computers means nothing.  I'm trying to enter a totally new world, where nearly everything is different.  I need to learn a new "skills" and new rules.  Common things I did in the past are now dangerous.  Routine things no longer work at all.  Things that required multiple steps in the past now consist of just one step, and if I try to do the second step, havoc will ensue.

I'm still looking for news about the GAO's review of Amerithrax, but I haven't seen anything.  And the Anthrax Truthers are continuing to do what they've always done.

October 6, 2014 - "DXer" (a.k.a. "Anonymous") appears to have responded to my (C) comment from yesterday by digging up a Lew Weinstein blog thread from April 15, 2009 titled "Ivins could not have been in Princeton when the FBI said he was."  It all relates to the preposterous reasoning I mentioned yesterday: A belief that, i
f Ivins was doing something legal on a given day, then he couldn't possibly have been doing anything illegal on that same day.

"DXer" also posted a new message this morning which seems to indicate that "Dxer" is getting a bit grumpy about me constantly pointing out the absurdities in his al Qaeda theory.  In his comment this morning, he wrote:

The FBI’s failure to disclose the contemporaneous documents relating to the purchases, telephone records, and emails from late September 2001 and early October 2001 remind me of the internet poster who stalks this blog and who for a decade has argued a First Grader wrote the anthrax letters

How does one "stalk" a blog?  I suppose it's done by repeatedly exposing errors on the blog.

But, he makes a good point.  It's getting pretty tiresome for me to constantly point out errors "DXer" makes on Lew Weinstein's blog.  And, I suspect that many readers of this web site are getting tired of reading about such things over and over and over.

The problem is, of course, that there isn't much else to write about that is related to the anthrax attacks of 2001.  And, no one knows exactly when the GAO is going to release their much-awaited review of the Amerithrax investigation.

The search for Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370 (and all the various conspiracy theories related to it) is also awaiting some real news.  A group of scientists calling themselves the "Independent Group" (IG) are having an interesting argument with a different scientist on Duncan Steele's blog, but the arguments are about minutiae.  It's interesting that the "official experts" might be taking the IG arguments seriously.  But, I don't plan to write anything further on that subject until some trace of MH370 is actually found.

My new laptop is still "in the shop" getting viruses removed and new software installed.  I don't think anyone wants to read what I might have to say about all the differences between Windows XP and Windows 8.1.

Work on my new (second) sci-fi novel is at a standstill until I get my new laptop working, and until I learn how to use the new software on it.

During breakfast and lunch, I'm reading a book titled "I'm a Stranger Here Myself" by Bill Bryson.  It's very enjoyable to read, but there's not much in it that relates to conspiracy theories.

So, don't be surprised if I go for several days without writing anything new for this web site.  I may be saving what little I have to say for my regular Sunday comment.

October 5, 2014 (C) - Hmm.  Probably in response to my (A) comment this morning, "DXer" (a.k.a "Anonymous") has posted a message to a thread dated January 29, 2012 and titled "Amerithrax: Hazmi and Mihdhar Timeline." The "timeline" is in the form of a graphic (of course).   It shows nothing meaningful.  Example:

Atta and hijackers
filed at KINKO'S in
Laurel doing

The only reason I found the "timeline" was because "DXer'" posted a new message in that thread from early 2012, and that made it the latest post in the "Recent Comments" column.  I have no idea how "DXer" found it, or how he would expect anyone else to find it.  Here's part of the message "DXer" posted this afternoon which also clearly relates to my (A) comment this morning:

In approaching an analysis of the means, motive, opportunity and modus operandi of the anthrax mailings, if the FBI had created a timeline for Dr. Ivins before his suicide, they would have discovered that he had a group therapy session on the night that they alleged he travelled to mail the Fall 2001 antharx letters.

He had no “opportunity.” Establishing his whereabouts those evenings was a greater priority than determining the DNA on the panties taken from his garbage.

It was only after Dr. Ivins’ death that the FBI acknowledged and confirmed he went to his group therapy session the evening of 9/17 on 10/8 — just as he had claimed. Why didn’t they corroroborate and acknowledge such a critical fact sooner?

It's total baloney, of course.  Ivins' therapy session ended at about 7 p.m., so he had plenty of time to drive to Princeton to mail the letters.  "DXer," it appears, believes that if Ivins was doing something legal on a given day, then he couldn't possibly have been doing anything illegal.  It's the same kind of thinking he uses with his rabbit theory.

Here's what I wrote in my book
"A Crime Unlike Any Other"about when Ivins made the first mailing (starting on page 65, and with the key passages in red):

       On Monday morning, September 17, Ivins entered Building
1425 at 6:58 a.m. and worked until 11:14 a.m. Undoubtedly very
anxious about what he was about to do, Ivins sent an email to Mara
Linscott at about 10 a.m. that morning. The email indicated that he
desperately needed someone to talk with. It said in part:

I haven't been feeling so good lately because of all that's going on. I
really can't talk to [my wife], and I don't say that much to [Patricia
Fellows] or anyone else. The group I'm in is only moderately
helpful. I'm glad some of us are going to Covance tomorrow with
some vaccine. It will be good to get away. I wish I had someone
here that I could really open up to at times like this.

       But there was no one there to tell him he shouldn't do what he
was planning on doing.
       He took the rest of the day off as four hours of paid leave.
       He may have had his car checked to make sure everything was ready for the drive. It would be a disaster if he had car problems on the drive to New Jersey. Then, he had his regular Monday evening group therapy session, which ran from 5:30 to about 7 p.m.
       Afterwards, it was only a five mile drive from CCA to Ft.
Detrick and his office where he retrieved the plastic bag full of letters
from his desk, slipped the bag inside his shirt and left, spending only
13 minutes inside Building 1425.
        He most likely left the letters in his car when he went home.
There would be no reason to take them inside.

The First Mailing

       Sometime that night, between roughly 7:30 p.m. and about
11:30 p.m., Ivins left his house, got into his car and headed to New
Jersey. The hours on the road gave him more time to think about
what he was doing. But, he continued on - past Baltimore, past
Wilmington, past Philadelphia, past Trenton.
       It could have been around midnight when Ivins entered
Princeton on Highway 206 and drove down Nassau Street looking for
the address of the KKG office.

The idea that Ivins couldn't have driven to New Jersey because he had a therapy session at 5 p.m. is just another absurd distortion of the facts by a True Believer.

October 5, 2014 (B) - Wow! I just had to take my new laptop back to the store.  It was infected with dozens of viruses.  It appears that while installing new security software I got for free for a year with the laptop, the one-month free security software already in the computer first had to be deleted.  And, apparently, in the few minutes between deleting the old security software and installing the new security software, all sorts of viruses and malware were downloaded into my laptop.

Luckily, I hadn't put anything into the laptop except for some bookmarks.  So, I'm writing this as I'm waiting for the experts at the store to clean up everything for me.  And they're going to install the free security software for me, too.  All at no cost.

I probably should have realized that something was wrong a lot earlier, but Windows 8.1 is dramatically different from Windows-XP, and using touchpad is different from using a mouse, so it took me awhile to figure out was was "normal" and what wasn't.  I installed "Microsoft Office" yesterday, but I couldn't get it to work.  This morning I called the Microsoft hotline, and they figured out that my computer was infected. 

So, the past few days were a cram course on Windows 8.1 and a lesson in how dangerous the Internet can be if you are trying something new - even if you've been working on the Internet for over two decades.

October 5, 2014 (A) - The argument I was having with "DXer" (a.k.a. "Anonymous") on my interactive blog ended suddenly about a week ago.   I think it may have ended because of what I wrote in my (B) comment on this web site on September 28.  Here's what I wrote:

The United States Attorney Falsely Alleged That The Federal Eagle Stamp Was Uniquely Sold At Dr. Bruce Ivins’ Post Office And Then That Ran As An AP Headline. In fact, the envelopes with the printing defects are known to have been sold throughout Maryland and Virginia post offices (and that is where the hijackers were).

That is almost certainly in response to this part of my (A) comment:

The post office envelopes used in the mailings were sold in the area where Ivins lived.
"DXer" has no explanation for why al Qaeda would buy envelopes in Maryland.

But, arguing that the hijackers were reportedly in the Virginia/Maryland area at some point in time prior to 9/11 poses an interesting question: Is "DXer" saying that one of the hijackers put the two different types of anthrax powders into the letters while they were somewhere within the US?  Are we to believe that the hijackers then set the two batches of letters aside somewhere to wait for Adnan Shukrijumah to come to the US to do the two actual mailings after 9/11?
There's never been anything logical about the al Qaeda Theory, but I'd forgotten about "DXer's" belief that the letter copies were made by the 9/11 hijackers in a store in Laurel, Maryland.  And that also appears to be where he believes Mohamed Atta wrote the letters and addressed the envelopes.  Looking over some past arguments with "Anonymous," I found this on my interactive blog in a discussion from Jan. 26, 2012:

Ed perhaps can agree that a fine powdered mixer was delivered to the block where Atta and Nawaf Al-Hazmi was making final preparations for 9/11 in Fort Lee [New Jersey]. Ed perhaps can agree that he does not know where the fine particulate mixer was taken.

The second biggest problem with trying to figure out "DXer's" al Qaeda theory (after the fact that he does not and can not explain anything) is that his theory isn't laid out in any single place in any readable way.
I'd really like to see "DXer" create a timeline showing the various steps involved in his theory that the anthrax letters were the work of al Qaeda terrorists.  From what I can piece together, it appears that "DXer" believes the major steps in the anthrax letter attack were as follows:

(1)  Al Qaeda scientists acquired the Ames strain from Porton Down in England. 

(2)  Al Qaeda scientists created the crude form of anthrax powder in a lab in Kandahar, Afghanistan.

(3)  The 9/11 hijackers brought the attack anthrax from Afghanistan to America (maybe in the Afghani equivalent of a Tupperware container?). 

(4)  The 9/11 hijackers bought the envelopes and writing paper in Laurel, MD.

(5)  While in Laurel, MD, Mohamed Atta evidently wrote both of the anthrax letters, and that's where the 9/11 terrorists made Xerox copies of the letters.

(6)  In Fort Lee, NJ, they removed some of the crude powder from the Tupperware container and turned it into a sophisticated powder (without leaving a trace of anthrax anywhere they went, even though they had no sophisticated equipment and none of the hijackers was a microbologist).  They put the remaining portion of the crude powder into envelopes addressed to the media, and the sophisticated form of the powder into envelopes addressed to Senators Daschle and Leahy.

(7)  The 9/11 terrorists put the sealed envelopes into some secret hiding place somewhere in New Jersey. 
The hijackers then went off to kill themselves on 9/11.

(8)  Soon after making a phone call to his mother on September 13, 2001, from Afghanistan, Adnan el Shukrijumah flew to the United States.

(9)  After making his way to New Jersey in the days after 9/11, Shukrijumah retrieved the anthrax letters from the secret hiding place.

(10)  Late on Sept. 17 or early on the 18th, Shukrijuma traveled to Princeton, NJ, to mail the first batch of letters to the media.

(11)  Sometime after noon on Saturday, October 6 and before noon on Tuesday, October 9, 2001, Shukrijuma again traveled to Princeton to put the second batch of letters into the same mailbox he used for the first batch.

(12)  Shukrijuma then disappeared. 

There are countless holes in this totally illogical theory, of course.  And there is no evidence to support any of it.  Furthermore, when it suits his purposes, "DXer" will also argue that some al Qaeda terrorist could have obtained a sample from RMR-1029 while taking a tour of USAMRIID.  That way there was no need to get it from Porton Down (where the DNA would not have matched the attack spores).  And sometimes he suggests that the two different forms of powders were actually made by an al Qaeda microbiologist at George Mason University in Fairfax, VA.  He hasn't even attempted to explain why the handwriting changes from one mailing to the other
even though DXer's theory suggests that Mohamed Atta wrote both letters and addressed all the envelopes at the same time.  (And, since the handwriting doesn't match Atta's handwriting, why would a terrorist who is about to die bother to disguise his handwriting?)

If someone has an intelligent theory that disagrees with the FBI's finding that Dr. Bruce Ivins was the anthrax mailer, I would expect they would be willing and able to lay out and explain all the steps involved in the theory.  The FBI and DOJ did that in their "Amerithrax Investigation Summary."  I did it with my book, "A Crime Unlike Any Other."  Why can't any of the conspiracy theorists, Anthrax Truthers and True Believers do that with their own theories?  Is it because their entire "theory" consists of just two simple elements: (1) disbelieving the official government version, and (2) believing that their own best guess must be closer to reality?

Looking over the latest anthrax conspiracy theory book,
"The 2001 Anthrax Deception; The Case for a Domestic Conspiracy," the book appears to be mostly an attack on the FBI's version of what happened, total acceptance of all the ignorant arguments from other conspiracy theorists, and a statement of beliefs about how the government can't be trusted.  Here are a few paragraphs from the Conclusion (Chapter 9, pages 197 & 198):

          (a) The anthrax letter attacks were carried out by a group of perpetrators, not by a lone wolf.
          As was shown, previous researchers have argued convincingly that the physical characteristics of the prepared anthrax spores used in the attacks indicate that, although the anthrax certainly came from a U.S. lab, the FBI's "anthrax killer," Bruce Ivins, could not have been responsible for the attacks.  This book has carried the argument against a lone perpetrator further, tracing, with attention to timeline and motive, the construction of fictional scenarios intended to direct attention away from the true perpetrators and onto foreign groups useful as targets of the Global War on Terror.  The work required for this construction would have been impossible for any individual to manage.
          Could an individual establish the crop-duster incidents and narratives. Or establish the other connections between the Hijackers and the anthrax -- for example the Florida connections discussed in Chapter 7?  Woud this individual have been able to write speeches for members of the executive branch, repeatedly warning of biological weapons in the lead-up to the attack?  Who sent journalists scrambling hither and yon to spread fear and anxiety about the ubiquitous al-Qaeda and to frame Iraq relentlessly and fraudulently?

Yada yada yada.

All you have to do to concoct such a theory is start with a belief that there was a criminal conspiracy, tie events and people together which do not belong together, assume that other conspiracy theorists and naysayers must be right about things they know nothing about, and you've got what only a conspiracy theorist would call "evidence."

And, of course, you can't discuss the "evidence" with people who are not conspiracy theorists.  They just wouldn't understand.  And, they might argue in favor of the FBI's findings, which could only mean that they are part of the conspiracy - or a government dupe.

Updates & Changes: Sunday, September 28, 2014, thru Saturday, October 4, 2014

October 3, 2014 - In spite of what was said in earlier news reports, the search for Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370 won't actually begin until sometime after October 5.  According to one report I just found:

On 24 September, GO Phoenix departed Jakarta, Indonesia after work to prepare the vessel for the sea and weather conditions it is likely to encounter in the search area. Calibration of the ultrashort baseline system (the equipment used to position the towfish) was successfully undertaken in the Sunda Strait. The vessel then proceeded to an area close to Christmas Island to calibrate its multibeam echo sounder equipment, which was also successful. GO Phoenix is expected to arrive at its allocated underwater search area around 5 October and is expected to conduct operations there for around 12 days before sailing to Fremantle to be resupplied.

Fugro Discovery has completed fit-out work in Durban, South Africa, and is en route to Australia. The vessel’s current estimated time of arrival in Fremantle is 5 October, whereupon search equipment and a mission crew will be mobilised. 

Fugro Equator, the vessel currently being used to survey the search area, is expected to be mobilised as a search vessel when its bathymetric work is complete around the end of October.

When the GO Phoenix arrives at the search site "around 5 October,"

it will take some time to deploy the many thousands of metres of cabling that will lower and as necessary raise or adjust the height of the towed scanning equipment to maintain an optimum distance above the sea floor and its often complex terrain.

Meanwhile, another "expert" has decided that MH370 went down even further south than the Duncan Steele group estimated, which was a lot further south than the official "experts" decided.

Also meanwhile, I'm keeping an eye out for the General Accountibility Office's review of the Amerithrax invesigation.  So far, there's no news other than that the GAO review is expected to be released "sometime this fall."

October 2, 2014 - I'm still trying to figure out how to get things done on my new computer that I could do almost without thinking on my old computer.  I also had another problem to solve: trying to figure out why my computer was going so slow when downloading emails and when accessing things on my web site host's file.  That second problem seemed to just disappear this afternoon.  So, maybe it was some problem at my Internet provider.  Anyway, now I can focus on learning how to work my new computer. 

October 1, 2014 (B) - Wow!  I bought a new computer (an HP laptop) this afternoon, but I'm totally lost on how to get started with it.  And it's really hard to adapt to using the touchpad instead of the mouse.  I keep reaching for the mouse, and I keep tapping the touchpad when I guess I'm supposed to be dragging my finger.   I could just buy a mouse for it and use it, but first I need to see if I can adapt. 

It appears that it's going to be a real technical challenge to get emails on it.  From what I can understand from an instruction screen, Windows 8.1 doesn't work with POP email servers.  Both of my existing accounts are on POP servers.  And the laptop doesn't come with an instruction manual, just a single sheet about how to set it up and turn it on.  So, I'm going to have to use my old computer to figure out how to use my new computer.  

Except for the mouse problem, I think all the problems I'm having would still be there if I bought a new desktop computer.   I've been working with computers since 1964, and I've never felt so lost as I did while trying to get something done on my new laptop.

October 1, 2014 (A) - As expected, last month was the busiest month for this web site since August 2008, with 22,546 visitors.  There were over 700 visitors on all but 4 days, and 1 day (the 17th) got over 900.  However, I don't know if it's all because of the number of people researching the anthrax attacks of 2001 on its 13th anniversary.  A lot of it could just be because there are more people on-line these days - and there seem to be about a gazillion search engines out there collecting web site data.

I must have spent 20 minutes this morning waiting for 4 emails to download on my 2 email accounts.  All but 1 were junk mail, and when I replied to the valid email, I had to send it twice because the first try timed out. 

So, later today I'm going to buy a new computer.  The next update to this web site will hopefully be done via my new computer.  (I'll still have my old computer as a backup.)

September 30, 2014 - When is the 13th anniversary of the anthrax attacks of 2001?  Was it a couple weeks ago when the first letters were mailed, or is it next week when people first began to realize there had been an attack?

Thirteen years ago today, Bruce Ivins was presumably going crazy waiting for something to happen.  Back on the evening of September 17, he'd sent out a batch of five letters to the media.  Then he'd undoubtedly waited for the hysterical news reports to appear.

For the first week of the wait, from the 17th through the 24th of September, he'd barely spent any evening hours in Suite B3 at all:

Ivins hours in Suite B3

He did "work" in Suite B3 on the 25th, but it was only to clean the place because Patricia Worsham had ordered him to do the cleaning.  He wrote his famous "Queen of the Universe" email the next day, informing Worsham that he'd done as instructed.

Then, frustrated over the lack of news about anthrax being sent through the mails (and probably thoroughly pissed at having a woman who was younger and less experience than he was order him around), on the 28th he evidently began work on the spores for the second mailing.   It appears he finished preparing those spores on the 5th of October, since he then, once again, had no reason to go into B3 in the evenings.

October 5th was also the day that Bob Stevens died.  But the "experts" in the media were saying that Stevens might have been infected by some natural source while on vacation.  Nothing was going the way Ivins had planned.  He made certain his second batch of letters would leave no doubt that a biological weapons attack was occurring - the powder was more lethal, the letter said it was anthrax, and he would mail the second batch of letters to two important Senators.  Then he would have to wait once again.

Meanwhile, back in today's world of 2014, the search for Malaysia Flight MH370 is starting up again in the Southern Indian Ocean.  According to an article in today's USA Today, the mapping survey of the ocean floor is complete and search ships will soon begin sending down submersibles to do a detailed examination of the area where MH370 is calculated to have gone down. 

The survey, conducted from May through late September by Chinese and Australian ships, has revealed several previously unknown features, including two volcanoes, a mile-deep trench and a mountain ridge nearly 9 miles long, 4 miles wide and rising more than a mile from the ocean floor.
Having completed the seafloor mapping, the Netherlands-owned Fugro Equator has returned to the search area and hopes to begin the latest hunt in the coming days. It will be joined by the Fugro Discovery and the GO Phoenix, owned by Maryland-based Phoenix International. Rough weather is forecast through the rest of the week.

It's early fall here, so it's early spring down there.  Hopefully, it will just take weeks, not months or years to find the plane.  Then I'm hoping they can recover not only the "black box," but also cellphones from the passengers, who will likely have recorded some of what was going on during their final minutes or hours of consciousness.  I'd like to have a major mystery be satisfactorily solved for once -- although I suppose there will always be a band of conspiracy theorists who will be claiming that all the new evidence that is found was simply planted by the CIA and the U.S. government.

Also meanwhile, it seems to take forever to get anything done on my computer these days.  It's like I'm back in the days of "dial-up" connections.  I'm not sure what's going on, but I suspect it's an incompatibility between the ancient software I'm using in my computer and some aspect of new software being used by my up-to-date Firefox web browser and web site developers.  Or maybe all the new software requires more memory space than I have in my computer.  All I seem to be able to think about right now is how to best go about getting reasonably up-to-date with my hardware and software - at least the hardware and sofware I use to work on-line.  I can still use old stuff for off-line work.

September 28, 2014 (B) - I see that "DXer" is posting a whole slew of rambling, silly messages to Lew Weinstein's blog asking Adnan Shukrijumah's brother Nabil about details of the anthrax mailings.  Does "DXer" really think he'll get a reply?  Or is it just another way for "DXer" to argue his beliefs and to pose screwball questions?

It seems pretty clear some of "DXer's" posts are in response to my (A) comment this morning.   In one of his rambling posts, "DXer" says,

The United States Attorney Falsely Alleged That The Federal Eagle Stamp Was Uniquely Sold At Dr. Bruce Ivins’ Post Office And Then That Ran As An AP Headline. In fact, the envelopes with the printing defects are known to have been sold throughout Maryland and Virginia post offices (and that is where the hijackers were).

That is almost certainly in response to this part of my (A) comment:

The post office envelopes used in the mailings were sold in the area where Ivins lived.
"DXer" has no explanation for why al Qaeda would buy envelopes in Maryland.

But, arguing that the hijackers were reportedly in the Virginia/Maryland area at some point in time prior to 9/11 poses an interesting question: Is "DXer" saying that one of the hijackers put the two different types of anthrax powders into the letters while they were somewhere within the US?  Are we to believe that the hijackers then set the two batches of letters aside somewhere to wait for Adnan Shukrijumah to come to the US to do the two actual mailings after 9/11?

Instead of asking silly questions of someone who is unlikely to respond, it would seem far more logical for "DXer" to attempt to show that his al Qaeda theory makes some kind of sense.  What is the timeline?  Who did what?  When?  How?  

September 28, 2014 (A) - Maybe it's a quirk of fate or a stroke of luck that I'm currently reading a humorous philosophy book during breakfast and lunch, after I finished reading a different humorous philosophy book a couple weeks ago.   Some days I really need to be humorously philosophical.

In the past months, I've been so busy working on my sci-fi novels while also arguing with Anthrax Truthers, while also doing all the things "normal" people do every day, that I haven't taken time out to update software for my computer.  I'm still using Windows XP, which is no longer supported by Microsoft.  I can't simply load a new operating system, since that would require also reloading all my other software.  And I don't even know if I have the materials I would need to reload my 1998 version of Lotus-123 spreadsheet software which is no longer being sold.  My Microsoft WORD software is from 2003, and I don't know if I have the disks for that, either.  Or my graphics software.  Or my software for creating and maintaining web site pages.  Or my software for uploading web site pages and updates.  And, very importantly, I don't know if I can convert my existing email files to some kind of new email software.  My email software is from 2004.  And I have an archive of over 50,000 emails.

I'm also having problems with my emails.  Sometimes it seems to take forever to download incoming emails.  And sometimes when I try to send an email, it takes so long that it "times out" and I have to try again. 

I keep having to override automatic updates to various pieces of software because the updates will crash my operating system.

And, I probably should put all the new software onto a new computer - probably a laptop computer - before trying to update software on my existing desktop computer, so I can use it as a backup.

But, I really want to work on my sci-fi novels.  I'm thinking of starting a third book and postponing doing the second draft of my second book.

And, I've got this stack of novels on a shelf in front of me that I want to read.

However, instead of doing any of this, I'm endlessly arguing with Anthrax Truthers over minutiae and the meanings of words.  

On Friday, I was really pleased when I found the UPI article which stated that Adnan el Shukrijumah and Mohammed Sher Mohammed Khan appeared to be two different people, who just sometimes use the same aliases.  But, "DXer" then posted more articles and references where reporters appear to still believe that Mohammed Khan is an alias used by Adnan el Shukrijumah, and they are the same person.  

I tried to find more information to settle the matter.   There's nothing on the FBI web site about Mohammed Sher Mohammed Khan.  It's not even mentioned as being an alias used by Shukrijumah in Shukrijuma's FBI wanted poster.  But, after some thorough searching, I did find a web site HERE which seems to say that Mohammed Sher Mohammed Khan really is an alias used by Adnan el Shukrijumah.  And, it provides enough detail to make it seem convincing.  But, it also seems possible that Mohammed Sher Mohammed Khan is a real person whose identity Shukrijumah sometimes uses.

I made a BIG mistake in arguing this subject.  It is just a total waste of time.  Even if Mohammed Khan is an alias used by Shukrijumah, the argument is really about what "after Sept. 1, 2001" means in the sentence "The FBI said Friday it is looking for a man called Mohammed Sher Mohammed Khan, who entered the country illegally after Sept. 1, 2001."  That sentence is from a Feb. 7, 2003, UPI news article HERE.  A different 
UPI article dated March 20, 2003, says  "There was a warning that Khan entered the U.S. illegally around Sept. 1, 2001." 

"DXer" seems to think "after" and "around" September 1 can only mean "between September 13 and September 18, 2001," since it would have to mean that if Shukrijumah was in Afghanistan on September 13 talking to his mother on the phone, and also in Princeton, New Jersey, on the evening of September 17 or morning of September 18 to mail the first anthrax letters.

The argument is a total waste of time.   It proves nothing. 

The absurd al Qaeda anthrax theory is so full of holes that arguing over one minor piece of minutiae can do nothing but waste time.  In order to make an intelligent case that al Qaeda was behind the anthrax mailings, "DXer" needs to provide BETTER evidence that shows al Qaeda did it than the FBI has showing that Bruce Ivins did it.  But, so far "DXer" hasn't even attempted to do that.  The reasons are pretty obvious:

Ivins had full access to the source of the anthrax used in the letters.

"DXer" has no evidence that al Qaeda had access to that source.

Ivins routinely made Ames anthrax spores in his lab.
"DXer" has no evidence that al Qaeda ever made any Ames anthrax spores.

Ivins was within driving distance of the mailbox at the time of the mailings.
"DXer" doesn't know where Shukrijumah was at the time of the mailings.

Ivins used the biosafety cabinet in his lab to put the anthrax in the envelopes.
"DXer" has no timeline showing when al Qaeda put the anthrax in the envelopes

The post office envelopes used in the mailings were sold in the area where Ivins lived.
"DXer" has no explanation for why al Qaeda would buy envelopes in Maryland.

Ivins had several connections to Princeton, NJ, where the letters were mailed.
"DXer" had no explanation for why al Qaeda chose to mail the letters from Princeton.

It makes sense for Ivins to send two different  forms of anthrax.
It makes NO sense for al Qaeda to send two different forms of anthrax.

It makes sense for Ivins to wait three weeks before doing a second mailing.
It makes NO sense for al Qaeda to wait  three weeks between mailings.

The handwriting on the letters doesn't match Ivins'
or Mohamed Atta's writing.
Ivins had reason to disguise his handwriting.  Atta did not.

Osama bin Laden denied responsibility for the anthrax attacks.
Terrorist are called "terrorists" because they want responsibility for their killings.

Etc., etc., etc., etc., etc.

All prior Thoughts and Comments are also available.
Click HERE for year 2014 - Part 3.
Click HERE for year 2014 - Part 2.
Click HERE for year 2014 - Part 1.
Click HERE for year 2013 - Part 3.
Click HERE for year 2013 - Part 2.
Click HERE for year 2013 - Part 1.
Click HERE for year 2012 - Part 3.
Click HERE for year 2012 - Part 2.
Click HERE for year 2012 - Part 1.
Click HERE for year 2011 - Part 3.
Click HERE for year 2011 - Part 2.
Click HERE for year 2011 - Part 1.
Click HERE for year 2010 - Part 2.
Click HERE for year 2010 - Part 1.
Click HERE for year 2009 - Part 2.
Click HERE for year 2009 - Part 1.
Click HERE for year 2008.

Click HERE for year 2007.
Click HERE for year 2006.
Click HERE for year 2005.
Click HERE for year 2004.
Click HERE for years 2001, 2002 and 2003.


The FBI's summary report of the Amerithrax case
The revised version of the FBI' summary report of the Amerithrax case
Search warrants and attachments to the Summary report from the DOJ's web site
The 2,720 pages of supplementary files for the Amerithrax case in the FBI's "vault"
Dr. Bruce Ivins' emails while at Ft. Detrick from USAMRIID's web site
NAS "Review of the Scientific Approaches Used During the FBI's Investigation of the Anthrax Attacks of 2001" - Timeline of the 2001 Anthrax Attacks

Edited version of the Hatfill v Ashcroft et al lawsuit Court Docket
Edited version of the Hatfill v Foster/Vanity Fair/Readers Digest Court Docket
Edited version of the Hatfill v The New York Times Court Docket
Edited version of the Maureen Stevens vs The United States lawsuit Court Docket (with full depositions)
Edited version of the Maureen Stevens vs Battelle Memorial, et al lawsuit Court Docket
UCLA's "Disease Detectives" site about the anthrax outbreak of 2001
Frederick Police Department's report on Ivins' Suicide
Report of the Expert Behavioral Analysis Panel

Click HERE to view references from 2005 through 2008.
Click HERE to view pre-2005 references.

NOTE: The (X) following references below includes a link to my copy of the articles, which may or may not be visible on-line.


The New York Times - Jan. 3, 2009 - "Portrait Emerges of Anthrax Suspect’s Troubled Life - (X)
Scientific American - Jan. 5, 2009 - "A steady stream of clues pointed to Ivins during FBI anthrax investigation" (X)
CNN - Jan. 6, 2009 - "'Let me sleep,' anthrax suspect wrote before suicide" (X)
Associated Press - Jan. 6, 2009 - "Records reveal anguish of anthrax suspect's wife" (X)
The Frederick News-Post - Jan. 23, 2009 - "
Army releases some Ivins e-mails" (X)
The New York Times - Feb. 4, 2009 - "Science Found Wanting in Nation's Crime Labs" (X)
Science Magazine - Feb. 7, 2009 - "
U.S. Army Lab Freezes Research on Dangerous Pathogens" (X)
The New York Times - Feb. 9, 2009 - "Army Suspends Germ Research at Maryland Lab" (X)
The Baltimore Sun - Feb. 10, 2009 - "Biodefense lab starts inventory of deadly samples" (X) - Feb. 10, 2009 - "Lawer: Evidence against Bruce Ivins 'Undercut'" (X)
The Washington Post - Feb. 10, 2009 - "Most Research Suspended at Fort Detrick" (X)
Scientific American - Feb. 10, 2009 - "Army anthrax lab suspends research to invertory its germs" (X)
Nature - Feb. 25, 2009 - "Anthrax investigation still yielding findings" (X)
New Scientist - Feb. 27, 2009 - "Revealed: Scientific evidence for the 2001 anthrax attacks" (X)
Rush Holt - Mar. 3, 2009 - "Holt Introduces Anthrax Commission Legislation" (X) - Mar. 3, 2009 - "Holt seeks congressional anthrax commission" (X)
FBI Press Release - Mar. 6, 2009 - "FBI responds to Science issues in Anthrax case" (X) - Mar. 7, 2009 - "FBI's Evidence in Anthrax Case Leaves Puzzling Scientific Questions" (X)

Associated Press - Mar. 7, 2009 - "Ruling lets anthrax suit go forward" (X)
Los Angeles Times - Mar. 8, 2009 - "Anthrax hoaxes pile up, as does their cost" (X)
USA Today - Mar. 10, 2009 - "15,300 government workers have access to agents of bioterror" (X)
The Times of Trenton (Opinion by Rush Holt) - Mar. 12, 2009 - "Preventing Bioterrorism" (X)
New Scientist - Mar. 13, 2009 - "Columbus innocent over anthrax in the Americas" (X)
USA Today - Mar. 14, 2009 - "Tracing anthrax's American roots" (X)
Associated Press - Mar. 24, 2009 - "Letters mimicking anthrax scare sent to Congress" (X)
Associated Press - Mar. 31, 2009 - "Judge dismisses lawsuit over anthrax letter" (X)
The Scotsman - Apr. 4, 2009 - "Dorothy H. Crawford: World waits for ground-breaking anthrax evidence" (X)
Seed Magazine - Apr. 14, 2009 - "The Anthrax Agenda" (X)
The Palm Beach Post - Apr. 15, 2009 -
"Judge urges settlement in 'National Enquirer' anthrax case" (X)
The Frederick News-Post (Columnist/Opinion) - Apr. 22, 2009 - "Cold Comfort" (X)
The Washington Post - Apr. 22, 2009 - "Deadly Pathogens May Have Gone Missing at Fort Detrick" (X) - May 6, 2009 - "FBI Anthrax Investigation Under Scientific Review" (X)
The New York Times - May 7, 2009 - "F.B.I. to Pay for Anthrax Inquiry Review" (X)
The Frederick News-Post (editorial) - May 14, 2009 - "End Of Story?" (X)
The Frederick News-Post (commentary by Barry Kissin) - May 24, 2009 - "The Lynching Of Bruce Ivins" (X)
Associated Press - May 28, 2009 - "Prosecutor in anthrax, Blackwater cases resigns" (X)
Frederick News-Post - June 17, 2009 - "USAMRIID finds more than 9,200 unrecorded disease samples" (X)
Associated Press - June 17, 2009 - "9,200 Uncounted Vials Found At Army Biodefense Lab" (X)
The Washington Post - June 18, 2009 - "Inventory Uncovers 9,200 More Pathogens" (X)
Frederick News-Post - July 2, 2009 - "Committee to review FBI anthrax investigation" (X)
Microbe - July 2009 - "Questions Linger over Science behind Anthrax Letters" (X)
Frederick News-Post - July 26, 2009 - "
Anthrax case: Amerithrax debate lives online" (X)
Frederick News-Post - July 26, 2009 - "Anthrax case: Seeking an Ending" (X)
Frederick News-Post - July 26, 2009 - "
Anthrax case: Studies scrutinize lab security, shy away from federal investigation" (X)
Associated Press - July 26, 2009 - "US on verge of closing anthrax probe after 8 years" (X)
The Washington Times - July 30, 2009 - "Lessons learned from the anthrax letters" (X)
Associated Press - July 30, 2009 - "Review begins of FBI science in anthrax case" (X)
Frederick News-Post - July 31, 2009 - "Group begins scientific review of FBI's anthrax investigation" (X)
Frederick News-Post (editorial) - July 31, 2009 - "Dubious study" (X)
Nature - July 31, 2009 - "Anthrax investigation probe undeway" (X)
Frederick News-Post - Aug. 1, 2009 - "Experts urge panel to deepen forensic understanding" (X)
The Washington Post - Aug. 1, 2009 - "Lawmaker 'Skeptical' of Anthrax Results" (X)
USA Today - Aug. 3, 2009 - "Anthrax case not closed: Panel reviews Bruce Ivins, mail probe" (X)
Frederick News-Post (Opinion) - Aug. 12, 2009 - "A Shocking Mockery" (X)
Frederick News-Post - Aug. 13, 2009 - "Fort Detrick passes national accreditation" (X)
Frederick News-Post - Sept. 25, 2009 - "Panel continues study of anthrax mailings" (X)
Frederick News-Post - Sept. 26, 2009 - "Expert: Anthrax spore coatings not unique" (X)
USA Today - Oct. 5, 2009 - "Behind the scenes, system sniffs for biological attacks" (X)
BBC - Dec. 17, 2009 - "Anthrax found in dead heroin user from Glasgow" (X)
The Wall Street Journal - Dec. 19, 2009 - "A Conspiracy-Theory Theory" (X)
Newsweek - Dec. 21, 2009 - "Red Mind, Blue Mind" (X)
Digital Journal - Dec. 27, 2009 - "NH Woman Critically Ill With Anthrax" (X)
The Associated Press - Dec. 27, 2009 - "Drums a possible source of anthrax in N.H. woman" (X)
Medical News Today - Dec. 29, 2009 - "Anthrax Found in Drums Linked to Infected Woman" (X)
Associated Press - Dec. 30, 2009 - "Anthrax case: Drum suspicions are detailed" (X)

Washington Examiner (Opinion) - Jan. 1, 2010 - "Who was behind the September 2001 anthrax attacks?" (X)
The Associated Press - Jan. 11, 2010 - "Fed panel wants more scrutiny of biolab workers" (X)
The Wall Street Journal (Opinion) - Jan. 24, 2010 - "The Anthrax Attacks Remain Unsolved" (X)
The Washington Examiner (Opinion) - Jan. 29, 2010 - "Anthrax attacks still unexplained" (X)
The Wall Street Journal (Letter to Editor) - Jan. 31, 2010 - "Anthrax Case: FBI Used Good Science" (X)
Frederick News-Post - Feb. 19, 2010 - "
Ivins' attorney: Anthrax case to be closed today" (X)
The Associated Press - Feb. 19, 2010 - "AP Source: FBI formally closes anthrax case" (X)
The New York Times - Feb. 19, 2010 - "F.B.I., Laying Out Evidence, Closes Anthrax Letter Case" (X)
Reuters - Feb. 19, 2010 - "Anthrax investigators looked at 1,000 suspects" (X)
USA Today - Feb. 19, 2010 - "'Ġodel, Escher, Bach' author downplays FBI anthrax case link" (X)
USA Today - Feb. 19, 2010 - "Q&A: Anthrax and Ivins Case" (X)
The Baltimore Sun - Feb. 19, 2010 - "Anthax investigation closed" (X)
The Los Angeles Times - Feb. 20, 2010 - "U.S. closes case on anthrax letters" (X)
The Washington Post - Feb. 20, 2010 - "FBI investigation of 2001 anthrax attacks concluded; U.S. releases details" (X)
The Palm Beach Post - Feb. 20, 2010 - "U.S. closes 2001 anthrax case" (X)
USA Today - Feb. 20, 2010 - "Anthrax myth persists despite evidence" (X)
The New York Times (opinion from Nov. 10, 2001) - Feb. 20, 2010 - "On the trail of the anthrax killers" (X)
The Wall Street Journal - Feb. 20, 2010 - "U.S. Closes Case in Anthrax Attacks" (X) - Feb. 20, 2010 - "DOJ Rationalizes Away Polygraph's Failure to Catch Alleged Anthrax Killer" (X)
Frederick News-Post - Feb. 20, 2010 - "Government  closes 'Amerithrax' case" (X)
Frederick News-Post - Feb. 23, 2010 - "FBI report fails to end questions about Ivins' guilt" (X)
The Daily Princetonian - Feb. 24, 2010 - "FBI closes anthrax letter investigation" (X)
The New York Times - Feb. 24, 2010 (opinion) - "Haste Leaves Anthrax Case Unconcluded" (X)
Asia Times - Feb. 25, 2010 - "Doubts cloud closing of anthrax case" (X)
The Baltimore Sun - Feb. 26, 2010 -
"Bill for more investigation of '01 anthrax case passes House."  (X)
The Times of Trenton - Feb. 26, 2010 - "Holt: Last word not in on anthrax case" (X)
The New York Times (editorial) - Feb. 28, 2010 - "The F.B.I.'s Anthrax Case" (X)
The Frederick News-Post - Feb, 28, 2010 - "FBI reports chronicle Ivins investigation" (X) - Mar. 1, 2010 - "The Strange World of Dr. Anthrax" (X) - Mar. 1, 2010 - "Anthrax Letter Scientist 'Obsessed' with Bondage, Sorority"  (X)
The Trentonian - Mar. 1, 2010 - "The Smoking Gun reports: Anthrax mastermind was cross-dresser" (X)
The Register (UK) - Mar. 2, 2010 - "The anthrax scare: Case and flask closed" (X)
The Frederick News-Post - Mar. 4, 2010 - "Police: Ivins not linked to other unsolved cases" (X)
The Frederick News-Post - Mar. 4, 2010 - "Holt seeks investigation into FBI's case against Ivins" (X)
Anderson Cooper 360 - Mar. 5, 2010 - "Inside the mind of the suspected anthrax killer" (X)
Courier News (opinion) - Mar. 7, 2010 - "Bioterror preparedness needs a boost from congress" (X) - Mar. 10, 2010 - "Lawer Doubts Case Against Anthrax Suspect" (X)
CNN (opinion) - Mar. 12, 2010 - "Can the House trust the Senate?" (X)
Bloomberg - Mar. 15, 2010 - "Obama Veto Is Threatened On 2010 Intelligence Budget Measure" (X)
Bloomberg - Mar. 15, 2010 - "Obama Veto Is Threatened On 2010 Intelligence Budget Bill (Update 1)" (X) - Mar. 15, 2010 - "Protecting agencies from oversight, Obama threatens to veto intelligence funding" (X)
Frederick News-Post - Mar. 20, 2010 - "Adminstration rejects call to further probe Amerithrax" (X)
Pittsburgh Review-Journal (Opinion) - Mar. 21, 2010 - "Anthrax questions" (X)
Accuracy In Media - Mar. 24, 2010 - "Obama Obstructs Oversight of FBI in Anthrax Case" (X)
The Huffington Post - Apr. 14, 2010 - "Crying Wolf: The Terrorist Crop-Duster" (X)
The Atlantic - Apr. 16, 2010 - "The Wrong Man" (X)
MSNBC - Apr. 16, 2010 - "Exonerated anthrax suspect: FBI harassed me" (X)
Foreign Policy - Apr. 19, 2010 - "The Elite Med Squad That Saved You from Anthrax" (X) (Glenn Greenwald) - Apr. 21, 2010 - "Unlearned lessons from the Steven Hatfill case" (X)
UPI (Opinion) - Apr. 22, 2010 - "Outside View: Anthrax Letters: Was Bruce Ivins Hounded to Death?"  (X)
The New York Times - Apr. 22, 2010 - "Colleague Disputes Case Against Anthrax Suspect" (X)
Science Magazine - Apr. 22, 2010 - "Ex-USAMRIID Scientist Defends Bruce Ivins Using Back-of-the-Envelope Math" (X) - Apr. 23, 2010 - "Colleague Says Anthrax  Numbers Add Up to Unsolved Case" (X) - Apr. 27, 2010 - "Co-worker says Ivins didn't make anthrax letter spores" (X)
Frederick News-Post (Opinion) - May 1, 2010 - "Anthrax attacks, cont'd" (X)
The Racine Journal-Times - June 11, 2010 - "The Armchair analyst: Ed Lake has spent nine years tracking the anthrax investigation" (X)
The Wall Street Journal (blog) - Sept. 16, 2010 - "GAO to Take Look at FBI Anthrax Probe" (X)
The New York Times - Sept. 16, 2010 - "New Review in Anthrax Inquiry" (X)
The Times of Trenton - Sept. 16, 2010 - "Holt: FBI anthrax investigation is itself subject of probe" (X)
The Frederick News-Post - Sept. 17, 2010 - "GAO to review FBI's Ivins investigation" (X)
The Washington Post - Oct. 4, 2010 - "William C. Patrick III, 84, dies (X)
The New York Times - Oct. 10, 2010 - "William C. Patrick III, Expert on Germ Warfare, Dies at 84" (X)
The Frederick News-Post (Opinion by Barry Kissin) - Oct. 16, 2010 - "In the shadow of 9/11" (X)
The Frederick News-Post -Nov. 30, 2010 - "Amerithrax experts debate FBI findings, insist Ivins was innocent" (X)
The Baltimore Sun - Dec. 5, 2010 - "Researcher tells how anthrax may have been made" (X)
The Frederick News-Post - Dec. 5, 2010 - "Ivins' lawyer, colleague share details FBI left out" (X)
Homeland Security Today - Dec. 9, 2010 - "Science Report on FBI Anthrax Probe Delayed Again" (X)
The New York Times - Dec. 9, 2010 - "F.B.I. Asks Panel to Delay Report on Anthrax Inquiry" (X)
The Miami Herald - Dec. 9, 2010 - "FBI seeks delay in outside review of anthrax probe" (X)
The Frederick News-Post - Dec. 10, 2010 - "Amerithrax review delayed after FBI releases more docs" (X)
Science Magazine - Dec. 10, 2010 - "New FBI Material Delays Academy Report on Anthrax Attacks" (X)
The Frederick News-Post - Dec. 11, 2010 - "National Academy of Science review panel surprised by FBI's last-minute document release" (X)

2011 - Feb. 14, 2011 - "Report on FBI's anthrax findings to be released Tuesday" (X)
The New York Times - Feb. 15, 2011 - "Review Faults F.B.I.'s Scientific Work in Anthrax Investigation" (X)
The Washington Post - Feb. 15, 2011 - "Anthrax report cast doubt on scientific evidence in FBI case against Bruce Ivins" (X)
The Los Angeles Times - Feb. 15, 2011 - "Evidence linking anthrax to Bruce Ivins 'not as definitive as stated,' panel says" (X)
CNN - Feb. 15, 2011 - "Scientific review reaches no conclusion on source of anthrax" (X)
NPR - Feb. 15, 2011 - "FBI Faulted For Overstating Science In Anthrax Case" (X)
ABC News - Feb. 15, 2011 - "Panel Review Questions FBI Theory in Anthrax Attacks after 9/11" (X)
USA Today - Feb. 15, 2011 - "Panel can't rule out other sources of deadly anthrax spores" (X)
The Washington Post - Feb. 15, 2011 - "Ivins case's inconvenient issue: his polygraph" (X)
Nature - Feb. 15, 2011 - "Science falls short in anthrax investigation" (X)
CIDRAP News - Feb. 15, 2011 - "NRC: Data insufficient for firm conclusion in anthrax case" (X)
Frederick News-Post - Feb. 16, 2011 - "Report casts doubt on FBI's investigation of anthrax attacks" (X) (opinion) - Feb. 16, 2011 - "Serious doubt cast in FBI's anthrax case against Bruce Ivins" (X)
New Scientist - Feb. 16, 2011 - "Scientists critical of FBI's anthrax conclusions" (X)
The Washington Post - Feb. 16, 2011 - "Sen. Leahy on anthrax case: 'It's not closed.'" (X)
CIDRAP News - Feb. 16, 2011 - "Anthrax expert says NRC report supports FBI" (X)
The Washington Post (Editorial) - Feb. 17, 2011 - "Answers in 2001 anthrax attack are still elusive" (X)
Frederick News-Post (Opinion) - Feb. 19, 2011 - "NAS on Amerithrax" (X)
Frederick News-Post - Feb. 20, 2011 - "One year after FBI closes Ivins case, doubts still linger" (X)
Frederick News-Post (Opinion) - Feb. 21, 2011 - "Flawed Science" (X)
The Boston Globe (Editorial) - Feb. 22, 2011 - "Consider the case solved" (X)
The Brown and White - Feb. 25, 2011 - "Gast heads panel discussing anthrax letters" (X)
Stanford Medicine - Feb. 25, 2011 - "New review of anthrax case discussed by review committee vice chair" (X)
The Baltimore Sun - Feb. 28, 2011 - "Trouble in the air at Ft. Detrick" (X)
The New York Times (letter to the editor from Rush Holt) - Mar. 1, 2011 - "The Anthrax Attacks" (X)
University of Maryland (press release) - Mar. 7, 2011 - "University of Maryland School of Medicine publishes scientific paper on 2001 anthrax attacks" (X)
UPI - Mar. 8, 2011 - "Science behind anthrax letters revealed" (X) - Mar. 8, 2011 - "Institute for Genome Sciences plays key role in investigation of anthrax attacks" (X) - Mar. 8, 2011- "Now, the story can be told - how scientists helped ID 'Amerithrax'" (X)
NPR - Mar. 9, 2011 - "Lab Vs. Courtroom: Different Definitions Of Proof" (X) - Mar. 14, 2011 - "Anthrax in 2001 Letters was Traced to Maryland by Genetic Mutations" (X) - Mar. 17, 2011 - "UMD: Anthrax Investigation" (X) - Mar. 18, 2011 - "Q&A: Meryl Nass" (X)
The Los Angeles Times - Mar. 22, 2011 - "Report  Faults Army in 2001 anthrax mailings" (X)
The New York Times - Mar. 23, 2011 - "Panel on Anthrax Inquiry Finds Case Against Ivins Persuasive" (X)
CNN - Mar. 23, 2011 - "Suspect in 2001 anthrax case had long history of mental problems" (X)
Associated Press - Mar. 23, 2011 - "Expert panel faults Army in anthrax case" (X)
The Miami Herald - Mar. 23, 2011 - "FBI's anthrax suspect is likely killer, panel concludes" (X)
MSNBC - Mar. 23, 2011 - "Medical records point to doctor in anthrax attacks, report says" (X)
ABC - Mar. 23, 2011 - "Report: 2001 Anthrax Attacks Were Preventable" (X)
The Washington Times - Mar. 23, 2011 - "Panel: Anthrax-attack suspect sent up red flags" (X)
Reuters - Mar. 24, 2011 - "U.S. Experts: Army researcher was anthrax attacker" (X)
Wired Magazine - Mar. 24, 2011 - "Anthrax Redux: Did the Feds Nab the Wrong Guy?" (X)
The Times (Trenton, NJ) - Mar. 25, 2011 - "Holt remains skepical about conclusions in anthrax investigation" (X)
Wired Magazine - Mar. 28, 2011 - "Postage Stamps Delivered Anthrax Suspect to FBI" (X)
The Gazette - Apr. 7, 2011 - "Joe Volz: Frederick massacre averted?" (X)
The Washington Post - Apr. 16, 2011 - "How anthrax sleuths cracked the case by decoding genetic 'fingerprints'" (X)
The Miami Herald - Apr. 20, 2011 - "Was FBI too quick to judge anthrax suspect the killer?" (X) - Apr. 21, 2011 - "Did FBI Target Wrong Man as Anthrax Killer" (X) - April 23, 2011 - "Colleague Says Anthrax Numbers Add Up to Unsolved Case" (X)
Palm Beach Post - Apr. 30, 2011 - "Doubt of anthrax suspect's role resurfaces in lawsuit" (X) - May 2, 2011 - "Attorneys contest Ivins' guilt" (X)
McClatchy Newspapers - May 19, 2011 - "FBI lab reports on anthrax attack suggest another miscue" (X) - May 26, 2011 - "Rep. Nadler Criticizes the FBI in Letter to Director Mueller Over Anthrax Probe" (X)
McClatchy Newspapers - May 26, 2011 - "Congressman presses FBI for anthrax information" (X)
The Los Angeles Times - May 29, 2011 - "The anthrax killings: A troubled mind" (X)
The Daily Beast - June 3, 2011 - "Anthrax Attacker Bruce Ivins' Obsessions" (X)
Associated Press - June 3, 2011 - "The anthrax scare and one deeply troubled man" (X)
The Frederick News-Post (Opinion by Barry Kissin) - June 4, 2011 - "Lessons from Amerithrax" (X)
The Frederick News-Post (Opinion) - June 6, 2011 - "A marathon, not a sprint" (X)
The Gazette - June 9, 2011 - "A treasure trove of information about Amerithrax" (X) - June 9, 2011 - "Anthrax Attacks and America's Rush to Judgment" (X)
The Washington Post (Opinion) - June 10, 2011 - "Inside our own labs, the threat of another anthrax attack" (X)
The Los Angeles Times - June 12, 2011 - "Book Review: 'The Mirage Man' by David Willman" (X)
The Boston Globe (Opinion) - June 15, 2011 - "Revisiting Mueller and the anthrax case" (X)
Clinical Psychiatry News - June 21, 2011 - "Use of Psychological Profile to Infer Ivins' Guilt is Problematic" (X)
The Philadelphia Inquirer (book review) - July 17, 2011 - "Bungled pursuit of a killer" (X)
The Boston Herald - July 18, 2011 - "Justice Department lawyers contradict FBI findings in anthrax case" (X) - July 19, 2011 - "DOJ casts serious doubt on its own claims about the attack anthrax" (X)
Frederick News-Post - July 19, 2011 - "Justice Department filings poke holes in Ivins' case" (X)
The New York Times - July 19, 2011 - "U.S. Revises Its Response To Lawsuit On Anthrax" (X)
Associated Press - July 19, 2011 - "Justice Department corrects court filing in anthrax suit" (X)
The Washington Post - July 19, 2011 - "Justice Department corrects legal filing regarding anthrax attacks" (X)
MSNBC - July 19, 2011 -
"Government lawyers backtrack on anthrax case" (X)
Village Voice (blog) - July 19, 2011 - "Bruce Ivins Maybe Didn't Send Anthrax, Government Admits in Court Papers" (X)
The Macon Telegraph - July 19, 2011 - "Justice Department retracts court filings that undercut FBI's anthrax case" (X)
The Sacramento Bee - July 20, 2011 - "Justice Dept backtracks on anthrax claims" (X)
Wired Magazine - July 20, 2011 - "Justice Department Trips in Anthrax Case.  Again" (X)
Miami Herald - July 20, 2011 - "Justice Department waffling in anthrax case could be costly, experts say" (X) - July 20, 2011 - "Government Anthrax Flip-Flop Could Boost Victim's Lawsuit" (X)
CIDRAP news - July 20, 2011 - "DOJ defense of Army lab stirs up anthrax case controversy" (X)
The Frederick News-Post (Opinion) - July 25, 2011 - "Another Ivins twist" (X)
The New York Times - July 26, 2011 - "Suspect's Manifesto Points to Planned Anthrax Use, But Also to a Lack of Expertise" (X)
ProPublica - July 26, 2011 - "Stephen Engelberg on the FBI's Anthrax Case" (X)
Global Security Newswire - July 27, 2011 - "Norway Killer Wrote of Anthrax Attacks" (X)
Kansas City Star - July 27, 2011 - "Judge says US must show 'good cause" to revise anthrax filing" (X)
The Miami Herald - July 29, 2011 - "Judge allows feds to revise filing in anthrax case" (X)
The Washington Post (review) - Aug. 11, 2011 - David Willman's 'The Mirage Man'" (X)
WMD Junction - Aug 22, 2011 - "New Questions About the FBI's Anthrax Case" (X)
NPR (Laurie Garrett interview) - Aug. 26, 2011 - "A look back at 9/11 in 'I Heard the Sirens Scream'" (X)
National Journal - Sept. 1, 2011 - "After 9/11, Anthrax Attacks Seemed Too Natural" (X)
CIDRAP news - Sept. 1, 2011 - "Public health leaders cite lessons of 2001 anthrax attacks" (X)
The Kansas City Star - Sept. 2, 2011 - "Sen. Grassley asks Justice Department to explain contradictory acts on anthrax" (X)
Montgomery Life - Sept. 7, 2011 - "9/11 Ten Years Later" (X) - Sept. 8, 2011 - "Ten Years after 9/11: ISU Recalls Anthrax Scare" (X)
The Journal Gazette (Fort Wayne, IN) - Sept. 11, 2011 - "Pence: 'Remember the triumph of freedom'" (X)
Wired Magazine - Sept. 11, 2011 - "Terror and Bioterror: 9/11 to 10/4 - Part 1" (X)
Arizona Daily Sun - Sept. 12, 2011 - "NAU researcher thrust into the maelstrom" (X)
National Review - Sept. 14, 2011 - "Saddam: What We Now Know" (X)
The Guardian - Sept. 15, 2011 - "The anthrax scare: not a germ of truth" (X)
New Scientist - Sept. 15, 2011 - "Did research funding lead to anthrax attacks?" (X)
Asbury Park Press - Sept. 16, 2011 - "Another 10th Anniversary: Anthrax Attacks" (X)
The Wall Street Journal (Book Review) - Sept. 17, 2011 - "When Death Came Hand-Delivered" (X)
Wired Magazine - Sept. 18, 2011 - "Terror and Bioterror: 9/11 to 10/4 - Part 2" (X)
Wired Magazine - Sept. 25, 2011 - "Terror and Bioterror: 9/11 to 10/4 - Part 3" (X)
USA Today - Sept. 30, 2011 - "Strides in biodefense follow 2001 anthrax scare" (X)
CNN - Oct. 1, 2011 - "Strange sorority fixation was link that led to anthrax suspect" (X)
USA Today - Oct. 2, 2011 - "Al Qaeda lab lingers in anthrax story" (X)
Wired Magazine - Oct. 2, 2011 - "Terror and Bioterror: 9/11 to 10/4 - Part 4" (X)
The Daily Mail (UK) - Oct. 3, 2011 - "The laboratory crush that led the FBI to the U.S. Anthrax killer" (X)
Annals of Internal Medicine - Oct. 3, 2011 - "The Anthrax Attacks 10 Years Later" (X)
The Hartford Courant - Oct. 5, 2011 - "Anthrax Attacks Still A Mystery After 10 Years" (X)
PBS (Press Release) - Oct. 5, 2011 - "Frontline Investigates the Anthrax Mailings" (X)
University of Wyoming News - Oct. 7, 2011 - "UW Professors: Accused Anthrax Killer Couldn't Have Done It" (X)
Aberdeen News - Oct. 9, 2011 - "Ten years since Daschle received anthrax-laced letter" (X)
The Times of Trenton - Oct. 9, 2011 - "A decade on, legacy of anthrax attack lingers in Mercer County and beyond" (X)
The New York Times - Oct. 9, 2011 - "Scientists' Analysis Disputes F.B.I. Closing of Anthrax Case" (X)
The Baltimore Sun - Oct. 9, 2011 - "Frontline's 'Anthrax Files' takes hard look at FBI role in suicide of Ft. Detrick scientist" (X)
The Kansas City Star - Oct. 10, 2011 - "Fresh doubts raised on 2001 anthrax attacks" (X)
PBS Frontline - Oct. 10, 2011 - "Clair Fraser-Liggett: 'This Is Not an Airtight Case By Any Means'" (X)
PBS Frontline - Oct. 10, 2011 - "Edward Montooth: 'The Mandate Was to Look at the Case with Fresh Eyes'" (X)
PBS Frontline - Oct. 10, 2011 - "Rachel Lieber: 'The Case Against Dr. Bruce Ivins'" (X)
PBS Frontline - Oct. 10, 2011 - "Paul Keim: 'We Were Surprised It Was the Ames Strain'" (X)
PBS Frontline - Oct. 10, 2011 - Nancy Haigwood: “I Had a Gut Feeling It Was Bruce”  (X)
PBS Frontline - Oct. 10, 2011 - "New Evidence Adds Doubt to FBI’s Case Against Anthrax Suspect" (X)
PBS Frontline - Oct. 10, 2011 - "Did Bruce Ivins Hide Attack Anthrax from the FBI?" (X)
PBS Frontline - Oct. 10, 2011 - "Was FBI’s Science Good Enough to ID Anthrax Killer?" (X)
The Miami Herald - Oct. 11, 2011 - "Decade-old anthrax attacks included hit to Boca Raton offices" (X)
Science Magazine - Oct. 11, 2011 - "New Challenge to FBI's Anthrax Investigation Lends an Ear to Tin" (X)
The Macon Telegraph - Oct. 11, 2011 - "Was FBI's science good enough to ID anthrax killer?" (X)
Caspar Star-Tribune - Oct. 11, 2011 - "University of Wyoming professors seek to clear former colleague's name in anthrax controversy" (X)
The Gazette - Oct. 12, 2011 - "Questions remain 10 years after anthrax mailings" (X)
The Miami Herald - Oct. 12, 2011 - "Newly released files cloud FBI's anthrax finding" (X)
Council on Foreign Relations (opinion by Laurie Garrett) - Oct. 12, 2011 - "The Anthrax Letters" (X)
Journal of Bioterrorism & Biodefense - Oct. 13, 2011 - "The 2001 Attack Anthrax: Key Observations" - Oct. 15, 2011 - "Despite Evidence of FBI Bungling, New Probe Into Anthrax Killings Unlikely" (X)
The Los Angeles Times - Oct. 16, 2011 - "Science in anthrax letter case comes under attack" (X)
The New York Times (editorial) - Oct. 17, 2011 - "Who Mailed the Anthrax Letters?" (X)
Fox News - Oct. 18, 2011 - "Doubts Persist About Anthrax Investigation 10 Years Later" (X)
The Daily Reveille - Oct. 20, 2011 - "Professor is worldwide anthrax specialist" (X)
The Washington Post (editorial) - Oct. 21, 2011 - "New questions about FBI anthrax inquiry deserve scrutiny" (X)
The Frederick News-Post (opinion by Barry Kissin) - Oct. 22, 2011 - "Anthrax whodunit" (X)
The Vancouver Sun - Oct. 22, 2011 - "Was this man the anthrax killer?" (X)
The New York Post - Oct. 23, 2011 - "Anthrax and the FBI" (X)
The Vancouver Sun - Oct. 24, 2011 - "The Hunt for America's anthrax killer" (X) - Oct. 24, 2011 - "Secret Reports: With Security Spotty, Many Had Access to Anthrax" (X)
The New York Times - Oct. 27, 2011 - "The Anthrax Investigation: The View From the FBI" (X)
The Palm Beach Post - Oct. 28, 2011 - "Lantana anthrax widow settles $50 million lawsuit against federal government" (X)
NPR - Oct. 29, 2011 - "Scientific Case Still Open on 2001 Anthrax Case" (X)
Associated Press - Oct. 30, 2011 - "Settlement reached in anthrax death lawsuit" (X)
Reuters - Oct. 30, 2011 - "Deal reached in U.S. 2001 anthrax death suit: filing" (X)
Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists - Nov. 1, 2011 - "Amerithrax review: Lessons for future investigations" (X)
AAAS - Nov. 1, 2011 - "Ten Years After Deadly Anthrax Mailings, AAAS Event Explores Lingering Questions"  (X) - Nov. 21, 2011 - "The Day Terror Came to Oxford" (X)
Associated Press - Nov. 29, 2011 - "U.S. to pay widow $2.5M in 2001 anthrax death" (X)
AP & Time Magazine - Nov. 29, 2011 - U.S. to pay widow $2.5M in 2001 anthrax death" (X)
CNN - Nov, 29, 2011 - "Family of 2001 anthrax victim settles with government" (X)
Palm Beach Post - Nov. 29, 2011 - "U.S. to pay Lantana widow $2.5 million for the 2001 anthrax attack that killed her husband" (X) (X)
The Washington Post - Nov. 29, 2011 - "Federal government settles suit in fatal anthrax attacks" (X)
The New York Times - Nov. 29, 2011 - "U.S. Settles Suit Over Anthrax Attacks" (X) - Nov. 29, 2011 - "Government Settles Case Brought By First Anthrax Victim For $2.5 Million" (X)
Palm Beach Post - Nov. 30, 2011 - "Anthrax victim's wife: $2.5 million settlement brings 'a little finality'" (X)


Journal of Bioterrorism & Biodefense - Jan. 31, 2012 - "Letter to the Editor in response to 'The 2001 Attack Anthrax: Key Observations"
The Washington Post - Jan. 27, 2012 - "Justice Dept. takes on itself in probe of 2001 anthrax attacks" (X)
Slate Magazine - Jan. 30, 2012 - "How fake bioterrorism attacks became a real problem" (X)
Gazette.Net - Mar. 22, 2012 - "Paul Gordon: An exercise in futility"  (X)
The Cavalier Daily - Mar. 23, 2012 - "Panel reviews 2001 attacks" (X)
Frederick News-Post - Apr. 8, 2012 - "Beyond the breach: Officials take a look at security and safety a decade after anthrax scare" (X) - Nov. 26, 2012 - "Nick Kristof: Here Are 3 Things I've Been Very Wrong About."
Racine Journal-Times - Dec. 8, 2012 - "Local Man self-publishes book about anthrax attacks"
Journal of Bioterrorism & Biodefense - Dec. 17, 2012 - "Evidence for the Source of the 2001 Attack Anthrax"


NewsWithViews - Apr. 20, 2013 - "The Media Wants Arabs Exonerated" (X)
Frederick News-Post - July 28, 2013 - "Questions on anthrax suspect linger"  (X)
Frederick News-Post - July 29, 2013 - "Scientists who worked with Ivins still question government's methods" (X)
The Trentonian - Oct. 20, 2013 - State Watch: "Ready for Anthrax Sequel? (X)


Hartford Courant - April 14, 2014 - "Oxford Woman, 94, An Unlikely Victim Of Anthrax Attacks" (X)
Accuracy in Media - May 21, 2014 - "Lies of the 9/11 'Truth' Movement" (X)

© 2001-2014 by Ed Lake

All Rights Reserved.