Analyzing The Anthrax Attacks - 2009-2014 edition

Thoughts and Comments
by Ed Lake

Updates & Changes: Sunday, July 27, 2014, thru Saturday, August 2, 2014

Jully 29, 2014 (B) - Checking on what motivated Hong Minh Truong to send out nearly 500 hoax anthrax letters, and what evidence the FBI and USPIS have against Troung, I found an article HERE that says:

Newly released court papers say evidence collected from Truong's computer and trash link him to the hoax mailings. Also, a motive might be found in police records revealing Truong has had a long running grievance with federal law enforcement.

Such evidence would be circumstantial evidence, of course. And, conspiracy theorists would probably argue that Truong's motive cannot be definitively proved. But, I suspect that the FBI, USPIS and DOJ feel they have a solid case nevertheless.

July 29, 2014 (A) - Hmm. When I turned on my computer this morning and did my regular Google search for anthrax+2001, a couple interesting articles appeared. The first was an article about this date in history. It said:

2008: Bruce Edwards Ivins, an Army scientist, commits suicide by swallowing two bottles of Tylenol. Ivins, a senior researcher at the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases, was about to be taken to court as the key suspect in the 2001 anthrax attacks, where five people died and 22 were infected when letters laced with anthrax were sent to media offices and offices in the Capitol.

And it will be 6 years ago on Friday that David Willman of the Los Angeles Times broke the news about the main suspect in the anthrax murders committing suicide. That also started six years of continuous arguing with conspiracy theorists who claim Dr. Ivins was innocent and who have other opinions and beliefs (but no meaningful evidence) about who they think "actually" sent the anthrax letters.

The second article that appeared this morning was about the FBI and USPIS arresting a suspect in the hoax anthrax letters cases that were mostly mailed in the Dallas, Texas, area starting in 2008. According to the FBI's press release:

“For almost six years, letters containing white powder—and believed to have been mailed by the same individual—have elicited law enforcement and public safety responses from numerous local, state and federal agencies. While it was determined that the mailings did not contain toxins or poisons, each incident required a field screening of the letter’s contents, which cost taxpayer dollars and diverted first responder resources,” explained Special Agent in Charge Diego Rodriguez of FBI Dallas. “We believe Hong Minh Truong is responsible for the hundreds of letters sent to locations worldwide, including U.S. government offices, aerospace companies, schools, daycares, and recently, hotels in the vicinity of Super Bowl XLVIII. The ongoing investigative work of the FBI and U.S. Postal Inspection Service is to be commended.”

and

On May 7, 2012, the hoax letters mailed from the Dallas area contained a white-powder substance and the following statement:

Al Qaeda back! Special thing for you

What the hell where are you Scooby Doo, Counter Intelligence, CIA, you do not know how to catch the triple dealer spy in your law enforcement. What the hell where are you Scooby Doo, Internal Affairs, FBI, you don’t know how to arrest the bad cop in your law enforcement.

You all flaming idiot, ignorant and arrogant, know nothing! How to protect this country! U.S.A

We are Al Qaeda, U.B.L FBI, Al Qaeda, SS Nazi FBI, working in your agency. We claim everything.

Interestingly, according to one source:

In 2002, Truong came to the attention of the Dallas police, who interviewed him. He told officers that he hears voices in his head and that officers with federal and local agencies were after him and beaming radar into his body. Truong said the voices were telling him to do things that he did not want to do.

Read more here: http://www.star-telegram.com/2014/07/28/6001926/rowlett-man-accused-of-sending.html#storylink=cpy

Truong was also responsible for some hoax anthrax letters sent schools in the Boston area. Those hoax letters contained a different text:

The letters to Boston schools stated: “We are terrorist victim from Al-Queada FBI, Communist FBI and Nazi FBI in Texas. We let you all know to aware. They have been forcing and controlling us to do something to harm the America. They conspire against the U.S.A. and attack anywhere to murder on many ways American people.”

Read more here: http://www.star-telegram.com/2014/07/28/6001926/rowlett-man-accused-of-sending.html#storylink=cpy

And, inexplicably, Truong was also responsible for the hoax letters sent to hotels in New Jersey around the time of Super Bowl XLVIII. It appears that Mr. Truong is mentally impaired. According to a source on that topic:

Agents said one document discovered this month contained alleged threats, including, “Hijack airplane from Love Field airport and Dallas-Fort-worth airport to attack Nasa Center."

Truong’s wife claims the man has been suffering with mental illness for more than a decade. She saod Truong often claims he hears voices in his head.

I never saw any connection between the Dallas hoax letters and the hoax letters sent to the New Jersey hotels. But the FBI wasn't then providing the texts for all the hoax letters. Using 20/20 hindsight, I would think that if I had seen all the texts that are now available, I would have figured that the letters were all written by someone who speaks with a heavy foreign accent - probably Vietnamese, but possibly Chinese. Or maybe not.

However, it appears that the language in the letters was one of the clues that led the investigators to Mr. Truong:

According to the complaint, law enforcement has identified more than 15 batches of similar letters sent from the Dallas area since December 2008, all but two of which contained a white powder. It said that the language in the letters and the method of sending them pointed to one person, Truong, as the mailer.

Read more here: http://www.thestate.com/2014/07/28/3589007/fbi-postal-service-nab-hoaxster.html#storylink=cpy

An Anthrax Truther who posts to my blog had a very different idea of who was behind all those hoax letters. He believed it was most likely the same criminal mastermind who he insists was behind the anthrax letters and many other hoax letters. I suspect he'll have no problem either adjusting his theory to simply exclude all the letters Truong sent, or incorporating Truong into the conspiracy as one of his criminal mastermind's minions.

Either way, I'm glad the FBI and USPIS finally caught the guy.

Added NOTE: This afternoon, I stumbled across a July 25, 2013 post to Lew Weinstein's blog where the Anthrax Truther who believes a "criminal mastermind" was behind the 2001 anthrax attacks says he thinks the Texas hoax letter mailer was one of the "criminal mastermind's" devious minions:

I agree that it’s the same mailer. That is to say “author”. By my lights it is the Amerithrax perp relaying through his South East Accomplice (SEA). When, a couple years ago, I started examining the mailings that emanated from Texas, I did data-base searches on both the SEA and the NEA (North East Accomplice). I found that the SEA had moved from Florida (his location at the time of Amerithrax and the general source of the St Pete mailings) to Texas. Sure, COULD be a coincidence. But that’s not my hypothesis.

There is no "coincidence." He was just putting 2 and 2 together to get 674,893.

July 27, 2014 - I'd hoped that "DXer" would have responded to the comment I wrote on Friday by sending me another email with another of his meaningless, insinuation-laden questions. But, he didn't. However, this morning I see a post by "DXer" to Lew Weinstein's blog that mentions Building 1412. I don't know if it is some kind of counter argument or not. Like almost everything he writes, it appears to be just meaningless blather:

With respect to the key card access records that were provided to the FBI by USAMRIID, they relate to both 1412 and 1425 because that is where work was done involving virulent Ames.

As Ivins’ assistant Friend explained, they did a lot of hot work in Building 1412.

When reading that post, the obvious question becomes: So what? If that is some kind of response to my post, what does this information have to do with the case against Bruce Ivins -- or the case in general? DXer, of course, doesn't and won't explain. And, there doesn't seem anything in that post worth trying to interpret or decipher.

So, I'll have to write about something else for today's regular Sunday comment.

I was wondering if I should suggest to conspiracy theorists that they refer to me as a "geek," if they want to label or categorize me. "Government stooge" is certainly not valid, since I 've repeatedly demonstrated that I disagree with the FBI's case against Ivins on how the anthrax documents were written, and I state exactly how Ivins most likely made the anthrax powders, while the FBI just argues that Ivins had "the means." The term "Government shill" is equally invalid for similar reasons. I don't argue "the government's case." I argue MY understanding of the case against Dr. Bruce Ivins using evidence mostly gathered by the FBI, but with a lot of additional material I've gathered from other sources.

The reason I was looking for a mildly derogatory category term like "geek" that might be applied to people who look at the evidence and conclude that Ivins was the anthrax killer, is because conspiracy theorists really do not like being called "conspiracy theorists." They seem think it's a highly derogatory term. But, of course, if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, swims like a duck, then, chances are it's a duck.

After writing the last sentence above, I started to wonder what the exact phrasing of that "duck test" is and where it originated. So, of course, I looked it up. Wikipedia has various versions of it. They indicate that the first person to write about the "duck test" may have been poet James Whitcomb Riley. In the late 1800's, Riley wrote:

When I see a bird that walks like a duck and swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, I call that bird a duck.

Wikipedia lists another version which is more like a way to disprove the duck test. It shows how just having some similarities to a duck may be misleading:

If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck but it needs batteries, you probably have the wrong abstraction.

Clicking on the "abstraction" link above almost resulted in me going off on a week-long tangent that wouldn't likely have produced anything I could use in today's comment. But, I could easily create a version that shows how what may look and act like a duck may not really be a duck:

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, but it can intelligently answer questions, then it probably isn't a duck.

Just change the word "duck" to "conspiracy theorist."

Returning to the Wikipedia page, I noticed a version of the "duck test" from author Douglas Adams:

If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, we have at least to consider the possibility that we have a small aquatic bird of the family Anatidae on our hands.

Reading that mention of Douglas Adams was interesting to me, because many years ago I really enjoyed reading Douglas Adams' book "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy." However the quote above is from a different book that I don't recall reading. So, I went to Amazon.com and looked up "Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency." It looks like a terrific book. Just my type of reading. So, I checked my local library. But, they don't have it except as an audio book.

That was about the fifth time in the past month I'd checked my library to see if they had a book I was interested in, only to find that they didn't have it except in audio book form. I think in my entire life I've only listened to one audio book. Many years ago, I was at my local library, and I borrowed the audio book on tape version of "The Di Vinci Code" by Dan Brown. As I recall, I used my stereo to listen to it.

A few weeks ago, I borrowed an audio book from the library thinking I could play it on my Kindle, but I couldn't find any way to do that without buying some software. And, even then I'm not sure it would work. I'm thinking that listening to an audio book while working out at the health club could be an excellent idea -- or at least an idea that seems worth a try. But, my Kindle is too big to carry around from machine to machine at the health club. So, first, I'll have to figure out what kind of device (and maybe software) I need to buy to be able to do it. However, right now, I've got other things to do, like finishing this comment, working on my new book, and maybe a thousand other things.

I guess what I'm trying to explain with what I wrote above is that writing a comment for this web site often becomes an interesting learning process. Whenever I need to check or research anything, I could easily go off on a hundred different research tangents. All the tangents are infinitely more interesting than trying to figure out a new way to explain to some Anthrax Truther that what he is arguing appears to be just a baseless theory - or meaningless gibberish.

"DXer" currently seems to be focusing on some kind of mysterious obsession with John Ezzell's 2001 project for DARPA which produced dried, dead Ames anthrax spores. That work was done in Building 1412. DXer also appears to have some obsession with all activities in Building 1412, as if he somehow believes Building 1412 contained the only labs at USAMRIID where the dried Ames anthrax spores used in the anthrax mailings could possibly have been created - maybe because it's the only place where dried Ames anthrax spores were KNOWN to have been deliberately made.

What is DXer' exact theory? Who knows? He won't explain anything, of course. If he tried, it would probably be a simple matter to show that he is totally wrong.

Yesterday, in his endless efforts seemingly intended to imply something sinister about happenings within Building 1412, he obtained another meaningless document which seems to contain only one relevant sentence. It's the last sentence in paragraph 1(a):

No dried live spores were prepared.

So, it has no meaning to the anthrax investigation. And his three rambling comments attached to that thread seem to be equally meaningless and nearly indecipherable.

Meanwhile, this morning during breakfast, I finished reading "Geek Wisdom" by N.K. Jemisin. Among other things, it brought this web site to my attention:

HasTheLargeHadronColliderDestroyedTheWorldYet.com

If you are afraid of clicking on the link because you don't want to know the answer, don't worry. The fact that you can worry should tell you the answer.

Updates & Changes: Sunday, July 20, 2014, thru Saturday, July 26, 2014

July 25, 2014 - Here's the entire text of an email "DXer" sent me while I was at the health club this afternoon:

Ed, can you upload Dr. Ivins hours in the B3 in Building 1412? Thanks.

Dr. Andrews in his deposition explained why an analysis based only on hours in the B3 in Building 1425 was misleading.

I see that for the past half decade,  you were content in remaining ignorant of his hours in the B3 in Building 1412.

Of course, "DXer" knows (or strongly suspects) I don't have Dr. Ivins' hours in Building 1412. So, the email is just another "Anthrax Truther game."

There's no claim from me or the FBI that Ivins needed to be in Building 1412 in order to commit the crime.

There's no claim from me or the FBI that Ivins' hours in Building 1412 had anything to do with the crime.

The only claim I'm aware of that relates to Ivins' hours in Building 1412 is the claim by DXer in his email that Dr. Andrews "explained why an analysis based only on hours in the B3 in Building 1425 was misleading." And that is a BOGUS claim. I see no such claim made by Dr. Andrews. Here's the exchange about Ivins' overtime hours from pages 72 and 73 of the Andrews deposition:

Q. The FBI also maintains that -- well, one of the reasons
for its conclusion that Dr. Ivins was the -- the
perpetrator of this attack was that -- among other things,
that he worked unusual hours, I'll call it -- I think
that's a term they use -- in the laboratory at night by
himself for -- in the weeks leading up to the two dated
mailings and in the time before the mailings, and that he
had no explanation for that.
Based on -- do you find that credible?

A. I don't find it unusual whatsoever that a
scientist would work after hours. In fact, most
scientists -- most dedicated scientists, if you'd look at
their activities over the years, have worked after hours.
I've pulled all-nighters myself in the laboratory.
And I certainly wouldn't -- if it was -- if it
was brought to my attention -- and I don't recall it was
specifically for those time periods that Bruce is working
after hours. But if it was, I wouldn't be surprised or be
concerned.
A lot of scientists at USAMRIID were working
after hours. And I wouldn't also be surprised -- I would
not be surprised that other scientists were working
hour -- after hours during those days or over the course
of -- of the two weeks that -- that the FBI claimed that
Bruce manufactured and prepared the letter spores.
The time period, I believe, was roughly 20 hours
of after-hour work. I could be wrong. But regardless,
it's my opinion that in 20 hours, it would be absolutely
impossible to make the volume of spores that were
estimated to be in those letters collectively. I think
that the amount of time is off by -- probably by orders of
magnitude.

Note that there is no mention of Building 1412 whatsoever in that part of the deposition. Furthermore, Dr. Andrews readily admits he has no idea what Ivins was doing during his unexplained hours in his B3 lab in Building 1425. Plus, Dr. Andrews is falsely assuming that Ivins had to make the spores during the overtime hours he worked in Building 1425. Dr. Andrews evidently never realized that the attack spores used by Dr. Ivins in the anthrax letters were almost certainly grown on discarded plates in autoclave bags which lay in a corner of Ivins' lab day and night for weeks. Ivins' overtime hours had NOTHING to do with growing spores. Dr. Ivins had an ample supply of spores at hand.

But, since facts and evidence are totally irrelevant to DXer, he will probably argue that Dr. Andrews' opinion is of more value than that of an non-expert like me.

His email was just an attempt to create another argument where he can ignore the facts.

July 24, 2014 - Someone just sent me an article from tumbler.com titled "Count to ten when a plane goes down." In the article, the author explains how, in 1983, he screwed up and caused conspiracy theorists to go nuts and jump into full theory-generating mode over the disappearance of Korean Airlines Flight 007. The lesson apparently is: People make mistakes, so when there's a major news event, be patient and don't assume that there's some kind of conspiracy just because someone made a false assumption and no one fully understands exactly what's happening from the very first news bulletin.

Hmm. We've got another aircraft disappearance in the news today. Air Algerie Flight AH5017 vanished over Mali with "at least 116 people on board."

The Ouagadougou Airport statement claimed that Mariela Castro, daughter of Cuban President Raul Castro, was among those on board.

However, the National Center for Sexual Education in Havana, Cuba, which Mariela Castro runs, denied the reports and told CNN she was at an event in Havana. Castro subsequently told a Telesur anchor who interviewed her by phone, "I'm alive, kicking, happy and healthy!"

So, as if to make the point detailed in the "Count to ten" article, we should let the news reports settle for awhile before we decide what "most likely" happened.

Meanwhile, I spent nearly all day yesterday reading the first 15% of a library book "From Eternity to Here: The Quest for the Ultimate Theory of Time," by Sean Carroll. It's a very interesting read -- if you are interested in trying to understand space, time and spacetime, which I am. I was looking forward to reading more of it today. Then, I awoke this morning thinking about a terrific ending for my new sci-fi novel. That was my hang-up -- not "narrative drive." I didn't have a good ending to "drive" towards. Now I do. So, all plans have changed. I might try to read more of "From Eternity to Here" during breakfast and lunch every day while I'm working on my novel, but chances are it will require too much focus. If so, I'll go back to reading "Geek Wisdom."

Here's another full "chapter" from the book "Geek Wisdom" that I've highlighted:

“DON’T CROSS THE STREAMS. IT WOULD BE BAD.” —EGON SPENGLER,

GHOSTBUSTERS EGON’S WARNING TO his fellow Ghostbusters was perhaps the most casually deadpan mention of possibly accidentally blowing oneself to bits ever committed to voice. It’s typical, though. In the eyes of mainstream society, most geeks tend to get excited by all the “wrong” things. From raging battles over which is the best X-Man to the abject joy that ripples through nerddom whenever a new Hubble image is released, there’s no doubt that geeks are passionate people. Yet, all this passion for offbeat, unique things sometimes leaves little room in our cerebral cortex for getting excited about relatively ordinary things … like, say, the possibility of a violent horrific death. Death, after all, happens to everyone; there’s nothing especially unique about it. But a Goldilocks-zone exoplanet? Now that’s worth an exclamation point or two. Of course, this means that whenever a geek laconically suggests that taking a particular course of action “would be bad,” those passionate about their own continued well-being should probably pay really, really close attention.

Although I never thought of myself that way, I'm beginning to think that I'm a "geek." Yesterday, someone sent me an email with a link to an article about the movie "The Godfather." "The Godfather" is not one of my favorite movies. While composing a response, I decided to do a Google search for the favorite movies of geeks. One site contains a list of "Fifteen geek movies to see before you die." I've seen all on that list, but some of my true favorites aren't included. Then I found "81 movies for geeks that do not suck." Most of my favorites are on that list: "Groundhog Day," "Aliens," "Alien," "The Princess Bride," "Ghostbusters," "Star Wars," and I think I've got DVDs or Blu-Rays for about 70 of the 81. But, it has a few that I don't like at all (mostly zombie and Hobbit movies). So, like everyone else, there are probably no two geeks who agree on everything.

For some reason, I seriously doubt that any geek considers "The Godfather" to be one of his favorite movies. However, in an attempt to verify that thought, I went through a few more web sites which list geeks' favorite movies: HERE, HERE and HERE. None includes "The Godfather." I have no doubt that "The Godfather" is a favorite of countless non-geeks and many "movie nerds," but it's not a favorite of any true geeks. Maybe someday, when I have the time, I'll try to figure out why. (That's what geeks do. Non-geeks don't care, OR they get upset because you're just too "stupid" to appreciate what "most people" consider to be "one of the greatest movies of all time.")

July 22, 2014 (B) - Hmm. "DXer" on Lew Weinstein's blog must have read my (A) comment this morning, since he has also posted a comment about William J. Vollmann. He found a bizarre comment by Mr. Vollmann in the Sacramento Bee article that I failed to notice, but which "DXer" appears to consider an important statement worth repeating and quoting without explanation or comment:

“Thoreau always said that it’s important not to let our knowledge get in the way of what’s more important, which is our ignorance. I want to always keep my ignorance so I can be open to what people are saying.”

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2014/07/21/6572588/between-the-lines-william-t-vollmann.html#storylink=cpy

To me, that seems like a silly and preposterous thing to say. Mr. Vollmann wants to KEEP his ignorance? I cannot believe Henry David Thoreau (or any other intelligent person) ever felt that way. So, I did some Google searches to try to find out what Henry Thoreau actually said. I did searches through Thoreau quotes for the word "ignorance" and found next to nothing. Searching for the word "knowledge" found this from his 1862 book "Walking" (Click HERE for my source):

My desire for knowledge is intermittent; but my desire to bathe my head in atmospheres unknown to my feet is perennial and constant. The highest that we can attain to is not Knowledge, but Sympathy with Intelligence. I do not know that this higher knowledge amounts to anything more definite than a novel and grand surprise on a sudden revelation of the insufficiency of all that we called Knowledge before — a discovery that there are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamed of in our philosophy.

However, I cannot see how that could be the source of Vollmann's claim.

Here's another quote from the 1863 book "Life Without Principle" where Thoreau seems to value knowledge very highly:

Knowledge does not come to us by details, but in flashes of light from heaven.

Here's another quote from that same book that doesn't contain either word but was next to a quote that did:

A grain of gold will gild a great surface, but not so much as a grain of wisdom.

Yes, there's a difference between "knowledge" and "wisdom," but ignorance won't produce either one. And who would find ignorance preferable?

Could this quote from "Life Without Principle" be the one Mr. Vollmann remembers? It doesn't use either word, but does include the word "important":

Not without a slight shudder at the danger, I often perceive how near I had come to admitting into my mind the details of some trivial affair, — the news of the street; and I am astonished to observe how willing men are to lumber their minds with such rubbish, — to permit idle rumors and incidents of the most insignificant kind to intrude on ground which should be sacred to thought. Shall the mind be a public arena, where the affairs of the street and the gossip of the tea-table chiefly are discussed? Or shall it be a quarter of heaven itself, — an hypæthral temple, consecrated to the service of the gods? I find it so difficult to dispose of the few facts which to me are significant, that I hesitate to burden my attention with those which are insignificant, which only a divine mind could illustrate. Such is, for the most part, the news in newspapers and conversation. It is important to preserve the mind's chastity in this respect.

Thoreau didn't say he prefers "ignorance." He merely prefers to avoid listening to gossip, rumors and "news of the street" which come from ignorant sources.

Here's a quote with both words that I found on a Thoreau quotes web site HERE:

True friendship can afford true knowledge. It does not depend on darkness and ignorance.

I'm pleased that "DXer" brought the quote from Mr. Vollmann to my attention. I would never have believed that an intelligent person would say such a thing. But, it's certainly understandable that "DXer" found it to be a statement from the article worth repeating.

July 22, 2014 (A) - This morning, when I did my regular daily Google search through the news for anthax+2001, up popped a link to a Sacramento Bee article about novelist, journalist, essayist, moralist William J. Vollmann which said,

Last year, he wrote a piece for Harper’s that told the chilling story of what he found in his FBI file after obtaining part of it via the Freedom of Information Act. He discovered that the FBI suspected him of being the Unabomber. Then, after Ted Kaczynski was arrested in 1996 for mailing bombs that killed and maimed people, the FBI considered Vollmann a suspect in the 2001 anthrax-by-mail attacks. The key suspect in that case took his own life in 2008.

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2014/07/21/6572588/between-the-lines-william-t-vollmann.html#storylink=cpy

I remember reading about that last year, but I didn't write about it. Apparently, I didn't see anything of interest in Vollmann's claim that the FBI considered him to be a suspect.

This morning, however, I was interested. So, I did some research. Mostly what I found was that it appears William Vollmann has been using his claim that the FBI considered him to be an Amerithrax suspect as a way of generating publicity for his books.

But I also found an August 2013 article from USA Today that says,

A “fellow citizen” eventually told the agency that Vollmann might be the Unabomber, the man eventually identified as Theodore Kaczynski and sentenced to prison for sending deadly mail bombs. The unnamed informant argued that the “anti-growth” and “anti-progress” themes in Vollmann’s books were evidence of a connection.

“This may seem like a small matter,” Vollmann writes, “but… in effect, his case relied on literary criticism. My mind boggled.”

The story gets harder to believe. Vollmann notes the many tenuous, flat-out wrong assumptions and inferences made by the FBI. According to his file, Vollmann owns a flame-thrower, traveled to Beirut and is likely familiar with chemistry and explosives, all of which Vollmann says are false. One report tries to link the Unabomber’s moniker with the initials of one of Vollmann’s books. Even after the Unabomber is caught, Vollmann’s file shows him still in the FBI’s sights. A tip about Vollmann’s handwriting leads the agency to investigate him as a suspect in the 2001 anthrax case.

Ah! It appears that it is Mr. Vollmann who is twisting the facts to make a claim that FBI did something wrong in checking him out. And, of course, the Sacramento Bee is a McClatchy newspaper, so they simply print that accusation against the FBI. You have to do some research to find the full story.

If a private citizen gives the FBI a "tip" that Mr. Vollmann might be the Unibomber and supplies various items of "evidence" to support that theory, is the FBI "wrong" in checking Vollmann out? If the FBI gets another tip that Mr. Vollmann's handwriting matches the handwriting on the anthrax documents, is it "wrong" for the FBI to check him out? Does checking on a tip from a private citizen that includes "evidence" mean that the FBI considers Vollmann to be a suspect?

I see the answers to all three of those questions as one big, resounding "NO!" It's part of the FBI's job to check on tips supplied by private citizens, particularly if the tipster also supplies "evidence" to support the tip. And being a possible suspect is not the same thing as actually being a suspect.

It's routine for 99% of tips from private citizens in a major case to be total nonsense. But, the tips still need to be checked out in order to find that 1% that actually lead somewhere. In the Amerithrax investigation, Nancy Haigwood's tip about Bruce Ivins was probably just one tip in ten thousand. And even though it wasn't initially taken seriously by the FBI, it eventually proved to be correct and important.

It would be nice if investigators always knew the "truth" immediately and there was no need to actually accumulate evidence and sort through dozens of "potential suspects" to find a real suspect. But, if the world worked that way, there wouldn't be any need for "investigators." The work could be done by judges who could also pass sentence as soon as they found or were provided with "the truth." (I think I saw that movie.)

Meanwhile, on last night's Daily Show with Jon Stewart, they talked about what is probably the most absurd conspiracy theory related to the shooting down of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17. The claim is that the Dutch staged the tragedy to embarrass the pro-Russian rebels. According to the theory, the Dutch allegedly filled an airliner with corpses and made it fly on autopilot over rebel territory where a bomb placed inside the plane was detonated. The theory is also in the International Business Times:

On Friday, Igor Girkin, the commander of rebel group, allegedly said to Russkaya Vesna, a pro-Russia Web site, the bodies found at the crash site in Ukraine were decomposed, drained of blood and believed dead days before MH 17 flew over the country's air space. Girkin said the shooting of the Malaysian Airlines was just staged to blame the separatists, saying Ukrainian authorities "are capable of any baseness."

I guess it just goes to prove that there is no conspiracy theory so absurd and ridiculous that someone somewhere won't totally believe it and repeat it.

July 21, 2014 - Yesterday, I finished uploading my Sunday comment at around 10 a.m. Feeling unable to work on my sci-fi novel because I haven't fully determined the basis for its "narrative drive," I decided to look at how some novels I had "borrowed" from my local library "hook" the reader. I started reading the first few pages of "Assignment New York" by E.C. Tubb, and the "narrative drive" hooked me. It's a hard boiled private eye novel written in the style of the 1940s. The P.I. is a "shamus," women are "dames," guns are "gats," criminals who carry guns are "gunsels," the hero smokes cigarettes constantly, and he wears a "fedora." (The author was an Englishman, so the hero would also park his car at the "kerb" when he had a flat "tyre.")

I read through lunch and then took a break to do some shopping. When I returned home, I read some more. I was about 70% done at 3:30 p.m., when I turned off the Kindle while I went into the kitchen to open a cup of yogurt and add granola to it. When I returned, the Kindle wouldn't turn back on! It was like the on-off switch didn't work!

"DON'T PANIC," is another item of Geek Wisdom. It's quoted from Douglas Adams' book, "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy." Sci-fi writer Arthur C. Clarke said those two words were "the best possible advice for mankind." Don't panic.

So, I didn't panic. I turned on my computer, connected it to my Kindle, and tried to see if my computer could access my Kindle. It couldn't. It was as if the Kindle wasn't even connected via the USB port. "Don't panic," I reminded myself.

Having turned on my computer, I saw that I had two emails from Google telling me that an Anthrax Truther had posted comments to my interactive blog that were awaiting moderation. Because I wasn't in a panic, I decided to read and respond to those messages before doing anything else with the Kindle.

The first message contained a totally bizarre statement that my hypothesis that a child wrote the anthrax letters was "unfalsifiable." The Truther phrased it this way:

Along with its primitive reductionism in the fields of first grade curriculum, graphology, vocabulary etc., the child-printed-it hypothesis is, in the way that Mister Lake presents it, fundamentally unfalsifiable.

Nothing could be farther from the truth, of course. Most other people who believe Ivins was the anthrax killer believe that Ivins disguised or "falsified" his handwriting by writing the way a barely literate Muslim (or a child) would write. The people who think a Muslim terrorist wrote the letters believe my hypothesis is false because they believe it's really the writing of a person who normally writes in Arabic. And the Anthrax Truther himself believes my hypothesis is false because he claims a criminal mastermind had one of his anonymous minions write the letters. I posted a response.

The second message was a claim that the U.S. Government was "lying to the public about the lyophilizer AND lying to the public about the handwriting comparisons." It's a a simple statement of belief which the Truther cannot prove or even verify. So, it was just his opinion. And I told him so. I have no desire to argue opinions versus opinions.

When I finished posting my responses, I went to Amazon's Kindle HELP page. One of the "frequently asked questions" was "My Kindle is frozen." Not really a question, but the advice was:

To restart:
1. Make sure to unplug your device from charging.
2. Press or slide and hold the power button for 20 seconds (ignore anything that happens on the screen).

And there was another page with more details, including a count-down clock to help you measure out 20 full seconds.

I did as instructed, and PRESTO! The Kindle re-booted and everything was working again. (It occurs to me that I sometimes do the same thing to re-boot my Digital Video Recorder (DVR) when it acts up.) Any day you learn something new is a good day.

So, while it meant reading through dinner and during the evening news, I was able to finish reading "Assignment New York" at around 6 p.m. The book was only 206 pages long, so it wasn't like reading "War and Peace" in about 5 hours. But, it's the first time in years that I've read a novel cover-to-cover in a single day. And the book was a good demonstration of "narrative drive," so it wasn't a total waste of time.

July 20, 2014 - Last week, during breakfast and lunch, I was reading a library book "Geek Wisdom" by N.K. Jemisin on my Kindle. It's a perfect book for reading while eating a meal, since each "chapter" consists of about one page. Thus, I don't have to keep reading and reading to find a place where I can turn off the Kindle without being in the middle of some explanation or idea. A "chapter" consists of a quote from some source familiar to geeks, followed by an explanation of what that quote means to geeks.

Here's an example of one complete "chapter" that has relevance to my endless debates with conspiracy theorists, True Believers and Anthrax Truthers:

“A CONCLUSION IS THE PLACE WHERE YOU GOT TIRED OF THINKING.” —STEVEN WRIGHT

BEING A GEEK can be mentally exhausting; we totally get it. However, the collective short attention span we’ve inherited from the Internet age means that it’s all too easy to answer a pressing question by glancing at Wikipedia and calling it a day. Occasionally that’s all you need; it doesn’t take too many sources to corroborate the orbital period of Venus, for example. On the other hand, it seems vaguely disheartening that, with access to more information than ever before, so many Internet fights boil down to two people with violently opposing viewpoints attacking each other based on incorrect and incomplete data sets. It’s our responsibility as geeks to make sure we never stop learning, that we take little for granted, and that we look at every statement not as a conclusion, but as an invitation to more research.

(Steven Wright is a comedian familiar to geeks. To conspiracy theorists and Truthers that undoubtedly means that any quote from him cannot be taken seriously.)

I found the following quote from the author of "Geek Wisdom" to be particularly relevant while I was researching the shooting down of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17:

"We can neither take part in the horror of man’s violence nor give in to it, but we must acknowledge it. In some way we must come to grips with what we’re capable of doing to one another. We are a beautiful, terrible, sleepless species. And sometimes we’re still animals. So it goes."

On a more positive note, I really appreciated that "Geek Wisdom" made me aware of this quote from Robert Heinlein's 1973 science fiction novel "Time Enough For Love":

“A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly.”

It sometimes seems like every day we need to "analyze a new problem." Unfortunately, while we're doing that, there is always someone else who prefers to "pitch manure."

Here's another relevant quote from "Geek Wisdom" that would antagonize Truthers:

"Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored." -- Aldous Huxley

Anthrax Truthers seem to specialize in ignoring facts. And it doesn't seem to bother them one bit that they do not agree amongst themselves on who actually sent the anthrax letters. They simply do not want to argue the silly theories from other Anthrax Truthers. They only want to argue with the people who agree with "the government," people who accept that the evidence says that Bruce Ivins was the anthrax killer. Those people can be attacked as being "gullible government stooges" or "shills."

Last week, I tried once again to show an Anthrax Truther that he doesn't understand what constitutes "evidence" in a court of law. He argued that no one can testify that they recognized another person's handwriting unless they are certified handwriting experts. In another post, he argued that if there are lay witnesses who say that the handwriting on the anthrax documents resembled Ivins' handwriting when he disguised his handwriting, then the government probably manipulated those witnesses into saying that. And if I do not agree that they were manipulated, I must provide facts which show that the government did NOT manipulate the witnesses. In other words, I must prove the negative. Otherwise, I'm wrong. End of story.

Plus, in his mind, if Ivins' fingerprints were not found on the anthrax letters, that is "exculpatory" evidence showing that Bruce Ivins was innocent. And anyone who disagrees is wrong. End of story.

No attempt to discuss "evidence" with him can accomplish anything. He simply states his beliefs and then stops posting when I explain why the evidence says he's wrong.

I keep thinking I should create a set of "standard answers." Since conspiracy theorists and Truthers just argue the same absurdities over and over and over, it would save me a lot of time if I just copied and pasted a standard response. Like this:

To become evidence, an object, document or testimony has to be presented as supporting a claim. There is no claim that Ivins used a lyophilizer to dry the attack spores. Therefore all arguments that Ivins could not have used the lyophilizer to dry the spores are not about evidence, they are just arguments for the sake of arguing.

or this:

"NOT FINDING EVIDENCE" MEANS THEY DID NOT FIND EVIDENCE. It does NOT mean they found "exculpatory evidence."

or this:

The argument that a "typical" criminal would not use a child to write threat letters doesn't mean that Bruce Ivins wouldn't have done so.

or this:

The fact that postal employees handled, transported and delivered the anthrax-filled letters mailed by Bruce Ivins does not mean that the postal employees were accomplices in the crime. Nor does manipulating a child into writing letters make the child "an accomplice."

I already use this "standard answer" quite often:

The number of people who believe something has nothing to do with whether it is true or not. At one time nearly everyone in the world believed the earth was flat. That didn't make it flat.

And this should probably be standard answer #1:

The perpetrator of the anthrax attacks of 2001 has been identified. His name was Bruce Edwards Ivins. Unfortunately, he committed suicide before he could be brought to trial. But, the Department of Justice (DOJ) provided us with an Amerithrax Investigation Summary of the evidence against Ivins. It's available for anyone to view. For anyone who has bothered to look at the evidence, there should be no reasonable doubt that the case was solved correctly.

Unfortunately, that "standard answer" will usually require another "standard answer" to the argument that it generates. This would probably be standard answer #2:

A "summary" is NOT REQUIRED to include all the theories from conspiracy theorists or the names of all the possible suspects who were checked out by the FBI and the "evidence" against them. A "summary" CAN just be a summary of the evidence in support of the charge or claim that Bruce Edwards Ivins was the anthrax killer.

Updates & Changes: Sunday, July 13, 2014, thru Saturday, July 19, 2014

July 19, 2014 - Hmm. While reading the discussion about the shooting down of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 on PPruNe.org, the Professional Pilots' Rumor Network, I noticed a link to an article HERE which says that someone within the Russian government has been modifying the Wikipedia article about flight MH17:

The original version of the Wikipedia article listing civil aviation accidents stated that MH17 had been shot down “by terrorists of the self-proclaimed Donetsk People’s Republic with Buk system missiles, which the terrorists received from the Russian Federation.” Emphasis added.

The edits originating from the government-owned computer changed the article to read “the plane [flight MH17] was shot down by Ukrainian soldiers“. Again, emphasis added.

The pilots on PPruNe.org also found pictures of what appears to be some of the damage caused by the BUK surface-to-air missile which has a proximity fuse that detonates the warhead as it approaches the aircraft, spraying the target with rod-shaped pieces shrapnel. The shape of the holes is probably a signature of that kind of missile.

It also occurs to me that the fact that about 2/3rds of the passengers aboard the airliner were Dutch citizens undoubtedly has a lot to do with the fact that the flight to Kuala Lumpur originated in Amsterdam, but it probably also has something to do with the fact that Indonesia was once known as the Dutch East Indies.

And that led me to realize that I wasn't certain which parts of that section of the world belonged to Malaysia and what parts belonged to Indonesia. So, I researched it.

No one can call me a "know it all." I'm learning new things every day.

July 18, 2014 - The news this morning has some different information about the shooting down of Malaysia Flight MH17 yesterday. News reports are now saying there were 298 people aboard, 283 passengers and 15 crew. Yesterday, the number was 295. Today, it's not known if there were any Americans aboard. Yesterday, most reports said there were 23 Americans aboard. The pro-Russian rebels are still claiming to have taken the "black boxes" from the wreckage. It will be interesting to see what they do with them. Multiple reports say that one of the black boxes was sent to Moscow for examination.

The two sides in the conflict are blaming one another for the shoot-down. However, one of the pilots on PPruNe.org makes a very interesting point:

Almost no chance it came from Ukraine military. The rebels don't have any planes, so they posed no threat from the air. No risk of shooting off a missile. The culprits are either Russia or the Russian-armed rebels.

Plus, of course, there are statements from a rebel leader saying he warned the world that they would shoot down airliners in their airspace. And there's a recorded phone call of a pro-Russian leader saying they downed the plane. But, they also have this rebel report:

"The B777 was shot down by the Ukranian military fighter jet, that attacked the airliner, it split in two parts and fell down. After that the fighter jet was shot down by our forces. Now we are looking for it on the ground."

I don't think that piece of rabid propaganda has any chance of being believed by anyone except the pro-Russian rebels who benefit from believing it. But, another news report seems to be pushing a similar story.

And, of course, there's the question of why commercial airliners were flying over a war zone in the first place. It seems like an invitation to some nut case with power who might want to make some kind of point to the world.

I think the facts about this disaster will become very clear very soon. But, there will still be plenty people who will simply believe what they want to believe. The comments after a Newsweek article about the disaster show that conspiracy theorists are already hard at work twisting facts to fit their beliefs. My analysis of the disaster:

Pro-Russian separatists shot down the plane on purpose.

First, the pro-Russian rebels have no aircraft. So, there's no reason for Kiev to shoot at any aircraft. And, there's no logic behind any scenario where Kiev would do it and try to blame the rebels. That kind of insane action cannot be hidden in today's technological world.

Second, shooting down the airliner "by accident" seems unlikely. It was flying at a very high altitude, so it presented no imminent danger. The rebels would have to track the plane on radar in order to target it. And, the aircraft's transponder would tell a radar system what kind of aircraft it is.

Lastly, the conflict seems to be going against the rebels at the moment. That can result in a lot of desperation and unclear thinking. Shooting down a commercial airliner could make a point. The point would be: Either we are allowed to win or we'll kill everyone who failed to support us.

But, I'm always open to new and better facts which would change my analysis.

July 17, 2014 (B) - Jeeze! Malaysia Airlines just lost their second airliner in about 4 months. It's another Boeing 777, with 295 people aboard, including 23 Americans. I don't see anyone arguing any conspiracy theories yet, but it's only been about an hour since the news broke. According to a graphic HERE, there were a lot of other planes in the general area, so it wasn't in any restricted area. Hmm. Maybe it's been longer than an hour. Wikipedia already has a web page about it HERE with 49 references.

July 17, 2014 (A) - Jerry Seinfeld was the guest last night on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. He was promoting his Internet show "Comedians in Cars Getting Coffee." So, this morning all I could do was watch episode after episode. Apparently they have two "seasons" per year, since the last time I mentioned "Comedians in Cars" was in June 2013 when they were promoting "Season 2." And now Seinfeld is promoting Season 4.

On topic, I've been thinking about writing something about the problems at the CDC where they keep finding that this germ or that germ was not properly handled. But, what can I write? People make mistakes. Even smart people. Duh.

I also noticed an article about Paul Keim getting fired from a biosafety advisory panel, supposedly because of the CDC crisis. It looks like a case of firing the people whose advice they didn't take but should have. But what can I write about that? People make mistakes. Even smart people. Duh!

I also highlighted an interesting quote from the library book I'm currently reading on my Kindle during breakfast and lunch, "Geek Wisdom" by N.K. Jemisin. Here's the highlighted passage:

THERE’S JUST NO TALKING TO SOME PEOPLE. Oh, you can try. You can form your arguments, bring your evidence, and go in with as open a mind as possible. But at some point you have to realize the other person isn’t interested in a meeting of the minds.

Been there. Done that.

Here's a Geek slogan from a T-shirt I'm tempted to buy:

“THERE ARE 10 KINDS OF PEOPLE IN THE WORLD: THOSE WHO UNDERSTAND BINARY, AND THOSE WHO DON’T.”

Click HERE if you don't get it.

Meanwhile, I'm going to watch some more "Comedians in Cars Getting Coffee."

July 15, 2014 - I don't know if anyone is interested or not, but I'm now thinking that the reason I got bogged down in writing my second sci-fi novel is because I didn't write it in first person as I did with the first novel in the series. I had started writing it in first person, but then changed my mind. I thought writing it in third person would be easier and would allow me to generate more suspense in a story where the investigators more or less figure out whodunit in the first third of the book. Writing in third person didn't help, and it hurt my ability to add humor to what is essentially a very grim story. I need to work on the narrative drive. If whodunit is learned in the first third of the book (and that is something that cannot be avoided), I need to keep the reader reading by focusing the narrative drive on something else - like the dangers involved, the romance or whether they can catch the bad guy without exposing a top secret device to the public.

By the way, yesterday I finished reading the 21st Alex Delaware novel "Evidence" by Jonathan Kellerman, which is told in both first and third person, but mostly in first person. I'd started on it on Friday. While okay, I didn't enjoy it anywhere near as much as the previous novel I read. So, now the question is: Can I get back to work on my own novel, or will I end up reading another Janet Evanovich novel first? Meanwhile, I'm back to reading non-fiction during breakfast and lunch.

July 14, 2014 - Overnight, an Anthrax Truther posted a couple messages to my interactive blog which show how Truthers distort things and avoid looking at evidence.

The first posted message included a suggestion that the FBI/DOJ doesn't really have any lay witnesses who could testify about how the handwriting on the anthrax documents resembled Ivins' disguised handwriting:

The Amerithrax Investigative Summary talks only and exclusively about (unnamed) "witnesses" when talking about Ivins' printing. Naturally, such unnamed witnesses (read: informants) cannot really be questioned. On account of their being unnamed.

It would have been stupid and unethical to name witnesses in the Summary. All that such a breach of ethics and protocol would accomplish is make those witnesses subject to harassment from every nut case who has a different view of the case, and who would consider them to be "informants." In reality, anyone who is actually familiar with the case would know who the witnesses must be, based upon what the Summary says about how the witnesses received anonymous letters from Dr. Ivins.

In the Truther's second posted message, instead of discussing the real and solid evidence against Dr. Ivins, he suggested that the DOJ would have hidden the fact that there were avenues of investigation that led nowhere - like not finding Ivins' fingerprints on the letters, or not finding his DNA on the letters, or, of course, finding his handwriting did not match the handwriting on the anthrax documents.

The idea, apparently, is that if the Amerithrax Investigative Summary doesn't state that some avenues of investigation led nowhere, then the FBI and DOJ are hiding the non-findings from those avenues of investigation from the public, and the DOJ would certainly try to hide them from the defense lawyers during discovery. But, those non-productive avenues of investigation ARE mentioned in the Summary on page 11:

The spore powder, letters, and envelopes recovered during the investigation were exhaustively examined using traditional forensic methods, including hair, fiber, fingerprint, DNA, and handwriting analysis. In addition, Task Force agents interviewed witnesses, and later obtained pen-registers, executed search warrants, and engaged confidential sources. Using these tools, Task Force agents conducted preliminary investigations of 1,040 individuals and in-depth investigations of over 400 of them. In 2007, all of this evidence was supplemented with the groundbreaking scientific genetic analyses that conclusively identified the murder weapon. This revelation, and the investigation that followed, led to the conclusion that Dr. Ivins mailed the anthrax letters.

The Truther evidently wanted them to write at length about how Ivins' DNA was not found on the letters or envelopes, nor were his fingerprints. His claim is that the FBI found NO evidence showing Ivins was the anthrax killer, and to support that nonsense belief, he apparently wants the DOJ and FBI to ignore all the actual evidence that was found and write only about the avenues of investigation where NO evidence was found.

Perhaps it's a word game. If the DOJ and FBI had written "We found no DNA evidence to link Dr. Ivins to the anthrax mailings," and "We found no fingerprint evidence to link Dr. Ivins to the anthrax mailings," the Truthers could twist that to argue, "The FBI says over and over they found NO 'evidence to link Dr. Ivins to the anthrax mailings'."

It's a way to argue beliefs and opinions, instead of discussing actual evidence.

July 13, 2014 - Getting that U.S. Postal Inspection Service (USPIS) report in the mail on Wednesday, and my writing about it in my comment on Thursday, apparently upset both of the Anthrax Truthers who currently find a need to start arguments whenever I disagree with their beliefs. The report written by USPIS forensic handwriting expert Robert J. Muehlberger stated that Dr. Ivins' handwriting was NOT a match to the handwriting on the anthrax envelopes. Yesterday, the Anthrax Truther who argues on my interactive blog wrote:

The handwriting analyses were EXCULPATORY evidence.
That's exactly why they didn't present it publicly. But had a trial taken place, they (the prosecutors) would have been legally obligated by rules of discovery to present that evidence to the defense which, almost certainly, would have presented it, by calling as a defense witness that handwriting analyst(s), stressing the person's professionalism, experience etc. In an Ivins-acting-alone prosecution scenario, this alone would have provided reasonable doubt: 'He didn't print s[p]it, you must acquit' as a latter-day Johnny Cochran might say.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Otherwise you'd have a situation where:

1) 'match' indicates guilt=evidence.

2) 'non-match' indicates innocence=non-evidence

Doesn't that seem odd even to you, Mister Lake?

And when I disagreed that it was exculpatory evidence, the Truther wrote:

Then you don't get what exculpatory evidence is.
------------------
Exculpatory evidence is evidence favorable to the defendant in a criminal trial that exonerates or tends to exonerate the defendant of guilt.[1] It is the opposite of inculpatory evidence, which tends to prove guilt.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exculpatory_evidence

"Tends to exonerate" fits. Especially since the government said that Ivins had no help whatsoever.

If that analysis (those analyses) had been a match, then it would have been inculpatory evidence:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inculpatory_evidence

Other Anthrax Truthers also claim that the finding by USPIS forensic handwriting expert Robert Muehlberger that the handwriting on the anthrax documents is NOT a match to Ivins' handwriting is "exculpatory evidence."

In a post to his own blog, Lew Weinstein wrote on Aug. 13, 2013:

What conclusions can be drawn from the DOJ/FBI failure to include evidence exculpatory to Dr. Ivins, which has happened often since the 2008 press conference where it was claimed that Dr. Ivins was the “sole perpetrator” of the 2001 anthrax attacks? … obviously, he could not be the “sole perpetrator” if he did not address the envelopes.

The above comment was in response to a March 8, 2007 letter written by that same USPIS handwriting expert Robert Muehlberger in which Mr. Muehlberger wrote:

Bruce E. Ivins probably did not write the writings appearing on the “anthrax” envelopes and letters.

In emails he sent to me, the Anthrax Truther who calls himself "DXer" also claimed that the finding that Bruce Ivins handwriting did not match the handwriting on the anthrax documents was "exculpatory."

As far as I'm concerned, the fact that the handwriting did not match Ivins' handwriting merely confirms my hypothesis that the anthrax killer used a child who was just starting first grade to write the anthrax documents. That hypothesis was first presented in late 2001, seven years before Bruce Ivins was identified by the FBI as the anthrax killer. At the time, the "most likely" suspect was someone who had no known access to children. In August 2008, the hypothesis was seemingly partly confirmed when Ivins was named as the anthrax killer, and it was made known that his wife ran a day-care center in their home. It was also confirmed by indications that Ivins' personality showed he would have had no problem with using a child that way. All the evidence fell neatly into place - except for the fact that the FBI wasn't looking at the evidence the way I was.

On pages 89 and 90 of the Amerithrax Investigative Summary, the FBI/DOJ had a different explanation for why the handwriting did not match Ivins' handwriting: The handwriting was disguised. The FBI had witnesses willing to testify that the handwriting on the anthrax documents looked like Ivins' block letter handwriting when he wrote anonymous letters to his female co-workers that he didn't want traced back to him.

So, is the lack of a match to Ivins' handwriting "exculpatory" or not?

The Anthrax Truther on my blog sees only two kinds of evidence, exculpatory (helping to prove innocence) and inculpatory (helping to prove guilt). The other Truthers seem to see things the same way. They do not ask the basic questions: How does "evidence" become "evidence"? What was it before it became "evidence"?.

From my point of view (and the point of view of the Justice System, as I understand it), FACTS are just FACTS, documents are just documents, verbal statements are just statements, UNTIL until they are presented in court in support of some claim - typically a claim of someone's guilt or innocence in a crime. Then -and only then - do those, FACTS, documents and verbal statements become evidence.

It is a FACT that Robert Muehlberger found that "Bruce E. Ivins probably did not write the writings appearing on the “anthrax” envelopes and letters."

The Summary report indicates that the Department of Justice (DOJ) did not intend to use that FACT as evidence in support of their claim that Bruce Ivins was the anthrax killer. Instead, they intended to use witnesses who would state that the handwriting on the anthrax documents appeared to be Ivins' disguised handwriting. The lay witness verbal testimony would be inculpatory evidence, helping to show Ivins' guilt.

There seems no way that Mr. Muehlberger could ever testify that it could not be Ivins' disguised handwriting. All Mr. Muehlberger stated was that the handwriting probably wasn't Ivins' handwriting. So, the handwriting finding could not be "exculpatory."

That means the finding falls into the middle ground where a FACT is just a FACT and is neither inculpatory nor exculpatory. It's no different from finding that a bullet removed from a dead man's body was not fired from a revolver owned by the suspect. It doesn't help prove innocence, it just means that the suspect didn't use his own gun.

To be "exculpatory," the handwriting would either have be be shown to belong to someone else OR it would have to be shown that it is not possible that Ivins could have disguised his handwriting in such a way that would prevent handwriting experts from making a match to his handwriting.

Ivins would have had to be very STUPID to use his normal handwriting when writing the anthrax letters and envelopes. Ivins wasn't stupid. He undoubtedly understood that he needed to make absolutely certain the handwriting on the letters and envelopes could not be matched to his handwriting.

In my book "A Crime Unlike Any Other," I show that Ivins probably spent over a year and a half figuring out the best way to prepare a threat letter containing anthrax. He had plenty of time to figure out a way to make certain there would be no match to his handwriting. It's not easy to do, but it's certainly not impossible, either.

The Anthrax Truthers also claim that the FBI/DOJ deliberately misled the public about the handwriting. The Truther posting to my blog wrote:

I maintain what I have always maintained: the Amerithrax Investigative Summary is a PR (public relations) document, first and foremost. If it were a true summary, then the truth about the printing comparisons, the (non-)availability of the lyophilizer in the fall of 2001 would have been in there.

What is the "truth about the printing comparisons" done by the USPIS? The "truth" seems to be that the USPIS experts found FACTS, but they found no evidence that was either inculpatory or exculpatory.

Meanwhile, the Anthrax Truther who sends me emails because I do not allow him to post irrelevant documents, nor do I allow him to post vile and disgusting personal attacks on my blog, wrote this seemingly indecipherable comment in an email he sent on Thursday:

You forgot to mention that this expert report was not only not disclosed in the Amerithrax Investigative Summary-- it was mischaracterized.

The Amerithrax Investigative Summary was claimed to have been INCONCLUSIVE when it in fact was NEGATIVE.  The reason you seem not to know the difference is your continued failure to read the literature on the subject of the Amerithrax forensics.

The USPIS report was "not disclosed" but it was "mischaracterized"? The Amerithrax Summary was claimed to be "inconclusive" but was in fact "negative"?

There's no point in asking "DXer" to explain what he means, since he seems incapable of explaining anything. The word "inconclusive" doesn't appear anywhere within the Amerithrax Summary.

Anthrax Truthers appear to have some bizarre misconception that the Amerithrax Investigation Summary was supposed to be a summary of all the arguments that Anthrax Truthers have started over the years, plus a summary of all the investigative avenues which led nowhere. They seem to feel that because it was simply a summary of the Department of Justice's legal case against Dr. Bruce Ivins, that is unfair.

I disagree with the FBI on how Ivins' managed to write the letters so the handwriting could not be traced back to him, but that disagreement doesn't alter the fact that there is overwhelming evidence that Ivins was the anthrax killer. The FBI/DOJ's evidence is summarized in the Amerithrax Investigative Summary. Mine is summarized in my book.

All the Anthrax Truthers' various arguments in support of their own various theories can all be summarized into one sentence: "I don't care what the facts say, I'm going to believe what I want to believe."

Updates & Changes: Sunday, July 6, 2014, thru Saturday, July 12, 2014

July 10, 2014 (B) - Someone just sent me an interesting article from today's Washington Post titled "Scholarly journal retracts 60 articles, smashes ‘peer review ring’." The "scholarly journal" mentioned in that headline is the Journal of Vibration and Control.

In 2013, the editor of JVC, Ali H. Nayfeh, became aware of people using “fabricated identities” to manipulate an online system called SAGE Track by which scholars review the work of other scholars prior to publication.

Attention focused on a researcher named Peter Chen of the National Pingtung University of Education (NPUE) in Taiwan and “possibly other authors at this institution.”

After a 14-month investigation, JVC determined the ring involved “aliases” and fake e-mail addresses of reviewers — up to 130 of them — in an apparently successful effort to get friendly reviews of submissions and as many articles published as possible by Chen and his friends. “On at least one occasion, the author Peter Chen reviewed his own paper under one of the aliases he created,” according to the SAGE announcement.

The Post article also provides a link to retractionwatch.com, where there's another article on the subject, and the matter is also discussed by readers. Do the people at that site just watch for retractions in scientific publications? In some ways, that's as weird as the "peer review ring." Are there so many scientific journal retractions that a web site can be devoted to the subject? "Tracking retractions as a window into the scientific process" seems to be their slogan.

July 10, 2014 (A) - Yesterday afternoon, I found an envelope from the FBI in my mail box. It was in response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request I submitted on July 1, 2013. I'd totally forgotten about that FOIA request. The envelope contained a DVD with copies of two documents, both of which I've now put on my web site. The first (click HERE to view it) is a single page 302 report documenting the transfer of materials from the FBI to the U.S. Postal Inspection Service's (USPIS) lab in Dulles, Virginia. The second document (click HERE) is a 22-page report which appears to be a summary of the handwriting analyses done by USPIS handwriting expert Robert J. Muehlberger in support of the Amerithrax case as of November 12, 2004. Here's what the first page of the report looks like (click on the image below to view a larger version):

FBI handwriting report - first page - small

Three months ago, this document was the subject of a thread on Lew Weinstein's blog. I wrote about in my (A) comment for April 29, 2014. Mostly the Truthers complained that the FBI report didn't include a comparison of Islamic terrorists' handwriting. In my comment, I mostly wrote about what "DXer" on Lew's blog had to say about me, and how they distorted the facts. I didn't make many comments about the FBI document itself, since I didn't have a copy and they didn't provide a link to their copy.

So, now I suppose I should comment on the USPIS/FBI document itself.

I didn't count the number of line entries on the list, but it must be in the many hundreds. Probably over 98 percent of them show negative findings. Below are a few line entries that show there were also inconclusive ("inc.") findings and "Elim" findings, which I think means that the document was eliminated from the examination for some reason, NOT the writer of the document. All but one of the "Elim" lines says "Lab Report" in the Comments column. The exception (on page 14) has the comment "H/C to Dulles." Presumably, that means the Hard Copy (original) was or is being sent to the USPIS lab in Dulles for further analysis.

You will also note that page 10 shows the USPIS findings for Bruce Ivins' handwriting. The findings were "Neg", i.e., the handwriting on the anthrax documents did not match Bruce Ivins' handwriting.

The only lines on the report where the subject's name is not redacted are the three lines pertaining to Dr. Ivins' handwriting. So, Mr. Muehlberger determined that Bruce Ivins' handwriting did not match the handwriting on the anthrax documents.

That's no surprise to me, of course, since I've been saying for over a decade that the evidence says the anthrax killer used a child to write the anthrax documents. The FBI's position, as I figure it, is that the USPIS report only says the handwriting on the anthrax documents is not a match to Ivins' normal handwriting. It doesn't mean Ivins couldn't have disguised his handwriting the way he evidently disguised his handwriting when sending mysterious letters and packages to his female co-workers.

The Anthrax Truther who calls himself "DXer" claims this report is "exculpatory of Dr. Ivins." Of course, it is no such thing. It's no different from the fact that Ivins didn't leave his fingerprints all over the anthrax letters and envelopes. Ivins would have to have been a fool to use his own handwriting on such letters - or to leave fingerprints - or to lick the envelope flap and leave his DNA. If such evidence isn't found, it is NOT "exculpatory" in any way. All the USPIS report shows is that their handwriting expert did a very large number of handwriting comparisons, and he evidently wasn't able to find a match to the anthrax documents on any of the documents he checked. (Presumably, the "Inc." items were eventually resolved by other types of investigations.)

The report changes nothing. But it's kind of interesting, anyway. And it pointed out to me that I hadn't archived a copy of the Lew Weinstein blog thread about it, nor, of course, had I archived all the silly rants about me in that thread. Thanks FBI.

Added note: After he read the comment above, "DXer" sent me an email which said in part:

You forgot to mention that this expert report was not only not disclosed in the Amerithrax Investigative Summary-- it was mischaracterized.

The Amerithrax Investigative Summary was claimed to have been INCONCLUSIVE when it in fact was NEGATIVE.  The reason you seem not to know the difference is your continued failure to read the literature on the subject of the Amerithrax forensics.

I can't make much sense of that. I think he's saying that the fact that Ivins' handwriting didn't match the handwriting on the anthrax letters should have been mentioned in the Amerithrax Investigative Summary. Why should it have been? The Summary was a summary of the case against Ivins. The handwriting report is neither evidence against nor exculpatory evidence for Ivins. Plus, the Summary says on pages 89 and 90:

In addition, a witness who had received a number of packages and cards over the course of several years in the late 1990s and early 2000s was shown copies of the letters and envelopes used in the anthrax attacks. The witness thought that the handwriting on the envelope addressed to Senator Daschle reminded the witness of Dr. Ivins’s writing. If the witness were to receive a package with that writing on it, the witness would think of Dr. Ivins. The witness noted that, in particular, the style of the block letters with alternating heights stood out, as did the slant of the writing. The witness said that this was the type of writing Dr. Ivins used when he disguised his handwriting as part of a joke. ... Another witness familiar with the handwriting of Dr. Ivins in many contexts said the same thing.

If Mr. Muehlberger had been asked to determine if the handwriting on the anthrax documents might be the disguised handwriting of the person who wrote each one of the handwriting samples, I suspect that the "FINDING" column on the report would have 98% "Inc." (inconclusive) instead to 98% "neg."

July 9, 2014 (B) - Someone just brought to my attention an on-line article from Channel 11 in Atlanta, titled: "CDC to create anthrax research database in Atlanta."

The CDC says it wants to develop the capacity to genotype B. anthracis at CDC. It hopes to determine and analyze the genomic sequence of up to 500 different strains.

"The establishment of a public database is essential in order to get data from around the world, particularly countries that have difficulty sharing strains, and is needed to make rapid/effective strain comparisons," the CDC says.

I guess they don't want to have to rely on Paul Keim and the Northern Arizona University (NAU) to do strain typing. On the other hand, the CDC is looking for a "contractor" to handle the project for them, so maybe they're looking to hire NAU.

July 9, 2014 (A) - After reading my "plans"for today in yesterday's comment, I'm sure everyone is just dying to know what I did this morning. I didn't do anything I planned.

During breakfast, I returned to reading "The Amazing Story of Quantum Mechanics." Then, after breakfast, I decided to look at my archive of "Discussions the Anthrax Truthers Don't Want You To See." I was a little bit surprised to find that Lew Weinstein didn't just delete (at the urging of "DXer") all my comments from his blog, but there are some other complete threads that seem to be missing.

For example, I archived a thread started on July 24, 2011, that had this title:

* A detailed analysis of Laurie Garrett’s new book by DXer … linking Laurie’s writing to posts on this blog

But if you click on that link today, you'll get: "ERROR 404 - Not Found."

After doing a Google search of mentions of "Laurie Garrett" on Mr. Weinstein's blog, however, I discovered that the thread now has a different URL address. It can now be found at this link (the date in the URL is now July 27, instead of July 24):

* A detailed analysis of Laurie Garrett’s new book by DXer … linking Laurie’s writing to posts on this blog

The thread begins with a very long list of things (I lost count at 60) which, according to "DXer," Laurie Garrett failed to mention in her book. A couple examples:

She does not address the weaponized anthrax that Dr. Ivins says he had heard had been shipped to Ft. Detrick and then went missing.

I don’t see that she anywhere addresses that USAMRIID’s John Ezzell, the FBI’s anthrax expert, prior to 9/11, made a dried aerosol using Ames supplied by Bruce Ivins and sent to Johns-Hopkins Applied Physics. She never addresses whether those spores show a silicon signature.

The first posted comment in the original thread was, of course, also by "DXer." It's dated July 27, and it was about ME:

The New York Times today relies on Edward Lake today as the best authority authority [sic] it can find on position that Al Qaeda not being responsible or capable of being responsible–even though Ed has never addressed the documentary cited above or addressed the merits of the argument!

There were only 7 comments in the thread when I archived it, and none were written by me (since this was after I was banned from posting to their blog). There are 21 comments in the current version (one was added this morning, probably after "DXer" read an earlier version of this comment).

At first, I thought the Truthers might have deleted the entire thread just because of the New York Times comment. Then I thought they maybe came to their senses and realized the list of complaints reads like something a ranting lunatic might have written.

But, I was wrong on both counts. It appears something may have been deleted or changed in the text at the top of the thread, but in doing so they (probably unknowingly) changed the date in the URL - which causes people who linked to the original URL to get the error message. (The 7 messages in the original version seem unchanged in the current version.) It was an interesting morning as I figuring this out.

July 8, 2014 - This is totally off topic, but maybe someone will find it interesting.

While peddling a stationary bicycle at the health club this afternoon, I finished reading "One For The Money," the first novel in the Stephanie Plum series written by Janet Evanovich. It's undoubtedly the funniest book I've read in years. A real joy to read.

I became curious about the series when I noticed that the 21st and latest book in the series, "Top Secret Twenty-One" was briefly on the best seller list. I read and liked the preview of the first few pages, so I put the ebook version "on hold" at my library. (I'm currently #451 out of 619 on the waiting list. They have 7 copies.) Then, Sunday afternoon on impulse, I decided to check a local store that sells used books. I bought paperback copies of "One For the Money," "Three To Get Deadly" and "Seven Up" for 89 cents each. (Jeeze! New paperback novels cost $7.99 each!! The last time I paid retail price for a paperback novel, they probably cost about $1.25. Maybe less.)

I had been reading "The Amazing Story of Quantum Mechanics" on my Kindle during breakfast and lunch, and I'm about 25% done (having highlighted maybe a hundred passages). But, it's heavy going, and I wanted to read something lighter as it became more and more clear that my own novel is in major need of some heavy re-thinking. I need to add some more characters at the beginning of the book, and I need to make the characters I already have a lot more interesting. Plus, I need to re-think the ending. Maybe reading some fast-paced novels will help with that by showing me how other writers do things. That's the plan, anyway. Meanwhile, I'm #1 on the waiting list for "From Eternity To Here," which looks really interesting -- far more so than the Quantum Mechanics book. I'll find out tomorrow which book I actually read next. My mood will tell me. It will probably be "Three to Get Deadly."

July 7, 2014 - There was another email from "DXer" in my inbox this morning. He had evidently read my (C) comment from yesterday. The subject of the email was:

Ed, I don't doubt it was my idea to delete your posts -it's just that he could be more thorough

I interpret that to mean that it was "DXer" who asked Lew Weinstein to delete all my posts from Lew's blog. And, Mr. Weinstein agreed. Now it appears "DXer" regrets that he didn't also ask Mr. Weinstein to delete the threads or the text in the thread headings where my name is mentioned. (Yesterday, in my (A) comment, I listed and provided links to seven of those threads.)

"DXer" wrote this in the body of his email, first quoting me from yesterday's (C) comment:

"I take that to mean it was Mr. Weinstein's idea to delete all of my posts."

and then adding his own comment:

You, as they say, have a right to be forgotten.

Ah! So, "DXer" wants to pretend I was never allowed to post to Mr. Weinstein's blog. He's once again acting like an obnoxious 12-year-old. He doesn't say when he asked Mr. Weinstein to do those deletions. Nor does he say why. But, it was most likely done out of pure spite. And it probably happened after I banned him from my interactive blog because he repeatedly attempted to post vile and disgusting personal attacks. His actions pose another question: What about the hundreds of comments by others on Lew's site where people simply mention my name in their posts? If they want me to be "forgotten," shouldn't those messages be deleted, too? And maybe they should put a message at the top of their blog saying that people are forbidden to use my name. Of course, they can't mention my name in that warning. That's a problem. Maybe:

Thou art FORBIDDEN to write the name of the accursed one!

I don't recall exactly why I started taking my own backups of interesting threads on Mr. Weinstein's blog. I think it was because I wanted copies of their bizarre arguments in case they ever decided to delete them and then claim they never wrote such an absurd thing. Looking at the index for my archive, it says the folder contains 317 items from 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012. But that includes some images and multiple copies of some posts (possibly different pages of the same thread). I was banned from Mr. Weinstein's site on March 13, 2011. Mr. Weinstein's explanation was:

I find that I not only disagree with much of what you say, but also that your unremitting and often illogical support of the FBI's unproven assertions is a distraction to continued serious study and analysis of those facts which the FBI has grudgingly released.

Maybe I should rename my archive folder:

Discussions the Anthrax Truthers Don't Want You To See

I find it highly amusing that Anthrax Truthers blatantly do exactly what they accuse the U.S. Goverment of doing: Hiding embarrassing material detrimental to themselves.

July 6, 2014 (C) - "DXer" evidently just read my (A) comment for this morning, since he sent me an email which says in part:

I suspect Lew was just using your sign-in as the means of deletion. I am sure he would also be glad to delete these threads if you want (given that they now do not present your side that a First Grader wrote the letters).

I take that to mean it was Mr. Weinstein's idea to delete all of my posts. Why anyone would think that I'd also want all the threads that mention my name to be deleted is unfathomable. I just used them in my (A) and (B) comments to point out the type of discussions the Anthrax Truthers do not want people to see.

July 6, 2014 (B) - Hmm. I apparently did have some intelligent discussions on Lew Weinstein's blog. For example, in a thread titled "55 flasks of anthrax prep ... now where can I hide these?" I had a fairly long, fascinating discussion with "BugMaster." The thread now shows only 72 posts, with "BugMaster" talking to herself in post after post. My archived copy of that thread shows 109 posts, with "BugMaster" and I discussing interesting topics for nearly a week, from Aug. 3, 2009 through Aug. 9, 2009. Since the Anthrax Truthers now apparently consider that discussion to be forbidden viewing, it's no longer available to people on the Internet. What a shame.

July 6, 2014 (A) - On Thursday, I was arguing with a conspiracy theorist on my interactive blog when the conspiracy theorist wrote a comment that included this:

maybe it's the posting 'style' that got [Ed Lake] into persona-non-grata status at Lew Weinstein's blog etc.

I replied,

My "posting style" had nothing to do with me getting banned from Lew Weinstein's blog. It was 100% the result of me presenting facts that they did not want to discuss. If you disagree, look at my posts to Lew's site.

After writing that response, I decided to do a Google search for "Ed Lake" on Lew Weinstein's blog to check the kind of things I wrote there. I wanted to show how I would discuss things rationally and logically, and the conspiracy theorists would just present their arguments as if they were indisputable. The Google search found 344 mentions of my name. But none seemed to be comments I wrote on that blog. Checking the links, I was surprised to discover that all my posts to Lew Weinstein's blog have been deleted.

There are still a bunch of threads where my name was mentioned in the titles of the threads and in the texts written (presumably) by Lew Weinstein:

Ed Lake believes a child wrote the anthrax letters; which, if true, means the FBI was wrong in identifying Dr. Bruce Ivins as the sole perpetrator

Ed Lake does not distinguish assertions from evidence … he does not understand the grand jury process … nor does he believe that every person is innocent until PROVEN guilty

Ed Lake’s credentials

Ed Lake disagrees with Jeff Adamovicz and Stuart Jacobsen

Ed Lake’s May 17, 2009 blog included comments on this CASE CLOSED blog

Ike Solem & Ed Lake argue about 6 questions the FBI either has or has not answered

photocopy toner at USAMRIID … a fascinating interchange between Ed Lake and DXer … DXer concludes: There is relevant admissible evidence and that evidence, being withheld by the FBI, shows that there is no basis for the DOJ’s innuendo that the USAMRIID photocopiers were used. There has been a travesty at justice.

But none of these threads currently contain any posted comments from me, except for an instance where Mr. Weinstein included copies of posts from a debate between "DXer" and I in the text Mr. Weinstein wrote to start a thread. He called it "a fascinating interchange between Ed Lake and DXer." Click the last link above to view that thread. Here are a few of the comments as presented by Mr. Weinstein:

Ed writes: We don’t know that the photocopier examined by the FBI was the same photocopier that was there in September and October of 2010.” DXer responds: The way one would test the photocopy toner is to compare the documents copied during the Fall 2001 to the anthrax letters. Ed, have you read the literature relating to photocopy toner examination?

******

Ed writes: We don’t know that cleaning or replacing parts of the photocopier couldn’t have made the photocopier different from the way it was September and October of 2001.” DXer responds: Ed apparently has not read the literature.

******

Ed writes: Ivins could have used some other photocopier. The one at AMI wasn’t the only photocopier in the entire world, nor the only photocopier within a hundred miles. Therefore, Ivins could have used another photocopier.” DXer responds: Ah, yes, the acknowledgement that there is no evidence he used the photocopier — instead just the unsupported assertion he did. See also lyophilizer and a dozen other issues where the same approach is used.

******

Ed writes: “The fact that it couldn’t be proven that Ivins used the photocopier at Ft. Detrick proves absolutely nothing in the Ivins case.” DXer responds: Ah, but it does. You agreed we would consider the evidence against Dr. Ivins and on the photocopy issue, you agree that there is none to support the claim he is photocopied the letters.

******

If you look through the thread for actual posts from me, you'll see only the other sides of the discussions I was in. My comments have all been deleted.

Why would they delete all of my comments from Lew Weinstein's blog? Was it out of some kind of petty spite? Were they concerned that I had posted good arguments, and all they had posted was nonsense? Is it some kind of "payback" because "DXer" is no longer allowed to post to my blog after he resorted to posting vile and disgusting personal attacks that I deleted from the blog?

I don't see any explanation for their actions anywhere. I don't know when they did it. I didn't even know they'd done it until I did the search on Friday. To confirm that they had actually deleted all my posts, I checked my archives. (My archive of threads from Lew Weinstein's blog isn't even in my computer anymore. It's on the portable trillion-byte hard-drive I only use for backups.) Checking the archive, I found I'd saved that last thread on Feb. 13, 2011.

Looking at my copy, I see it has some VERY interesting posts. As usual, it's me presenting evidence and them saying they don't believe it, while also attacking me personally. The most interesting exchange was between me and the conspiracy theorist who was posting to MY blog last week and thereby brought the issue to my attention.

While my responses on Lew's blog have been deleted, the conspiracy theorist's posts are still there. Click HERE to view them. In one post, the conspiracy theorist made nine "points" in a critique of my hypothesis that a child was used to write the anthrax documents. I responded to each one of them. For purposes of illustration, here are just the first four "points" he made, along with my responses in italics (notice that all of his "points" are statements of beliefs, not topics or points for discussion):

1) in keeping with the original recipe of ‘Brother Jonathan’, you incorrectly use the term ‘uncial’. A trifle but the first tipoff that actual ‘facts’ play little role in your analysis.

That’s a meaningless comment without further explanation of what you mean. And it neither proves nor disproves anything.

2) the hypothesis PRESUPPOSES a uniformity of instruction throughout the United States at the first grade level that simply does not exist. (That included the assertion that ‘school begins in September’ (in my state it begins in August).

No, it doesn’t. It just uses general information about what happens in kindergarten and first grade.

3) the ‘distinction’ between a ‘public school’ rendering of a capital R and a Catholic school rendering of a capital R doesn’t jibe with my experience (all 8 years of grammar school in a Catholic school) and seems to be based EXCLUSIVELY on Mister Lake comparing notes with his brother-in-law. Hardly a representative sample.

It’s the result of a LOT of research. I just used my brother in law as an example. I could use the USAMRIID scientist the FBI interviewed as another example. So, your experience is irrelevant.

4) Your points 3) and 4) “Learning to write smaller” and “Learning when to capitalize and when not to capitalize” posit an ABSURD rate of learning by a 6 or 7 year old; no child is going to ‘improve’ or internalize those things in 3 lousy weeks! (which would be, at most 15 class days).

In your opinion. I reality, in kindergarten they use unlined paper. In first grade, they use lined paper. Children learn to write smaller very quickly. They already have the ability, they just weren’t asked to do it. So, there really isn’t very much learning that needs to take place.

Since conspiracy theorists can only argue, they cannot discuss, the conspiracy theorist did not come back with further explanations to clarify his points. He just argued another and different point later in the day. My response, of course, has been deleted. Here's a summary of that exchange, again with my comments in italics:

Said another (high falutin’) way: the pragmatics of the social situation make using a child a high-risk stratagem. And an unnecessary one: short term one can fake certain elements of one’s printing/handwriting.

We have a different point of view about how to look at evidence. From my point of view, the FACTS say that a child wrote the letters. From your point of view, that’s not the way an intelligent adult would PLAN things.

I’m talking about what the facts say in an actual crime.
You’re talking about the planning of a theoretical crime.

When the facts say that a child wrote the letters, the questions become: How did Ivins manage to keep the kid quiet? Why did Ivins do things that way?

You don’t say: I don’t believe it because that’s not the way I would do things, nor is it the way I would expect anyone else to do things. That is ignoring what the facts say and going with your beliefs, instead.

And that was the end of it. There was NO discussion, of course. It was just a conspiracy theorist presenting his argument, me responding in hopes of having a discussion so the issue could be mutually resolved, and the conspiracy theorist simply ignoring my response. Instead of discussing my excellently phrased response, the conspiracy theorist merely ended the exchange. He presumably continued to believe what he wanted to believe, and nothing I said or wrote made any difference whatsoever.

The examples above are only a small part of a great number of interesting things written in that thread and in other threads. But, now the threads only show one side of the arguments - the side of the conspiracy theorists. And I'm probably the only person who has both sides of the arguments, since conspiracy theorists are clearly not interested in both sides of any arguments.

This appears to mean that when they can't discuss evidence or win an argument, they'll just try changing history so they can pretend no one ever disputed what they believe.

That would be hilarious -- if it weren't so childish and creepy.

All prior Thoughts and Comments are also available.
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.

References:

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"
HistoryCommons.org - 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.

2009