Anthrax Mailings: Connecting the Dots [to al-Qaeda]

PHXnews.com ^ | 18 Jan. 2004 | Ross E. Getman

[jpl]

Muslims did not do it.
...
Muslims did not do it.
...
Muslims did not do it.
...
Muslims did not do it.

You know, I've wondered why he's so adamant about it. He doesn't strike me as your typical hard left-winger, though it might be possible that he is. I suspect that the answer is that he desperately wants to be in the spotlight, and his web page has certainly gotten him some attention; he's actually been interviewed and prominently mentioned in magazines.

And of course it goes without saying that you don't get any attention from the "mainstream" media by stating what is obvious to most people: that it was most likely Muslim terrorists (clue: read the letters). You get attention by saying that it was an angry white dude, because this is exactly what the media wants to hear and what they've been rooting for all along.

[TrebleRebel]

I don't think the ESD journal says that weaponized anthrax sould be free of static electricity at all - it just repeats what the Wall Street Journal says. It adds that JOSTLING the envelope would create charge on the spores - which is true. If the envelope were shaken up and down that would cause the spores to rub against one another and the inside of the envelope - potentially creating charging, but likely not much charging. The act of passing through the sorting machine would not in itself creat charging - since passing through the sorting machine would not cause the spores to move against each other or the envelope.

I think you are very confused and muddled about the question of charge, aren't you?

I think Patrick is also confused about what he says - in fact he makes statements that are the complete opposite here:

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/special/terror/front/1178295

First he says:

"To make the mailed spores suitable for military weapons, the electrical charge would have to be removed."

Then he says:

"The electrical charge helps make the spore become airborne at the slightest puff of air."

So he's saying that charged powders make better aerosols, right?


Also I thought you said Patrick said there was no silica. According to a quote here, he won't talk about silica:

"He said the spores would bear chemical traces of the material used in the wetting compound. Asked about a report that the spores in the senators' offices bore traces of silica, a drying agent, Patrick said: "I am not going to discuss silica, either the presence or the absence of it."

[TrebleRebel]

So you are saying the Milwaukee guy is NOT your suspect? That's not what they quoted you as saying in the LA times. How could they get that so wrong? By the way, I am not, and never have been Ross Getman.

Who is your suspect then? A person that you don't have a shred of real evidence against - just your "gut feeling"? How does that make you any different than Barbara Hatch Rosenberg? BHR suspected Hatfill on her gut feeling. How are you any different?

[EdLake]

Then he says:

"The electrical charge helps make the spore become airborne at the slightest puff of air."

I think if you read that article again you'll see that William Patrick said no such thing. The writer of the article wrote that. You add quotes, but the writer did not. It's the AP writer's misinterpretation of what was said. It's a lot of people's misinterpretation and results from the comments about how the spores seemed to jump off the microscope slides, etc.

Presumably, that's also where you got your misinterpretation from.

The fact that spores were difficult to control on a microscope slide has nothing to do with how well it floats in the air.

Ed

www.anthraxinvestigation.com

[TrebleRebel]

So the quotes that you want to be true are correct and the quotes that I give were misinterpreted by the author - have I got that right?

[EdLake]

So you are saying the Milwaukee guy is NOT your suspect? That's not what they quoted you as saying in the LA times. How could they get that so wrong?

They got it wrong the same way you got it wrong. Deliberately.

The LA Times article didn't get anything right. They indicated that my Fake Detective site is the anthrax site which is visited by the FBI, etc. On their wire-service version they even give the URL for my Fake Detective site and said that's my anthrax site.

Do you like what the LA Times said about you?

I've mentioned the Milwaukee guy as being a possible source for the anthrax, but I've said over and over that he has a PERFECT ALIBI for the time of the mailings. I do NOT believe he's the mailer.

Who is your suspect then? A person that you don't have a shred of real evidence against - just your "gut feeling"? How does that make you any different than Barbara Hatch Rosenberg? BHR suspected Hatfill on her gut feeling. How are you any different?

Who says I don't have a shred of evidence? The fact that I won't tell people who I suspect or what evidence I have is what separates me from Barbara Hatch Rosenberg. My "person of interest" has suffered no effects from the fact that I find him to be of interest. And the reason he has suffered no effects is because I keep what I know between me and the FBI. And he was of interest to the FBI long before I ever heard of him.

Ed

www.anthraxinvestigation.com

[EdLake]

So the quotes that you want to be true are correct and the quotes that I give were misinterpreted by the author - have I got that right?

No. The statement you attribute to William Patrick is clearly not his statement. It's not written as such. And as you point out, it contradicts what he's said elsewhere.

Is that really so difficult for you to understand?

Ed

[EdLake]

And he was of interest to the FBI long before I ever heard of him.

I know this from what I've read and from the fact that the FBI stated to Time Magazine that I've told them nothing about the case that they didn't already know.

Ed

[EdLake]

By the way, I am not, and never have been Ross Getman.

My apologies to you and to Mr. Getman. It's sometimes hard to tell one person from another when you say exactly the same things.

This is my last message for today. Signing off.

Ed

www.anthraxinvestigation.com

[TrebleRebel]

[TrebleRebel]

It's sometimes hard to tell one person from another when you say exactly the same things.

No comment, Sherlock.

By the way, Ed, thanks for repeatedly posting the link to your website. Have you found a publisher for your book yet? You probably will soon, and it shouldn't be that hard -- Matsumoto never has problems finding publishers.

[EdLake]

By the way, Ed, thanks for repeatedly posting the link to your website.

Because of the snowstorm yesterday, I had the time to look up how to post "hot" links. So, I practiced a bit. ;-)

Have you found a publisher for your book yet? You probably will soon, and it shouldn't be that hard -- Matsumoto never has problems finding publishers.

Matsumoto has the right credentials and the right contacts. Getting a book published is all about good credentials and good contacts. I have neither.

If you don't have the right credentials, you are just another guy who thinks he can write a book. Publishers get hundreds of letters each week from such people. They even have terms for it. The letters come in "over the transom", meaning they come in without a good referral. And because of that, they go onto the "slush pile", which is the stack of letters someone will read when they get the time.

Yesterday I received a good example of what happens when a person who doesn't have a referral sends out a query letter. It's HERE.

Note that it was returned unopened. Note that they knew what was in the letter without opening it. Note that they have a rubber stamp to tell people how to properly send such letters.

Ed

[TrebleRebel]

"I do NOT believe he's the mailer."

Your word games are quite transparent - clearly you believe this unfortunate man is the refiner, and you are trying to parse your words. On the face of it, you are worse than Barbara Hatch Rosenberg. At least BHR never publicly gave Hatfill's name - it was an entirely private matter between herself and the FBI, albeit ridiculous since there is not a shred of evidence against Hatfill. But you are on record in the LA Times as stating that your suspect is the Milwaukee man - and there is not a shred of evidence against him - NONE! Don't try to re-parse your statements - it's clear that you believe he refined the anthrax. In order for you to keep this farce alive, you have to pretend there was no silica in the anthrax - when all the experts who had access to ALL of the evidence have stated plainly and on the record, giving their names, that silica WAS there. But in order for you to keep your campaign going against the Milwaukee man you have to pretend that it wasn't a sophisticated product. I think everybody on this forum is now on to you.

[EdLake]

So the quotes that you want to be true are correct and the quotes that I give were misinterpreted by the author - have I got that right?

For what it's worth, I reread the version of the AP article I have on my site and put some comments about it on my site HERE.

I sum things up this way:

One fact seems evident in all the articles: Spores in a biological weapon should not have an electrostatic charge. The unanswered questions are about why that is true.

Ed

www.anthraxinvestigation.com

[TrebleRebel]

"One fact seems evident in all the articles: Spores in a biological weapon should not have an electrostatic charge."

With the exception of the General Accounting Office article - which states that a sophisticated anthrax bioweapon would carry a whopping electrostatic charge. Since this was no doubt written by a US biodefense specialist, it is the closet thing we have to official US position. It also makes a lot of sense, by the way. Any aerosol specialist will tell you that charged powders make excellent aerosols if they carry a net-like-charge.

Looks like you're wrong again - bet you don't publish the GAO article on your website - since it contradicts your theory.

[TrebleRebel]

I also just noticed that Gary Matsumoto's Scince article states that the most sophisticated bioweapons carry a net-like-charge. That should be considered the final word. This article was apparently passed by half-a-dozen exeprts to check for scientific accuracy.

Why don't you send a letter to Science - think they would pubish it?

The point is that it really doesn't matter what you think - the world has now accepted that anthrax carries a charge if it's a sophisticated product.

[EdLake]

Your word games are quite transparent - clearly you believe this unfortunate man is the refiner

Actually, I don't think he refiner, either. If you looked at my site at all you would see that I constantly mention two people, and I even have "profiles" for both of them: The "supplier" and the "refiner/mailer". I just abbreviated the term "refiner/mailer" down to "mailer" on this forum for no particular reason. I won't do that again.

Plus, I never said I had any evidence against him. My interest in him is because of the FBI's interest in him - and because of his perfect alibi. I've never mentioned his name anywhere. I've never spoken to the FBI about him.

And I don't recall ever saying there was no silica in the Daschle anthrax. It's fully evident that there was silica or silicon in the anthrax somewhere. The question is whether or not the spores were COATED with silica.

The best experts who have seen the Daschle anthrax - Patrick, Alibek, Meselson - say the spores were NOT coated with anything.

Gary Matsumoto's nonsensical article in Science Magazine uses Richard Spertzel as an "expert". And Spertzel admits he not only doesn't know how the anthrax was made, he says he would require a staff of scientists and a year to figure it out. He merely speculates that the spores were coated with silica, and Matsumoto evidently interpreted that speculation as if it were fact.

Ed

www.anthraxinvestigation.com

[TrebleRebel]

But what about all the other experts who said the silica was a key component? That's what they said - and the only way silica can be of any use is as a coating. Are you saying silica can be a key component and NOT be a coating?

Do you, once again, know lots more about this than all the experts? You've already said the CDC doctors made an error - and that they are all wrong and you are right on the letter that infected Stevens and Blanco.

Are you also saying that all the analytical experts at AFIP and Detrick have got it all wrong, and that Ed Lake, internet porn detective, has it right?

So Ed Lake knows more about this than all the doctors at the CDC, all the scientists at AFIP and Detrick, all the scientists who peer-reviwed the Science article and the all the layers of editors who are professional scientists at Science magazine?

Does that just about sum it up?

[EdLake]

Looks like you're wrong again - bet you don't publish the GAO article on your website - since it contradicts your theory.

Which GAO article is that? I have a GAO article near the very top of my reference section. It's THIS ONE. It's the last reference in the general references at the very beginning before I go into references by date.

If you are talking about a different one, give me the URL and I'll add it to my site.

Ed

www.anthraxinvestigation.com