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

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

[TrebleRebel]

And I'm still waiting to hear your evidence of where Patrick said there was no silica coating. Where did you pull that one out of? Telling more porky pies and hoping nobody will question it?

[Ciexyz]

Food for thought.

[TrebleRebel]

"Perhaps they changed their mind and decided that "fatigue" was not sufficient to be officially the onset of a disease."

The classic early symptoms of inhlational anthrax are fatigue for a few days, followed sometimes by a respite, but then the patient gets REALLY sick and has to be hospitalized.

ALL the EVIDENCE clearly points to the fact that Blanco was exposed to anthrax BEFORE the Septemebr 25 letter was opened. This is the conclsion of the CDC, and it a correct conclusion.

You have to twist this around because you desperately don't want the September 19 letter to be an anthrax letter.

Your whole screwball theory is perverted and twisted to demonstrate that Muslims could not possibly have sent the anthrax.

Most other people look at ALL the FACTS and draw INTELLIGENT conclusions based on these FACTS.

[txhurl]

Me, neither. I've never called for a zot, never even hit the abuse button.

Evidently he had other transgressions that did him in.

Thanks, sanchito, for the laugh... it DOES look like what you say, but that's not what happened.

[bvw]

Van der Waals's dissertation had some flaws in it -- his equations work, but that may be just spaghetti against the wall. At least that's what my electro-magnetism professor used to say. Not the spagghetti -- that's my paraphrase . Just that the lucky results were pulled like a rabbit from a hat of a bad theoretical development.

[TrebleRebel]

Ed, I just received a freepmail from someone I trust who has informed me that someone lobbied the guy who oversees the UCLA website, and that this person persuaded the UCLA webmaster to change Blanco's onset date to Sep 30.

I'm told that this person was you!

And yet you write above:
"....but the CDC uses Sept. 30, which UCLA considers "most likely"."


However, what you don't tell us is that it was YOU who "considers this date" "most likely".!!!!

How far are you willing to go to twist and pervert this entire investigation to suit your own needs???

You have now been caught in a gross act of misinformation - and not for the first time. You lobbied to get the date changed, and then you come on here and try to tell us that UCLA did this on their on volition! That is outrageous, and people really need to now question the ENTIRE content of you website. How many other pieces of misinformation are there - probably plenty!

[EdLake]

ALL the EVIDENCE clearly points to the fact that Blanco was exposed to anthrax BEFORE the Septemebr 25 letter was opened. This is the conclsion of the CDC, and it a correct conclusion.

Most other people look at ALL the FACTS and draw INTELLIGENT conclusions based on these FACTS.

Against my own better judgement, I'm responding one last time to you.

You apparently cannot read. In message #91 I very clearly stated:

Ernest Blanco evidently inhaled anthrax spores when he dumped the mail bag containing the anthrax letter onto a sorting table, then checked the bag to make certain it was empty, and then folded the bag so it could be returned to the post office. That probably happened on Friday, September 21, 2001, or Monday, September 24.

I don't know how more clearly I can say that Ernesto Blanco was exposed before the letter was opened. So were the postal workers who handled that unopened letter and other unopened letters.

What's so difficult to understand about that?

The conclusion of the CDC is that they have no idea when Ernesto Blanco was exposed. You yourself pointed that out when, in message #136, you posted a link to the obsolete CDC chart HERE and HERE. Can't you see the big question mark indicating that they do not know how long the incubation period lasted? Moreover, that CDC chart was last reviewed on December 20, 2001 and is therefore very obviously obsolete.

The current and up-to-date information about Ernesto Blanco is HERE. It was last reviewed January 12, 2004. It says Blanco's onset date was September 28, and that's the date I use. So, the September 24 onset date you said in message #136 that you use is based upon obsolete information.

So, as you say, "Most other people look at ALL the FACTS and draw INTELLIGENT conclusions based on these FACTS." Maybe it's time for you to start doing that instead of just ranting like some snotty 14-year-old.

Have a nice day.

Ed

www.anthraxinvestigation.com

[EdLake]

Ed, I just received a freepmail from someone I trust who has informed me that someone lobbied the guy who oversees the UCLA website, and that this person persuaded the UCLA webmaster to change Blanco's onset date to Sep 30.

Hmmm. So I have to respond again to show that you cannot read. On the UCLA site, Ernesto Blanco's onset date is given as September 28, which is the date I've stated again and again I use.

I did not "lobby" to have Ernesto Blanco's onset date changed. I don't recall ever discussing Ernesto Blanco's onset date with UCLA. We discussed Bob Stevens' onset date, which they did change to September 30. But they didn't change it because I lobbied them. They changed it to agree with the CDC's onset date for Stevens. The official CDC date for Stevens is HERE and is September 30.

You really do need to learn how to read.

Ed

www.anthraxinvestigation.com

[TrebleRebel]

"Can't you see the big question mark indicating that they do not know how long the incubation period lasted?"

Listen to me you snotty old man - I WASN'T TALKING ABOUT INCUBATION PERIODS! I never was - it was YOU that brought that up!

I was talking about WHEN he got sick - in other words his ONSET date!

As usual, you are twisting my words. My words were PERFECTLY CLEAR.

You are NOT looking at ALL the FACTS. You really need to look at ALL the FACTS. Then things might make MORE sense to YOU. Until you FINALLY decide to DO that, you will NEVER understand this CASE, and your website will CONTINUE to be TOTAL CRAP!

[TrebleRebel]

You LOBBIED them to change BOTH dates - I even heard that you BOASTED about how you persuaded them to change the dates. Of course, that you made very happy, since it moved BOTH dates up, further away from the JLo letter whuch is the letter that apparently terrifies you.

When you look at ALL the FACTS, you will see that a quite different picture emerges, one in which Stevens and Balanco were infected by the September 19 letter.

But since you refuse to look at ALL the FACTS, you will never see this.

[TrebleRebel]

You continue to make outrageous statements about "obselete" dates - which is something you apparently make up simply to suit your own needs.

The CDC officially concluded that Bob Stevens got sick from the September 19 JLo letter. There is nothing "obselete" about that. It must make you squirm and terrify you, but it's there in black and white. Live with it!

[EdLake]

I WASN'T TALKING ABOUT INCUBATION PERIODS!

Hmmm. You not only cannot read, you evidently don't even understand what you are talking about.

You stated: "ALL the EVIDENCE clearly points to the fact that Blanco was exposed to anthrax BEFORE the Septemebr 25 letter was opened." The date he was exposed would be his exposure date. Understand. And the onset date would be the date he first showed symptoms. That would be - according the the CDC's current data - September 28, not the obsolete September 24 date you stated that you use.

You really seem like you are getting upset. Take a pill. Lie down. Maybe it will help you think more clearly. You really seem to be getting everything confused - particularly when you insist on using obsolete information.

Ed

www.anthraxinvestigation.com

[TrebleRebel]

How dumb can you be? It doesn't take a genius to work out that if Blanco got sick BEFORE the September 25 letter was opened, that it WASN'T the September 25 that INFECTED him!

If he started getting fatigue on September 24 that means he was exposed BEFORE September 24. Are you following this, or is too complex for you?

It means that he was very likely exposed 4-5 days BEFORE this - which means he was exposed by the September 19 letter. Duh!

You really need to look at ALL the FACTS - then things will BECOME CLEAR to you.

[EdLake]

You LOBBIED them to change BOTH dates

I have every e-mail I ever exchanged with UCLA. So, tell me when I did this, and I'll check it out.

I do not recall ever mentioning Ernesto Blanco to UCLA. But I find it very amusing that you think I lobbied UCLA to change the date to agree with the CDC's date, when you argued in message #140 that "UCLA have NOTHING WHATSOVER to do with the official medical investigation" and that you use the CDC's date. You really are confused.

Ed

www.anthraxinvestigation.com

[TrebleRebel]

And I'm STILL WAITINMG - to see your "evidence" that Patrick said there was no silica coating. Where is it, Ed?

Or is that YET ANOTHER of your fabricated "facts"?

[EdLake]

The CDC officially concluded that Bob Stevens got sick from the September 19 JLo letter.

If the CDC "officially concluded" such nonsense, they were mistaken. The evidence clearly shows that the J-Lo letter did NOT contain anthrax.

Ed

www.anthraxinvestigation.com

[TrebleRebel]

I say the CDC date is September 24. That's when Blanco got sick. The Septemebr 24 date is CLEARLY the correct date. The September 28 is CLEARLY wrong. ALL the EVIDENCE points to the fact that September 24 is the date that Stevens got sick.

You say the CDC date is September 28, and you use the UCLA webpage to somehow justify that, when in fact it was you who persauded UCLA to write that.

I admit that the CDC do give September 28 in another paper, but this date is not helpful. We need to know the FIRST signs of symptoms, so we can understand when he was EXPOSED.

The FIRST signs of symptoms were September 24 - and that's why Blanco was infected by the September 19 letter.

It's really very simple - you are just deliberately trying to confuse things, because you can't handle the Septemebr 19 letter.

You really ought to look at ALL the FACTS.

[TrebleRebel]

If you look at ALL the FACTS, it is obvious to anyone that the September 19 letter CONTAINED anthrax.

You really ought to TRY to LOOK at ALL the FACTS.

It is the OFFICIAL conclusion of the CDC - Robert Stevens died from a primary aerosol of anthrax from the JLO letter he held close to his face on September 19.

When you look at ALL the EVIDENCE and ALL the FACTS this is the inescapable conclusion.

[EdLake]

How dumb can you be? It doesn't take a genius to work out that if Blanco got sick BEFORE the September 25 letter was opened, that it WASN'T the September 25 that INFECTED him!

Really? What's your reasoning? Are you totally unware of all the postal employees who got anthrax from unopened anthrax letters?

Whether it was the J-Lo letter or the real anthrax letter, Blanco still would have had to get anthrax from an unopened letter. His job was to deliver unopened letters. The J-Lo letter was delivered unopened. And Stephanie Dailey opened the real anthrax letter.

The evidence indicates that Ernesto Blanco inhaled anthrax spores from either the letter or from the mail bag that contained the letter. Probably on Friday, September 21, 2001. He delivered the unopened letter to Stephanie Dailey's desk, where it remained until she returned from vacation and opened it on September 25.

Don't you check facts at all?

Ed

www.anthraxinvestigation.com

[TrebleRebel]

By the way, I'm STILL WAITING for your evidence on the Patrick "no silica" question.

What's wrong Ed? Caught in another little transgression that you can't get out of?