Replies

"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.

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.