Posted on 05/04/2007 3:18:46 PM PDT by TrebleRebel
Yes, I think this thread has reached its end. It certainly demonstrates that there can be no meeting of the minds when one person is discussing facts and the other is discussing beliefs. But it's always interesting to see how almost any fact can be twisted to fit a belief, and if the result is totally ridiculous, it doesn't matter. It just matters that the belief be supported.
I keep hoping someone will lose control and say very clearly, "I do not care what the facts say, I'm going to believe what I want to believe!"
I have to admit, I'm a huge fan of the tiled biohazard logo JPEG that makes up the background of the page myself.
And I do sincerely hope that "Analyzing the Anthrax Attacks: the Next Three Years" sells a little better than the first three years did!
Thanks, but there won't be any "Analyzing the Anthrax Attacks: the Next Three Years." It's either going to be something like "Analyzing the Anthrax Attacks: How the Killer was Finally Identified" or there will be no new book.
All the facts which have come to light in the past two years have just confirmed what was written in my book about the first three years. There's no need for a new book about that.
Ed, your webpage has many hundreds of useful sources on the Amerithrax investigation. Thank you for your diligence in uploading sources.
In a press conference in October 2005 about the status of Amerithrax, Director Mueller said that the FBI was pursuing all domestic and international leads. As I recall, he said “remember Oklahoma City. Remember 9/11.” He declined to say if they had a suspect. That year, FBI agents visited Asia, Africa and Afghanistan in the course of the Amerithrax investigation.
Putting aside your interpretation of “remember Oklahoma City. Remember 9/11,” do you have a link to the video of the press conference — so that your many readers can learn the FBI’s official position ... and the closest thing to an offical statement on the course of the investigation and the FBI’s understanding of the motive of the crime?
Why are Mueller’s remarks consistent with your posited motive of sounding an alarm —so as to increase biodefense spending? Why don’t the remarks instead point to a hatred of US policy,
The brilliance of Director Mueller’s hint is that it foreshadows both foreign and US-bred aspects of the correct solution to the Amerithrax mystery.
If you don’t currently link the press conference giving the FBI’s official position on the status of the investigation, will you link it if I find one and provide it?
And for bonus points: why don’t you link it?
Here is a link to part of the briefing by the FBI/ Director Mueller on the status of Amerithrax. (It was in response to a Washington Post article that there hadn’t been much progress made and that a report had been compiled on its status).
He would have told Senator Leahy and Senator Grassley the same thing recently in the briefing that is the subject of this thread.
What Director Mueller has said on the record is of course the best guide as to the FBI’s thinking as to the Amerithrax crime.
I’ll look for a fuller video.
Please add this to your webiste, Mr.Lake if you don’t already have this or the fuller video. Thx.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/02/22/national/main1338657.shtml
Ed, you said you wanted ne to consider the facts underlying your theory. The main aspects of your theory is that a Central NJ microbiologist divorcee’s 1st grader wrote the letters and that the perp intended to “sound an alarm.”
You explained his theory in January 2001 on alt.conspiracy.
Ed writes:
“Have you looked at the web site of the Federation of American
Scientists? Barbara Rosenberg says almost the same thing that I
say. Except she believes that the American scientist works in the
Washington D.C. area. The FAS site is here: “
So it is just a statement of fact — not accusation — that you viewed your theory as almost the same as the theory urged by Dr. Rosenberg in her December 2002 website. Although it was not an official FAS position, the FAS could fill a bus with the number of Nobel laureates it has and so you were in fine company.
You say she said “almost the same thing” with the difference that her person worked in the Washington, D.C. area.” As of January 2002, your person, you suggested , lived “either in New York City or within commuting distance.” You then changed it to refer to Central New Jersey. Perhaps the imagined perpetrator moved to near Princeton, the place of mailng, or perhaps you were just unaware initially where he had lived at the time of mailing.
BHR’s theorized motive is fine, Ed — “sound the alarm etc.” — as is yours. So there is no need for you to get defensive.
You explained the origin of your child theory in mid-December 2001 in the summary changes to your webpages:
“December 9, 2001: Richard M. Smith provided me with a link (now expired) to a page that provided comments by Senator Daschle that the government now (more or less) officially thinks that the anthrax terrorist is a former member of the US military. In addition, I was provided with a link that says that the FBI is fully aware that some or all of the letters are photocopies. Plus, a comment by “Debby” on the alt.true-crime newsgroup that the anthrax terrorist’s ex-wife might read supermarket tabloids caused me realize that the anthrax letters could actually have been written by a small child - just as they appear. It’s a big stretch in speculation, but the letters could have been written by a child belonging to the terrorist, and the child may also have addressed the envelopes. I added speculation about that to the page. “
You also announced the particulars of the “profile” of the person you suspected to newsgroups.
You wrote:
“Dec 17 2001, 11:34 am
The FBI has developed a profile of the anthrax terrorist, but
they are playing it safe out of fear of being ridiculed if they
speculate too much. I have no such fear. I love to speculate.
From my web page at http://extra.newsguy.com/~detect/anthrax.html
here is my profile of the anthrax terrorist:
1. He’s between ages 30 and 60. [later changed to in his 40s]
2. He formerly worked for the US military in a biological
weapons program.
3. He currently works in the Health Industry.
4. He lives in New York City or within commuting distance of
NYC. [later changed to living in Central NJ]
5. He traveled to Indianapolis, Indiana, sometime prior to Sept.
11, 2001. [later omitted, I believe]
6. He drove to Trenton, New Jersey, on Sept. 18 and on October
9, 2001.
7. He reads the New York Post.
8. He probably watches Tom Brokaw for his evening news.
9. He probably subscribes to cable.
10. He probably watches Bill O’Reilly on the Fox News Channel.
11. He lives alone.
12. He finds it difficult to get along with others and may have
a tendency to say things like “I keep telling them but the just
don’t listen!” or “I just don’t understand how people can think
that way!”
13. He may read supermarket tabloids, but more likely he
considers them trash and ridicules the people who read such
things because they are reading nonsense while ignoring what is
“real”. It’s also very possible that it’s his ex-wife who reads
the tabloids.
14. He is probably American born and an American citizen. But
if he is originally from another country, it would be a country
where English is not the primary language nor the alphabet, but
which has more experience with terrorism.
15. He may have some connection to the publication of a
newsletter that expresses his beliefs.
16. He votes Republican.
17. He is probably divorced as a result of the stress of losing
his job with the military.
18. He has a small child and has visitation rights with the
child.
19. He used his child to address the envelopes and to write the
letters.
20. The child is home schooled.
All the details behind this profile are on my web page at
http://extra.newsguy.com/~detect/anthrax.html
Ed “
You explained in another post in groups:
“The BTWC information is just another piece in a long series of pieces that
makes it a near certainty that an American scientist was behind the
anthrax attacks. And on my web site there is probably enough information
to identify him - if the right person were to read it. That “right
person” would have to be someone who knows the terrorist but who never
actually looked at what information is available about the terrorist.
Ed”
When I went to turn to consider your theory at his urging this past week on Free Republic, you got extremely upset. But IMO you only find it threatening that I do not credit that someone would ask a 1st grader living with his ex-wife to write a terrorist threat letter. I don’t know ex-wives, but I know 1st graders. They can’t keep a secret, especially from their mom. So the theory was always silly from the start.
So you don’t really want people — or at least me — to consider your self-described speculation. You just wants to market your self-described speculation as what you now describe as FACT (capitals are yours) for a half decade . Meanwhile, your stated purpose is to have people who know the scientist “actually look[] at what information is available about the terrorist.”
Meanwhile, if you are wrong, Al Qaeda may attack, authorities say, with aerosolized anthrax. Ed, you never had any FACTS supporting his theory — you just had your theory and beliefs. And you borrowed that from BHR.
Isn’t what you are doing exactly what you criticize BHR for doing? She never named anyone. The only difference is that she got an audience with Senate staffers and you didn’t.
A profile should be built around a crime not a person. Your approach turns criminal profiling on its head. A threat assessment relating to Ayman Zawahiri OTOH is just that — an assessment of the threat, an attempt to judge the probabilities etc.
http://www.anthraxandalqaeda.com
Back in December 2001 and January 2002 you had the self-awareness that your theory was rank speculation. It still is,
“The FBI has developed a profile of the anthrax terrorist, but
they are playing it safe out of fear of being ridiculed if they
speculate too much. I have no such fear. I love to speculate.”
You noted to Debby that day in the newsgroup that your chlld theory was wild speculation and yet you adopted it:
Debby,
Your comment that it was his ex-wife who reads the tabloids really got me to
thinking, and I mentioned that comment on my web page at
http://extra.newsguy.com/~detect/anthrax.html
I don’t know how young the child is, but he/she would have to be young enough to not realize what was happening. It’s a really great theory. I’d been trying to figure out how he could get a kid to write the letters for him, and then your comment made it clear: he used his own kid! It’s probably just wild speculation, but it sure fits.
Thanks for the feedback. I really appreciate it.
Ed”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.