Ed’s favorite entry from his playbook is to endlessly repeat “none of the experts who examined the pictures of the spores actually saw any additives”. He must have repeated this line around 10,000 times over the years. Naturally, it’s not true.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1001136-2,00.html
The material’s light, fine texture and a brown ring around each spore suggest an additive had been introduced to prevent clumping.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/10/20011025-4.html
General Parker - October 25, 2001
Well, first of all, your question is complex, and I’d like to say that, although we may see some things on the microscopic field that may look like foreign elements, we don’t know that they’re additives, we don’t know what they are, and we’re continuing to do research to find out what they possible could be. They’re unknowns to us at this present time.
http://www.dhs.gov/xnews/releases/press_release_0018.shtm
General Parker - October 29, 2001 (4 days later)
We do know that we found silica in the samples. Now, we don’t know what that motive would be, or why it would be there, or anything. But there is silica in the samples.
TrebleRebel,
Compare Ed’s discussion of the science about how silica is not used to coat spores.
Here is Ed’s discussion on the scientist which he just pulls out his ass without having read any of the peer-reviewed literature on the subject.
Now compare it with the discussion by the Dugway scientists who make anthrax simulant for a living. I was always relying on a consulting military scientist who makes anthrax simulant for a living for a different military branch but Ed ignored that expert advice also.
I don’t mind that Ed doesn’t do research.
I only mind he does not make corrections when mistakes are pointed out.
Now do me a favor and post that graphic (I would but I don’t know how).
I only added a label for Charles but Ken is the third circle.
Both Charles and Ken, I would emphasize, are just victims of the theft of biochemistry information. They are in no way complicitous. Not in the least.
The FBI would know this because they understand how infiltration works.
Hatfill included some lengthy discussion on the CIA spy Aldrich Ames and the FBI spy Hansen (sp?) among his exhibits. But you won’t find Ed linking those babies either.
It IS true. And you are proving me right.
The material’s light, fine texture and a brown ring around each spore suggest an additive
In other words, THEY SAW NO ADDITIVE, but a "brown ring" on a test suggested there might be one.
we don’t know that they’re additives
How could anyone in their right mind claim this statement says they saw additive? It says THEY DID NOT KNOW WHAT THEY WERE SEEING AND DETECTING.
They had DETECTED silicon and oxygen, and Geisbert had seen some "goop" ooze out of the spores when they were heated under a high-intensity beam, but THEY DIDN'T KNOW WHAT THEY WERE SEEING. General Parker said they were inexperienced with viewing powders.
We do know that we found silica in the samples. Now, we don’t know what that motive would be, or why it would be there, or anything.
They detected silicon and oxygen in the spores. They assumed it was in the form of silica. That does NOT mean that they SAW silica. It does not say they SAW silica. The statement clearly says they don't know "why it would be there." They WOULD know if it was an additive used to weaponize the anthrax.
You have shown once again what I've been saying: they did NOT see any additive in the attack anthrax.