Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

If not Ivins ...(Bruce Ivins had nothing to do with preparing or sending the anthrax letters)
fredericknewspost. ^ | August 29, 2008 | Katherine Heerbrandt

Posted on 08/29/2008 7:25:37 AM PDT by Prunetacos

When Norm Covert, a conservative former Fort Detrick public affairs officer, and attorney Barry Kissin, liberal activist opposing Detrick's biolab expansion, agree that Bruce Ivins was not the anthrax killer, either the world's spinning off its axis, or the truth is staring us so hard in the face we'd have to be blind to miss it. Covert's piece this week in thetentacle.com establishes what many in our community, including scientists and support staff at USAMRIID, past and present, know: Bruce Ivins had nothing to do with preparing or sending the anthrax letters. --

(Excerpt) Read more at fredericknewspost.com ...


TOPICS: Anthrax Scare; News/Current Events; US: Maryland; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: amerithrax; anthrax; bruceivins; fortdetrick; hatfill; ivins; normancovert; usamriid
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-86 last
To: woofie; Shermy

I have a little ping list I use for anthrax, viruses and tainted blood. I can add you to that. Shermy has a more reliable one for anthrax though.


51 posted on 08/31/2008 6:23:45 AM PDT by Calpernia (Hunters Rangers - Raising the Bar of Integrity http://www.barofintegrity.us)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Calpernia

Ping me for ANTHRAX please.


52 posted on 08/31/2008 8:03:26 AM PDT by Prunetacos (In this country we prosecute people, not beakers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: ZACKandPOOK
I’ve had it confirmed that this below was the technique.

Oh, yeah? Some anonymous person "confirms" something that NAMED Scientists from Sandia, the FBI and elsewhere say is nonsense, and we're supposed to believe an anonymous scientist? Why? What you are saying has NOTHING to do with the attack anthrax. You just believe it does.

It's a process for growing bacteria. You believe it will result in silicon being left behind inside the spores. But there is NO EVIDENCE to support that belief. And there's nothing in the process that says that would happen.

But it is not impossible for you to be right. And that's what you rely upon. No one can prove you are wrong. Even if experiments were done that showed you to be wrong, you could still claim that the attack anthrax wasn't done that way, and no one could prove you wrong.

I cannot prove that aliens from outer space didn't send the anthrax letters, but that doesn't make it likely or probable or even believable.

It's a waste of time arguing screwball beliefs when we have so many SOLID FACTS to discuss and evaluate.

Ed at www.anthraxinvestigation.com

53 posted on 08/31/2008 9:00:54 AM PDT by EdLake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Prunetacos
“it contained an additive that affected the spore’s electrical charges “

Do you think that posting nonsense over and over will somehow turn nonsense into facts?

The attack anthrax was NOT coated with silica. There was no "additive" in the attack anthrax. We have pictures of the attack anthrax. We have testimony from NAMED scientists who have EXAMINED the attack anthrax in every imaginable way. Scientific papers have identified how silicon gets into spores. More scientific papers will be released to show exactly where the silicon was located in the attack anthrax and how it has NOTHING to do with weaponization.

There was NO silica or silicon on the outer surfaces of the attack spores. What you are posting is NONSENSE from a conspiracy theorist. His NONSENSE has been shown to be NONSENSE. It was known to be NONSENSE long ago, since it was based upon BAD SCIENCE.

I've really got better things to do than to argue with people who post information from OLD articles that have been PROVEN to be WRONG and even STUPIDLY WRONG.

However, I also realize that no facts will convince a True Believer, so I'm not even going to bother trying. Like I said, I have better things to do. The facts are on my web site. They can be viewed there.

Ed at www.anthraxinvestigation.com

54 posted on 08/31/2008 9:12:21 AM PDT by EdLake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: EdLake

Ed, to the contrary, the WMD head did not confirm it was nonsense. Instead, the WMD said (see transcript above) that the silicon dioxide could have been in the culture medium. Indeed, they offer no other explanation.

I have sent you peer reviewed studies, SEMs, and correspondence with the head of the military lab that has aerosolized anthrax with and without siliconizing solution. I have explained that the silicon spike appears with the siliconizating solution but not without it. The simulant, with or without it, floats like a bumble bee and stings like a bee. You have no training in microbiology and so apparently just don’t understand what the head of the biodefense lab has explained. So you just resort to your usual “moon landing” hoax schtick. When instead the proper approach is for you to contact a scientist who has aerosolized anthrax with and without siliconizing solution, who has measured silicon, and then quote their opinion. Dr. M at Sandia expressly noted he had no knowledge of biological processes. He was just saying it was done in the way that Dugway has historically done it — which it provably wasn’t. If Dugway had already done it, it would not have been patentable. Both the FBI and my consulting expert have suggested you don’t appreciate that there are somethings that it is against sound policy to talk further about.

Dr. Michael is merely pointing to the location of the silica. My expert says you misunderstand the relative unimportance of the exosporium in this context.

Your overall mistake in analysis is the same you made when you argued it was a 95% certainty a First Grader wrote the letters.

Ed, now that you agree your general theory of a conspiracy between the processor and Ames acquirer is “overwhelmingly” weaker (your term) than an Ivins Theory, could you clarify whether you still think a First Grader wrote the letters? Did he wear gloves when addressing the envelopes?

I am going to a family gathering on a glorious sunny day and so it won’t be until tonight until I follow-up.


55 posted on 08/31/2008 9:16:08 AM PDT by ZACKandPOOK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: EdLake
" There was NO silica or silicon on the outer surfaces of the attack spores. What you are posting is NONSENSE from a conspiracy theorist. His NONSENSE has been shown to be NONSENSE. It was known to be NONSENSE long ago, since it was based upon BAD SCIENCE. I've really got better things to do than to argue with people who post information from OLD articles that have been PROVEN to be WRONG and even STUPIDLY WRONG. However, I also realize that no facts will convince a True Believer, so I'm not even going to bother trying. Like I said, I have better things to do. The facts are on my web site. They can be viewed there."

OK Ed - you're the man.

56 posted on 08/31/2008 9:21:50 AM PDT by Prunetacos (In this country we prosecute people, not beakers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: EdLake; Trebel Rebel
"What you are posting is NONSENSE from a conspiracy theorist. His NONSENSE has been shown to be NONSENSE. It was known to be NONSENSE long ago, since it was based upon BAD SCIENCE. I've really got better things to do than to argue with people who post information from OLD articles that have been PROVEN to be WRONG and even STUPIDLY WRONG."

STUPIDLY WRONG?

Should we all go jump in a Lake?

57 posted on 08/31/2008 9:46:19 AM PDT by Prunetacos (In this country we prosecute people, not beakers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: EdLake
"a First Grader wrote the letters."

First grader's handwriting

Yup. I see the similarities

58 posted on 08/31/2008 10:16:31 AM PDT by Prunetacos (In this country we prosecute people, not beakers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Prunetacos

Added.


59 posted on 08/31/2008 10:20:23 AM PDT by Calpernia (Hunters Rangers - Raising the Bar of Integrity http://www.barofintegrity.us)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Prunetacos
Yup. I see the similarities

If you were even remotely interested in looking at facts instead of just voicing your opinions, you could try locating examples of Bruce Ivins' handwriting.

My analysis of the handwriting on the anthrax letters indicates that the date on the media letter was written by a different person than the rest of the writing on the letters and envelopes. And that person would almost certainly be the anthrax mailer.

Here's some information about that:

Note that the person who wrote the date left a zero open at the top, while the person who wrote the rest of the writings NEVER did that, and he even had a habit of going past the joining point when writing small o's.

Note, also, that the person who wrote the date draws a much longer line across the bottom of his 1's than the person who did the rest of the writings.

While it wouldn't necessarily prove anything one way or the other, seeing how Bruce Ivins wrote zeros, ones and nines could be interesting.

Ed at www.anthraxinvestigation.com

60 posted on 08/31/2008 11:20:36 AM PDT by EdLake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: Calpernia
THANKS! Persuing the REAL Anthrax Mailer may be like beating a dead horse but everyone has to have a hobby:)


61 posted on 08/31/2008 1:16:14 PM PDT by Prunetacos (In this country we prosecute people, not beakers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: EdLake
"What you are posting is NONSENSE from a conspiracy theorist."


62 posted on 08/31/2008 1:29:53 PM PDT by Prunetacos (In this country we prosecute people, not beakers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Prunetacos

BTW - are you Edward G. Lake and what does the “G” stand for?


63 posted on 08/31/2008 1:39:39 PM PDT by Prunetacos (In this country we prosecute people, not beakers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: EdLake
"While it wouldn't necessarily prove anything one way or the other, seeing how Bruce Ivins wrote zeros, ones and nines could be interesting."

Maybe the widow of Bruce Ivins will give us a sample of his handwriting.Or do you think it's still too early?


64 posted on 08/31/2008 1:47:51 PM PDT by Prunetacos (In this country we prosecute people, not beakers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Prunetacos
Do you ever TRY to make sense?

The handwriting samples of the o's, zeroes and ones are from the anthrax letters.

When writing small o's on the media letter, the writer wrote like a small child, drawing a circle and tracing over part of the circle to make sure it was complete. This is not happenstance, since he did it MANY TIMES. It's an indicator of lack of hand-eye coordination, as one would see in a child of about 6.

Yet, in the date on the letter, the writer writes confidently, even leaving the second zero open at the top. The writer shows no concern for completing the circle.

Bruce Ivins' wife ran a day care center, and there were children around all the time. Is that just a coincidence? Maybe. Does it mean anything? Who knows? The date is too small a sample to be incriminating in any way. But it would still be interesting to see how Bruce Ivins wrote zeros, small o's and ones.

As I said earlier, it wouldn't prove anything. The person who wrote the date could have been trying to imitate the writing on the envelopes.

Ed at www.anthraxinvestigation.com

65 posted on 08/31/2008 1:53:13 PM PDT by EdLake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: Prunetacos
Maybe the widow of Bruce Ivins will give us a sample of his handwriting.Or do you think it's still too early?

We're just talking about numbers here. There has to be hundreds of examples of his handwritten numbers at Ft. Detrick.

Or are you saying that no one should question what a dead man might have done? Do you want everyone - including the FBI - to wait until he's no longer dead?

Ed at www.anthraxinvestigation.com

66 posted on 08/31/2008 1:59:49 PM PDT by EdLake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: Prunetacos; woofie; All

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/572763/posts
Freeper Research on Anthrax Perps - Updated 9/17/01


67 posted on 08/31/2008 3:02:19 PM PDT by Calpernia (Hunters Rangers - Raising the Bar of Integrity http://www.barofintegrity.us)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Calpernia

“Freeper Research on Anthrax Perps - Updated 9/17/01”

Interesting date - as Shermy once pointed out.

It’s the day BEFORE the first anthrax letter was postmarked!


68 posted on 08/31/2008 3:47:05 PM PDT by Prunetacos (In this country we prosecute people, not beakers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: EdLake
"Do you ever TRY to make sense?"

You know what Ed? You have absolutely NO SENSE OF HUMOR.

69 posted on 08/31/2008 3:57:22 PM PDT by Prunetacos (In this country we prosecute people, not beakers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Shermy

Ping.


70 posted on 08/31/2008 4:03:44 PM PDT by Prunetacos (In this country we prosecute people, not beakers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: EdLake; Trebel Rebel; Shermy

71 posted on 08/31/2008 4:14:53 PM PDT by Prunetacos (In this country we prosecute people, not beakers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: Prunetacos; Shermy

That just tells me that no one is reading the thread. The date in the title is a typo.


72 posted on 08/31/2008 4:37:16 PM PDT by Calpernia (Hunters Rangers - Raising the Bar of Integrity http://www.barofintegrity.us)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: EdLake

‘We’re just talking about numbers here. There has to be hundreds of examples of his handwritten numbers at Ft. Detrick.

Or are you saying that no one should question what a dead man might have done? Do you want everyone - including the FBI - to wait until he’s no longer dead?’

If the FBI were truly interested in finding and apprehending the “Anthrax Killer,” they’d be investigating Philip Zack, a Jewish American that once worked at Fort Detrick Maryland and was caught red handed diverting anthrax spores several years prior to 9-11 and later writing an anonymous letter attempting to implicate or frame an Egyptian American scientist by the name of Dr. Ayaad Assaad.[5] Instead the FBI focused its investigation on one Steven J. Hatfill and employed the media to conduct an orchestrated smear campaign on Hatfill’s character in order to convict him in the court of public opinion.[6] When their smear campaign fell apart for lack of evidence, the FBI then dropped its investigation and the media has subsequently remained silent, with nary a word about anyone else possibly being connected to the case, despite the overwhelming evidence implicating Philip Zack.

The FBI Issues Another Anthrax Update
The FBI says that countless scientific tests at numerous laboratories appear to undermine the widely-held belief that the attack was carried out by a government scientist, or someone with access to a U.S. bio-defense lab
That is good news for ‘Doctor Zack’, a Zionist, who was a key suspect and worked at USAMRIID, a military lab at Fort Detrick, Maryland.


73 posted on 08/31/2008 6:12:41 PM PDT by Prunetacos (In this country we prosecute people, not beakers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: EdLake

A Muslim Biologist Is Implicated By a Jewish Colleague

The FBI had received an unsigned letter, sent before the attacks, accusing Dr. Assaad of being responsible for mailing the anthrax tainted letters .On October 2, 2001, the FBI interviewed a Dr. Ayaad Assaad, an Egyptian-American citizen.


74 posted on 08/31/2008 6:18:09 PM PDT by Prunetacos (In this country we prosecute people, not beakers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: Prunetacos
If the FBI were truly interested in finding and apprehending the “Anthrax Killer,” they’d be investigating Philip Zack, a Jewish American

Ah! So, that's your game. You're one of those people who thinks Dr. Zack is Jewish, and therefore he must have done it as part of the Great Jewish Conspiracy.

In reality, of course, Dr. Zack is a CATHOLIC. He was a member of the St. Nicholas Catholic Church in Zanesville, Ohio, when he got married in July of 1974.

Plus, he was living and working in Colorado at the time of the mailings. And the attack anthrax was made from a batch of spores that didn't exist when Zack worked at USAMRIID. There is NOTHING that ties the anthrax mailings to Dr. Zack.

The idea that Dr. Zack is the anthrax mailer is just one of the more STUPID ideas around. It has NO basis in reality.

Ed at www.anthraxinvestigation.com

75 posted on 09/01/2008 6:28:41 AM PDT by EdLake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: EdLake
"Ah! So, that's your game."

"If the FBI were truly interested in finding and apprehending the “Anthrax Killer,” they’d be investigating Philip Zack, a Jewish American that once worked at Fort Detrick Maryland and was caught red handed diverting anthrax spores several years prior to 9-11 and later writing an anonymous letter attempting to implicate or frame an Egyptian American scientist by the name of Dr. Ayaad Assaad."

Fort Detrick's anthrax mystery

Who tried to frame Dr. Ayaad Assaad, a former biowarfare researcher at the Army lab? Was it the same person responsible for last fall's anthrax mail terrorism? By Laura Rozen

http://74.125.45.104/search?q=cache:jkg_qeybrQoJ:dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2002/01/26/assaad/+Ayaad+Assaad,&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us

76 posted on 09/01/2008 9:32:17 AM PDT by Prunetacos (In this country we prosecute people, not beakers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: Prunetacos
Who tried to frame Dr. Ayaad Assaad, a former biowarfare researcher at the Army lab? Was it the same person responsible for last fall's anthrax mail terrorism?

So, you're going to rely on crap printed in the media and just ignore the facts?

The anthrax concentration used the create the powders mailed in 2001 did not exist when Dr. Zack worked at USAMRIID.

Dr. Zack and Dr. Rippy left USAMRIID in 1991. The spores in the flask controlled by Bruce Ivins weren't created until 1997. So, Dr. Zack would never have had access to them.

But, you are making it VERY clear that you don't care about facts. You're just going to believe your mindless beliefs regardless of what the facts say.

Clearly, it is a waste of time to discuss anything about the anthrax attacks with you.

Ed at www.anthraxinvestigation.com

77 posted on 09/01/2008 9:42:51 AM PDT by EdLake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: EdLake

“So, you’re going to rely on crap printed in the media and just ignore the facts?”

“As soon as it came out” about the anthrax letters, “the first thing that came to my mind was Fort Detrick,” said the scientist, who requested anonymity and is now employed in academia. “I don’t know how many labs are utilizing anthrax from Detrick. Detrick represents a repository of many organisms, and they would send it out to various other labs. A lot of people who were working on anthrax in this country got their anthrax from Fort Detrick.”

The scientist also claimed that he understood DNA analysis being performed by a private lab in Rockville, Md., had already determined that the source of the anthrax in the letter sent to Vermont Sen. Patrick Leahy was from Detrick. However, the private lab has told journalists that it will be another two weeks to a month before they publicly reveal their results.

According to interviews with Assaad and this scientist, along with additional Army investigative transcripts obtained by Salon, the Army’s biowarfare research lab in the early 1990s was an organizational disaster area. A big problem at the lab, which apparently contributed to specimens going missing, was that after the Gulf War, USAMRIID decided to phase out work some scientists had been doing on projects that the Army lab no longer considered crucial to their core mission of researching vaccines against bioweapons. Many scientists who had been engaged in other projects, such as Lt. Col. Phil Zack, who had been researching the simian immunodeficiency virus (SIV), were eager to continue working on projects USAMRIID said they should stop. What followed, the documents reveal, were scientists sneaking into the Army biowarfare lab to work on pet projects after-hours and on weekends, former workers like Zack, who left in 1991, still being let in to do lab work, pressure applied to technicians to help out, documents going missing, and deliberate mislabeling of specimens among other efforts to hide unsanctioned lab work.”

Dr. Ayaad Assaad


78 posted on 09/01/2008 10:15:02 AM PDT by Prunetacos (In this country we prosecute people, not beakers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: EdLake

“The Rhyme of the Ancient Camellier”

“In particular, Assaad, who is Egyptian-American, was the target of the group of USAMRIID scientists and lab technicians who called themselves the Camel Club. Among his antagonists were colleagues in Fort Detrick lab’s experimental pathology division, Zack and Rippy.

Using a stuffed camel as a kind of mascot, the Camel Club composed a poem, “The Rhyme of the Ancient Camellier,” with the apparent purpose of humiliating Assaad. It begins:

“Ayaad Assaad was the start,
with a reputation for not having heart
A ‘skimmer’ without equal
We hope there’s no sequel
In his honor we created this beast
It represents life lower than yeast
Whoever is voted this sucker,
you can’t duck her, You must accept blame,
And bear all the shame Unlike Assaad,
that first motherfucker”

The poem continues for five typewritten rhyming pages, ending with:

Well it’s time for the camel to pass.
So let’s all reach and raise up a glass.
Let’s give’m the credit,
the one who will get it,
the poor bastard we’re gonna harass.

Assaad theorizes that the Camel Club and the racial discrimination he experienced were at least partly an outgrowth of a dispute he had with Zack and Rippy over the authorship of a scientific paper for which he says he had done the research. Rippy and Zack, Assaad says, had done only minor work, but wanted to put their names on the research paper, and he says he felt they didn’t deserve it. Assaad says the dispute escalated, with Rippy and Zack threatening to be disruptive and humiliate him at a scientific conference where he delivered his paper’s findings. Then, he says, their harassment took an ethnic cast, because of his Arabic heritage.”


79 posted on 09/01/2008 10:20:44 AM PDT by Prunetacos (In this country we prosecute people, not beakers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: Calpernia

Thank you for pinging me, sorry I didn’t realize how many days it had been since I checked the pings.


80 posted on 09/02/2008 4:55:03 AM PDT by nw_arizona_granny ( http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/1990507/posts?page=451 SURVIVAL, RECIPES, GARDENS, & INFO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: EdLake

Is Ed Lake on Crack?

From his website today:

For example, in one email this morning, I was asked this question:

So if the anthrax in the letters both came from the flask or the same batch, which was said to be mixed spores, so some of each type of spores would have been in both mailings, then explain why Bacillus Subtilus was in the media letters, but not in the Senate letters.

O.K., Ed, either one of the following, please:

1.) Provide a link, reference, or other confirmatory information about this alleged bacillus subtilis in the media letters (couldn’t find one on your website), or

2.) Stop smoking that stuff! It will make your teeth fall out!


81 posted on 09/03/2008 12:46:51 PM PDT by GrebblieBlanc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: GrebblieBlanc
Provide a link, reference, or other confirmatory information about this alleged bacillus subtilis in the media letters (couldn’t find one on your website),

Sorry. I didn't think it would be an issue. The Bacillus subtilis contamination of the media letters is mentioned in the one of the affidavits in the case. Here's what is on page 5 of that affidavit:

Both of the anthrax spore powders recovered from the Post and Brokaw letters contain low levels of a bacterial contaminant identified as a strain of Bacillus subtilis. The Bacillus subtilis contaminant has not been detected in the anthrax spore powders recovered from the envelopes mailed to either Senator Leahy or Senator Daschle. Bacillus subtilis is a nonpathogenic bacterium found ubiquitously in the environment. However, genomic DNA sequencing of the specific isolate of Bacillus subtilis discovered within the Post and Brokaw powders reveals that it is genetically distinct from other known isolates of Bacillus subtilis. Analysis of the Bacillus subtilis from the Post and Brokaw envelopes revealed that these two isolates are identical.

Phenotypic and genotypic analyses demonstrate that the RMR-1029 does not have the Bacillus subtilis contaminant found in the evidentiary spore powders, which suggests that the anthrax used in the letter attacks was grown from the material contained in RMR-1029 and not taken directly from the flask and placed in the envelopes. Since RMR-1029 is the genetic parent to the evidentiary spore powders, and it is not known how the Bacillus subtilis contaminant came to be in the Post and Brokaw spore powders, the contaminant must have been introduced during the production of the Post and Brokaw spores.

Okay? It's also mentioned in the transcript of the roundtable discussion.

Ed at www.anthraxinvestigation.com

82 posted on 09/03/2008 1:59:43 PM PDT by EdLake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: EdLake; Shermy; TrebleRebel

“However, genomic DNA sequencing of the specific isolate of Bacillus subtilis discovered within the Post and Brokaw powders reveals that it is genetically distinct from other known isolates of Bacillus subtilis.”

Could be a significant finding, no?


83 posted on 09/04/2008 9:45:25 AM PDT by Prunetacos (In this country we prosecute people, not beakers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: Prunetacos
Could be a significant finding, no?

They say no.

The affidavit says:

Bacillus subtilis is a nonpathogenic bacterium found ubiquitously in the environment.

In other words, it's everywhere. And there are too many variations for anyone to keep track of.

In the roundtable discussion they said, "it really didn't drive us any place specific."

That tells me that, either they found it all over the place, or they realized it couldn't be used to prove anything, so they stopped looking after awhile.

It could also be like the hairs found in the mailbox. The odds that the hair would be from Ivins' head were probably a million to one against. But they had to test. When it was confirmed that it wasn't Ivins' hair, it proved nothing. But the MEDIA had headlines: "Hair Samples in Anthrax Case Don't Match."

Sometimes it's better not to go down a path that you know will only lead to confusion and misunderstandings -- particularly when you know there are much better paths to travel.

There are only 24 hours in a day. It's not humanly possible to explore every possible option to everything.

Ed at www.anthraxinvestigation.com

84 posted on 09/04/2008 10:47:15 AM PDT by EdLake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: EdLake
It's not humanly possible to explore every possible option to everything.

I should have added: That's why we have so many conspiracy theorists. The conspiracy theorists can always argue that IF the FBI had gone all the way down path #1,276,859,204 it is possible it would have led directly to the person they believe was responsible for the anthrax attacks.

Ed at www.anthraxinvestigation.com

85 posted on 09/04/2008 11:03:39 AM PDT by EdLake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: All

Next:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2075690/posts


86 posted on 09/10/2008 12:15:29 PM PDT by Prunetacos (In this country we prosecute people, not beakers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-86 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson