Free Republic

You wrote: "I was amazed this afternoon when I heard the Australians were dismissing this report"

That seems more like a media headline than what actual happened.

The Malaysians are supposedly checking it out. They're closer, and it's their investigation anyway. The Aussies are only involved because they're closest to where the plane supposedly went down in the Indian Ocean.

Ed

If that IS the image of a plane that Georesonace detected, that indicates the plane landed relatively intact. So, there might not be much wreckage or debris on the surface. And, if it sank intact, there might not be much of an oil slick. Plus, it would have happened in the middle of the night, so there wouldn't likely be many witnesses from fishing boats in the area.

But, the scenario also requires that no one escaped from the plane after it crash landed. If the plane was intact, that make very little sense.

I think it's worth sending a ship there to check out, but I wouldn't expect to find anything.

Ed

The biggest problem I have with the report from Georesonance is that they say nothing about seeing the signals in later surveys.

They detected the signals from the metals on March 10 and then they checked March 5 and there were no such signals. So, because MH370 disappeared on the 8th, they think the metal signature could be MH370.

Maybe. But, were there also metal signals on March 15 or this morning? I'm not going to get excited over a signal detected only ONCE that might just have been a plane flying in that spot.

Ed

What bothers me about the New York Times article by William Broad and Scott Shane is: Why are they suddenly printing nonsense by conspiracy theorists?

The Times' article is about a paper written by Martin Hugh-Jones of Louisiana State University and two well-known conspiracy theorists, Barbara Hatch Rosenberg and Stuart Jacobsen.

The Hugh-Jones et al paper was previously published back in June on the BioWeapons Prevention Project's web site. It's been on-line since then HERE. Now it will supposedly be published in The Journal of Bioterrorism and Biodefense, an Internet publication where articles are distributed free to anyone who wants them.

So, the paper is NOT new and the journal is NOT a science journal. Why is it "news" for the New York Times?

The Broad-Shane article should have been in the Times' humor page (if they have a humor page) showing how there's no amount of evidence that can ever change the mind of a conspiracy theorist.

Ed at www.anthraxinvestigation.com

"The three Postal Inspectors who interviewed me here in Indiana told me that they knew it went through Ames, Iowa before it went to Ft. Detrick.

Were they lying to me?"

I don't know. I would be only guessing. They could have been telling you what you wanted to hear in order to keep you talking. They could have been fishing for information about something else entirely. They could have been unaware of the actual source of the Ames strain and that it was never in Ames, Iowa. Or, you could have misinterpreted what they told you.

The question is: Why did they talk to you in the first place? The answer seems to be: (1) They wanted to find out what you knew about the people you mentioned, or (2) they wanted to figure out if you were dangerous, or (3) they were just following up on all possible leads and had no way of knowing whether you actually had something of value or not.

There is NO DOUBT that the Ames strain went directly from Texas to USAMRIID and never went to Iowa. We know who shipped it, we know where he shipped it, we know why he shipped it, we know who received it, and we know how the label was misinterpreted and gave the strain its name. And we have statements from people at Iowa State University and the USDA that they never heard of the "Ames Strain" until the media came around asking about it.

Ed at www.anthraxinvestigation.com

The Ames strain never went anywhere near Ames, Iowa. It got its name as a result of someone misreading the mailing label when it was sent from Texas directly to USAMRIID in Maryland.

And, there should be absolutely no doubt that Bruce Ivins sent the anthrax letters.

Ivins was fascinated with secret codes. He put a hidden message in the anthrax letters he sent to the media.

When he became afraid of getting caught, he was observed throwing away the book and the magazine he had used to develop the coded message in the media letters.

The hidden message in the media letters related to two of Ivins' colleagues, one by name (PAT) and the other by attacking her favorite city (FNY).

Ivins had used similar DNA-based coding in an email sent to a colleague.

The anthrax letters were placed in the mailbox nearest to the Kappa Kappa Gamma (KKG) office in Princeton, NJ. Ivins had an obsession with the KKG sorority.

Ivins used ZIP Code 08852 on the senate letters. That ZIP Code is for Monmouth Junction, NJ, where Ivins' family on his father's side came from. And, Monmouth College in Monmouth, IL, is where the KKG sorority was founded.

Ivins' father graduated from Princeton University, which was across the street from where the letters were mailed.

Ivins frequently drove long distances to mail things so they couldn't be traced back to him.

Ivins frequently drove long distances at night without the knowledge of his wife and family.

Ivins drove long distances to burglarize KKG sorority houses, stealing ritual books and coding materials.

Ivins repeatedly harassed KKG member Nancy Haigwood as a result of an obsession that lasted for thirty years. She told the FBI that Ivins was someone likely to have sent the anthrax letters.

Two of Ivins' psychiatrists believed he should never have been allowed to work with anthrax.

Ivins' first psychiatrist (from 1978 to 1979) immediately thought of Bruce Ivins as a possible suspect when she first read about the anthrax attacks.

Ivins' second psychiatrist (from February to May 2000), Dr. David Irwin, diasgnosed Ivins to be "homicidal, sociopathic with clear intentions."

In June of 2000, Ivins told his psychiatric counselor that he planned to poison a "young woman" if she lost a soccer game. The counselor called the police, but no one knew who the young woman was.

Ivins had multiple motives for the attacks.

At the time of the mailings, Ivins believed that the Ames strain was used in labs all over the world and was totally untraceable. That's why he used it.

Ivins contracted an infection on his hand around the time of the attacks and failed to report it, although it was required that he report any infections.

The infection on Ivins hand was cured with the antibiotic the CDC recommends for anthrax.

Ivins had no alibi for the times of the mailings.

Ivins couldn't explain the long hours he worked in his BSL-3 lab at night and on weekends at the time the anthrax letters were being prepared.

The anthrax spores used in the attacks were not "weaponized" and could easily have been made by Bruce Ivins.

Ivins suggested to the CDC that Bob Stevens could have contracted inhalation anthrax from various natural sources, even though Ivins knew such sources couldn't give anyone inhalation anthrax.

In an email to a colleague written just days before the anthrax mailings, Ivins used terms similar to what were in the anthrax letters.

One target of the media mailing was The National Enquirer. Ivins wrote about the National Enquirer in emails before the attacks, and he had a stack of Enquirers in his office.

The anthrax letter sent to the National Enquirer used an obsolete address. The stacks of Enquirers in Ivins' office contained that obsolete address.

"Greendale School" was the second line of the return address on the senate letters, and Ivins had just donated money to a cause related to an incident at a Greendale School in Wisconsin.

The Greendale School incident in Wisconsin involved a 4th grader. The first line of the return address on the senate letters was: "4th Grade"

One of the targets of the senate mailing was Senator Daschle, who had been critical of the anthrax vaccine Ivins had helped develop.

Senator Leahy, the other target of the senate mailing, was concerned about the civil rights of Muslims being questioned after 9/11, and this upset Ivins.

On September 22, 2001, before the anthrax letters were found, Ivins joined the American Red Cross and mentioned his expertise in anthrax research (which he'd never mentioned before).

On September 26, 2001, before the anthrax letters were found, Ivins wrote to Mara Linscott, "You should feel good about having received anthrax shots."

Ivins controlled the flask that was the source of the spores used to grow the attack anthrax.

Ivins had all the necessary skills and equipment for making the attack anthrax.

Ivins tried to mislead the investigation by submitting a sample to the FBI from Flask RMR-1029 in February 2002 that was improperly prepared and could not be used as evidence.

The other samples Ivins prepared for the FBI in February 2002 were all properly prepared.

The replacement sample submitted in April of 2002 was apparently not from Flask RMR-1029. He falsified evidence.

In December of 2001, Ivins performed an unauthorized cleaning of areas where he may have left evidence behind. He destroyed evidence.

In April of 2002, Ivins performed a second unauthorized cleaning of areas where there may have been evidence. He again destroyed evidence.

Ivins lied about why he did the unauthorized cleanings. The areas he cleaned didn't match with his explanations.

In attempts to mislead the FBI, Ivins identified many of his colleagues as potential suspects in the case.

Ivins deleted all of his emails from 2001 from his work computer and claimed he didn't know how it happened. (Some of the emails were recovered from other computers.)

Ivins attempted to intimidate potential witnesses in the case.

In later years, Ivins said that, if he sent the anthrax letters, he didn't remember doing it.

Before his suicide, Ivins stated that he planned to murder his co-workers for what they'd done to him and go out in a "blaze of glory."

Ivins committed suicide so he wouldn't have to stand trial and be found guilty.

Ed at www.anthraxinvestigation.com

The fact is that there is no AMI anthrax letter.

Yes, and the evidence says that is because it was thrown away. But, to you and you alone, it means it never existed.

Clearly, you see your beliefs as the only proof of anything. If you believe it, then it must be true - regardless of what the facts say.

And, you've made it very clear in this thread that there isn't any fact or testimony that can change your mind.

End of story, I guess.

Ed at www.anthraxinvestigation.com

show me the AMI anthrax letter.

You can’t.

It doesn’t exist.

And, therefore, yesterday never existed because I cannot show you today that it still exists.

That's any interesting view of the world. Nothing ever existed if it does not exist today. Evidence means nothing. Testimony means nothing.

Your argument seems to be that your beliefs are the only reality. We are all just figments of your imagination. Your brain is the universe.

Then why are you trying to get me to believe as you believe? What is your purpose in arguing? Why not just change your mind?

Do you think that by just claiming things to be true over and over and over and over, I'll somehow be converted to your beliefs?

That ain't gonna happen. I'm only "converted" by solid facts. You have only beliefs. The facts all say that the anthrax got into the AMI building via a letter that was mailed at the same time and from the same place as the other anthrax letters sent to the media.

Repeating your beliefs over and over won't change the facts.

Ed at www.anthraxinvestigation.com

"Fact #1 is that there is no AMI anthrax letter. It never existed."

You just continue to spout absolute nonsense. If something gets thrown away, to you that means it never existed - no matter how much proof there is that it did indeed exist. And witnesses mean nothing.

I throw out garbage all the time, and the garbage man comes and takes it away. By your reasoning, I never threw out any garbage. It no longer exists, and my testimony means nothing. So, what does the garbage man do for a living? Why is he always banging things around outside early on Tuesday mornings?

Ed at www.anthraxinvestigation.com

"My theory simply gives a plausible non-postal route of anthrax attack...something that can’t be done with the FBI’s theory."

Your theory is totally implausible, since it is contradicted by the facts and makes absolutely no sense.

The "FBI's theory" isn't a "theory." It's what the facts say. The facts very clearly say that, based upon the time it arrived at AMI, the AMI letter was mailed at the same time and from the same place as the other media letters; it left a trail of spores through postal facilities between Trenton and Boca Raton; the guy who carried the mail bag with the letter from the Boca Raton post office to the AMI building contracted inhalation anthrax; the woman who opened it remembers the letter and remembers throwing it away; it was her job to open letters addressed to the Enquirer; there were spores in her nostrils from handling the letter; the area around her desk was the most contaminated area in the building, and Bruce Ivins was known to be a reader of The National Enquirer and kept old copies on his desk.

All you have is a belief that is totally unsupported by any facts. That makes it pure speculation, but, if you want to call it a "theory," that's up to you.

Ed at www.anthraxinvestigation.com

Southack,

I asked you for your source in claiming that there was no contamination of the trash and the garbage trucks, and you change the subject to talk about the FBI.

The first people to check the AMI building for spores were from the Florida State Department of Health. The CDC came in next. Then, months later, the FBI with the help of other agencies did a comprehensive check of the building to determine exactly where the spores entered the building and how the spores got spread around. Some details about that analysis are in the process of being published in a scientific journal.

Changing the subject won't alter the fact that you have no evidence to support your beliefs. You ignore the evidence that says you are wrong. And you continue to argue even though you have nothing to support your beliefs.

Can't you see that you are the only person in the entire world who believes that the anthrax that contaminated the AMI building was brought in on rent money?

Who are you trying to convince of your beliefs? Me? The only way you can convince me is to provide SOLID NEW EVIDENCE that all the currently known evidence is somehow misleading. You'd have to provide evidence that not only explains how unseen anthrax on rent money could contaminate and entire building, you'd have to provide evidence showing that it's a BETTER explanation than the letter explanation.

All you have is beliefs. The only people you can convince with beliefs are people who know absolutely nothing about the case and who are willing to trust you to give them guidance. I doubt there are any such people on this planet.

Ed at www.anthraxinvestigation.com

"there was no anthrax spore-trail through garbage bags, trash cans, and garbage trucks."

The absence of evidence is NOT EVIDENCE.

What is your evidence that there was "no anthrax spore trail through garbage bags, trash cans and garbage trucks"?

Is it something that you just made up?

The entire building was contaminated. The cleaning crew should have been dumping vacuum cleaner bags containing spores into trash cans and garbage trucks. The areas around copy machines were thoroughly contaminated, so the waste paper from those areas should have gone into trash cans and garbage trucks, too.

What is your evidence that there was no such trail?

And, if you have evidence, how do you explain that there was no trail from cleaning crew, either?

Wouldn't that mean that your argument is that there was no anthrax in the AMI building at all?

And, of course, that would mean that the anthrax couldn't have come from the money, either.

No matter how you look at it, you have no evidence to support your beliefs, because all the evidence says that the anthrax that killed Bob Stevens came in a letter addressed to the National Enquirer that was opened and thrown away by Stephanie Dailey.

Your arguments do not change the facts, they only verify the facts which say that the anthrax came in a letter - because you must ignore the facts in order to make your argument.

Ed at www.anthraxinvestigation.com

"There was never an anthrax letter at AMI.

"You view the above as inconsequential. You are wrong."

No, I view your comments about there never being an anthrax letter at AMI as ridiculous. The FACTS clearly say there was such a letter.

Your ridiculous beliefs do not change the facts.

Your ridiculous beliefs just show that you are wrong, and you continue to insist on being wrong no matter what the facts say.

Ed at www.anthraxinvestigation.com

It doesn't exist.

Yesterday doesn't exist, either, but we know it did exist because there is evidence that it existed. And there are over 6 billion witnesses.

The argument that the letter never existed is even more crazy than the argument that the anthrax was on rent money where no one saw the powder, no one knows how the rent money got into the AMI building, and no one can explain how a powder that no one could see on the money could kill one person, infect another, contaminate an entire building, and leave a trail of anthrax through post offices from Trenton to Boca Raton.

Except for you, is there is anyone on this planet who believes your preposterous theory?

Ed at www.anthraxinvestigation.com

There is no AMI anthrax letter in the evidence bin.

There is an abundance of evidence that the letter contaminated the AMI building, and there is testimony that it was thrown away.

There is NO EVIDENCE supporting any rent money theory.

By your reasoning, that money never existed either, since the money isn't in the "evidence bin."

Where is this anthrax contaminated money? If you can't produce it, then by your own reasoning, it never existed.

Testimony that the rent money existed can't be evidence, since you say testimony that the letter existed can't be evidence.

Your own reasoning says you have no evidence.

Ed at www.anthraxinvestigation.com

"The cash rent money from the 9/11 terrorists was real. The anthrax “letter” at the AMI building was not."

The cash rent money from the 9/11 terrorists was real, but there is no evidence of any kind that it had anything to do with the anthrax that contaminated the AMI building, that killed Bob Stevens, that infected Ernesto Blanco, and that almost infected Stephanie Dailey.

All the evidence says that the anthrax arrived via a letter that was mailed from Princeton at the same time as the NY Post and Brokaw letters they found, and the ABC and CBS letters, which they didn't find.

Stating beliefs that are contradicted by the evidence does not change what the evidence proves.

Ed at www.anthraxinvestigation.com

Silly boy. It doesn’t take a “fantastical reason” to have money change hands in the mailroom.

Does that mean that you cannot dream up any non-laughable reason why the landlady's husband would be waving money around in the the mailroom and emptying the rent payment envelope on the floor around Stephanie Dailey's desk?

Ed at www.anthraxinvestigation.com

...because people in the mailroom are banned from having money. Oh wait...

Is it your latest rationalization that the landlady's husband took the envelope full of money to the mailroom and passed the money around to the people working there?

And what fantastical reason have you dreamed up for him to do that?

Ed at www.anthraxinvestigation.com

What I am pointing out is that it is plausible for a tenant to put place rent money in an envelope"

What I'm pointing out is that your arguments get more and more absurd with every posting.

You now fantasize or rationalize that there could have been an envelope because it would be ridiculous for all that powder to be on the money itself. Thus, you now argue that the money could have been in an envelope.

You're just making stuff up to explain away the evidence that your theory is absurd.

Question: Why would the money be carried into AMI in an envelope?

Answer: Because you need that to be true in order to explain away the undeniable fact that it couldn't have been on the money itself.

Money in an rent envelope isn't going to contaminate the mailroom. It isn't going to contaminate mail bags. It isn't going to contaminate the mail van. It isn't going to put spores into Stephanie Dailey's nostrils. It isn't going to put spores into Ernesto Blanco's nostrils. It isn't going to contaminate mail sorting slots. And it certainly isn't going to leave a trail from Trenton to Boca Raton (or vice versa).

Your attempts to rationalize ways your theory could still be true - in spite of the overwhelming evidence that it is total nonsense - are just getting more and more ridiculous.

Ed at www.anthraxinvestigation.com

Your "anthrax letter" at AMI is a myth, unsupported by physical evidence."

You obviously do not understand what "physical evidence" means.

The spores taken from Stephanie Dailey's nostrils ARE physical evidence.

The spores found on the carpet around her desk ARE physical evidence.

The spores found in the post offices between Trenton and Boca Raton ARE physical evidence.

The spores taken from the nostrils of the guy who delivered the mail ARE physical evidence.

The spores taken from the mail van ARE physical evidence.

The spores taken from the mail slots in the mail room ARE physical evidence.

All this physical evidence points to the anthrax coming through the mails and contradicts your ridiculous money theory.

Your ridiculous money theory is unsupported by any physical evidence.

There is NO physical evidence supporting your theory that the 9/11 terrorists had access to anthrax.

There is NO physical evidence supporting your theory that the anthrax was on rent money.

There is NO physical evidence supporting your theory that the landlady's husband took the money to AMI.

There is NO physical evidence supporting your theory that the contamination at AMI had any connection to any money.

You argue that there is no evidence that the anthrax was thrown into the garbage and was disposed of with the garbage. The absence of evidence is NOT EVIDENCE. So, even that part of your absurd theory proves nothing.

Ed at www.anthraxinvestigation.com