all naturally occurring anthrax spores come in clumps of tens or even hundereds of spores. Thus it was very unusual to find single sporesNonsense. Where did you get that nonsense? It seems to be some misconception derived from speculation about van der Waals forces.
I've discussed the subject of spore clumps at length with Martin Hugh-Jones at LSU. He's probably the world's leading expert on the subject. Spores do not clump together in Nature. They have no opportunity to clump together in clumps of "hundreds" of spores. Natural "clumps" consist of tens or hundreds of spores mixed with animal fats and other animal materials, plus whatever happens to be in the ground under the dead animal: dirt, decaying vegetation, etc.
Why are all these qualified PhDs saying the spores were altered? Are they ALL wrong?
They were just speculating. Time will tell if their speculation was correct or not.
And you also dodged my question about Meselson.
I'm not "dodging" it. I'm ignoring it. It's an attempt to get into some kind of personal attack upon Professor Meselson. It's some kind of ad hominem argument where instead of discussing what Professor Meselson has said about the anthrax you want to discuss something he said in the past - with the idea that if you can prove something there it will have some meaning on everything he says. It's the same reason you bring up things about me that have nothing to do with the case. It's personal attacks. When you can't argue the facts effectively, you attack people personally. I won't sink to that level.
Ed
www.anthraxinvestigation.com
I'm not "dodging" it.
I think you are dodging it. It's is hardly a personal attack. A personal attack would be if I said Meselson was an idiot. I'm not saying that. I'm simply stating that his past opinions on anthrax are highly questionable, and since you are not responding, it's clear that you cannot defend him.
You know he made a very, very serious error in the past that casts grave doubts over anything he has to say today on the subject of anthrax biowepaons.
Thus his opinions should be taken with a HUGE grain of salt.
I prefer to rely on the scientists who had access to ALL of the evidence - these scientists all CLEARLY state, with absoultely no ambiguity, that the spores had a silcia coating and that this altered their properties. This silica coating was KEY in making the spores re-aeosolize in the Hart building - as Dr Weis unambiguously points out in the article I cited above and also in a peer reviewed article in "Journal of the American Medical Society".
Where is your peer reviewed article? Why won't Science publish your letters? Where is Meselson's peer reviewed article? Why won't Science publish Meselson's letter?
Why should anything you say be taken seriously? It's you against dozens of experts - or should I say it's you and Meselson against dozens of experts.
If Chris Weis says the spores were altered that's good enough for me - he has credibility. Entirely more credibility than Meselson.
Oh, and you keep saying Patrick says there was no silica coating, and I keep asking you to provide evidence. But you never do. I have provided evidence that Patrick has unambiguously stated that he won't discuss silica. Where's your evidence? Or is this just yet more of your total fabrications?