Actually, the question is: Why do you keep going off the subject to attack Professor Meselson when we're talking about the anthrax attacks of 2001? Is it because you cannot discuss any subject without launching into personal attacks on people you hate?
People who have seen the Daschle anthrax powder have stated over and over and over that the powder was "pure spores." No one SAW any additives when the Daschle anthrax was viewed under a Scanning Electron Microscope (SEM). (The mysterious "goop" Geisbert saw oozing out of the spores occurred when he turned up the power on a much more powerful Transmission Electron Microscope (TEM), heating up the spores and causing chemicals used to kill the spores to ooze out.)
Matthew Meselson was just one of the people who stated that he saw no silica in photos of the Daschle anthrax. Do you believe he somehow cast as spell on all the others?
Are you really so filled with hate that you believe that Meselson somehow brainwashed General Parker into saying the powder was "pure spores" -- even though Parker said it long before Meselson became involved?
Are you really so filled with hate that you somehow believe that when Tom Geisbert provided Richard Preston with a photo of a "reference sample of pure anthrax spores similar in character to the weapons-grade 'skull-anthrax' in the Daschle letter" that he was somehow under some long-distance spell cast by Professor Meselson? Here is that image:
Are you really so filled with hate that you somehow believe that when the book "Microbial Forensics" printed pictures of what coated spores look like they were under some spell cast by Mesleson to mislead the world?
Here's what spores coated with silica look like:
Are you really so filled with hate that you believe that people viewing the Daschle anthrax under an SEM saw coated spores like those in the above picture but were somehow made to believe by Meselson's spell that they saw "pure spores" like those in Geisbert's reference sample?
Can't you see that your belief about coated spores is nothing more than a belief?
You never look at the facts. You just pick out words and phrases that fit your beliefs, often from reports which have long ago been shown to be false. And then you twist everything to try to make it seem like support for your beliefs.
Is it really so hard to understand that when Geisbert used the TEM to view the spores killed with chemicals and saw "goop" oozing out of the spores, he was seeing the chemicals he used to kill the spores? He saw nothing oozing out of the spores when he viewed spores killed with radiation. Why is that?
Is it really so hard to understand that when AFIP examined DRY spores under an energy dispersive X-ray spectrometer (an instrument used to detect the presence of otherwise-unseen chemicals through characteristic wavelengths of X-ray light), they simply assumed that the presence of the elements of silicon and oxygen meant that it was in the form of silica? If they had actually SEEN silica, wouldn't they have described what it looked like?
If you would just look at ALL the facts instead of just picking out only those which you can fit to your beliefs, you'd see that what you believe about the Daschle spores being coated with silica is absolute and total nonsense.