Replies

I find that interesting and would recommend that someone ask him to see if he, as an expert, shares your view.

Give it a try. It seems to be something of interest only to you.

As I understand it, in early 2002, Professor Meselson, Ken Alibek and a few others were shown between 5 and 8 micrographs of the Daschle anthrax because the FBI was looking for some explanation for why silicon and oxygen would be detected when there were no silica particles visible under an SEM. (I suppose it's possible that some of these photos may have been the photos of spores oozing "goop," and they may have been asked about them, too. The subject was never mentioned, possibly because it would be obvious that the "goop" came from the chemicals used to kill the spores. Also, possibly, because it showed a simple mistake that no one needed to tell the public about.)

After that event, Professor Meselson recalled reading something about silicon being detected in spores, and he found two articles from 1980 which explained it as most likely being the result of lab contamination.

Eight or more months later, The Washington Post published a screwball article titled "FBI's Theory On Anthrax is Doubted" which suggested that there was fumed silica in the Daschle anthrax.

In their letter to the editor of the Washington Post, Meselson and Alibek wrote:

The article quoted unnamed sources as saying that the spores had been formulated with a product called fumed silica, which, under an electron microscope, "would look like cotton balls strung together into strands that branch out in every direction."

Both of us have examined electron micrographs of the material in the anthrax letter sent to Sen. Tom Daschle, but we saw no evidence of such balls or strands.

So, Meselson and Alibek only said they saw no signs of fumed silica. They said nothing about any "goop." The "goop" would not be relative to the subject of the letter.

Ed at www.anthraxinvestigation.com

Also, possibly, because it showed a simple mistake that no one needed to tell the public about.

Yes, just a teensy, weensy simple mistake that fueled dozens of scientists to write about silica coated weaponized spores. But no need to correct any of that. In fact, strangley enough, the volume Microbial Forensics doesn't even dicsuss "naturally occurring silicon". You'd kind of think they would - since if it happened again it might lead others to believe that spores in a new attack were weaponized with silica. So I wonder why they didn't mention that teensy, weensy little mistake- a teensy mistake so obvious, it wasn't even worth talking about.

No, you are referring to the stack of SEMS that Professor Meselson viewed during the course of a half-day at the Field Office and lab. I am referring to the images he has never discussed or publicly acknowledged seeing — shown him on a separate occasion — that had the oozing goop. Entirely different images. Different occasions. Different presenter.

You say I am the only one interested in what the oozing goop was. To the contrary, you are the one who wrote on it, self-published a book, and have posted on it for five years without ever so much as asking the experts available to you about it.