Hatfill v. US - DOJ and FBI Statement of Facts (filed Friday)

in the study, many particles similar to this were observed while no single spores without the silica were observed. Agglomerated spores with only a light coating of silica were readily observed as indicated by Figure 7b

I cannot discuss the article in detail until I've read it. But we've seen how you and TrebelRebel can distort things, so until proven otherwise, I think it's safe to assume you are distorting things found in this report, too.

TrebelRebel endlessly tries to claim that because scientists at Lawrence Livermore coated SOME spores with silica when doing tests described in the book "Microbial Forensics," that somehow proves the attack spores of 2001 were coated with silica.

In reality, a February 15, 2005 article by S.P. Velsko of Lawrence Livermore Labs titled "Physical and Analytical Analysis: A key component of Bioforensics" explains WHY they coated some spores with silica:

The knowledge base that is required to deduce process associations from measurement data consists of two basic components. The first is a systematic understanding of the many different possible “recipes” for generating agents. While much current expertise in this area centers around archival knowledge generated by the historical U.S. biological weapons program (and to a lesser extent, knowledge about foreign BW programs) it is important to recognize that would-be bio-terrorists are likely to utilize information from a broader range of sources, including open scientific literature, the internet, underground “cookbooks”, and information that has, unfortunately, been divulged to the news media in recent years. There is no necessary presumption that this information is always accurate or leads to an effective biological weapon. But only by collecting and organizing this information (and keeping it up-to-date) can we hope to recognize the recipe used to make an agent in the widest variety of possible incidents.

In other words, they created some samples just so people would know what such things look like, even though they wouldn't necessarily make an "effective biological weapon."

Ed at www.anthraxinvestigation.com

Alibek: (laughing) Yeah, because there is no principle for coating.

What are you trying to prove? What do you believe these pictures show? Do you really believe the attack spores of 2001 were coated this way and NO ONE NOTICED? Or are you trying to say they were coated this way and thousands of people CONSPIRED to keep it a secret?

We KNOW that scientists have coated spores in all sorts of screwball ways since the anthrax attacks, because the screwball ways were described in the media and some idiot might actually try to use a screwball technique described in the media. So, scientists have to know what such things look like.

Out of context, all these pictures show is that it is POSSIBLE to coat spores with silica in all sorts of screwball ways.

Ed at www.anthraxinvestigation.com

The thrust of the paper is that EVERY sample they worked up used a silica COATING. The authors stated that the study was intended to simulate the biowarfare agent used in the 2001 attacks.

Well, I'll have to read the paper before I can adequately respond to that. Can we assume that you haven't sent it to me because you don't want me to see it, you just want to tell people on this forum what you want them to believe about it?

I'm going to have to take a break for an hour or so do do some chores.

Ed at www.anthraxinvestigation.com

Ed’s favorite entry from his playbook is to endlessly repeat “none of the experts who examined the pictures of the spores actually saw any additives”. He must have repeated this line around 10,000 times over the years. Naturally, it’s not true.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1001136-2,00.html
The material’s light, fine texture and a brown ring around each spore suggest an additive had been introduced to prevent clumping.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/10/20011025-4.html
General Parker - October 25, 2001
Well, first of all, your question is complex, and I’d like to say that, although we may see some things on the microscopic field that may look like foreign elements, we don’t know that they’re additives, we don’t know what they are, and we’re continuing to do research to find out what they possible could be. They’re unknowns to us at this present time.

http://www.dhs.gov/xnews/releases/press_release_0018.shtm
General Parker - October 29, 2001 (4 days later)
We do know that we found silica in the samples. Now, we don’t know what that motive would be, or why it would be there, or anything. But there is silica in the samples.

I think we should wait until he goes to red caps in extra large bold font.

Here's all 3 pics. Note that pics 2 and 3 should always be accompanied by Alibek's famous "no principle for coating" quote.

Lake: Right. Is it true to say that spores are not actually COATED with silica, they are MIXED with silica?

Alibek: (laughing) Yeah, because there is no principle for coating. This is one mistake, hopefully, which just comes from the media.

Lake: Why did you decide to leave George Mason?

Alibek: (laughing so hard he's peeing) Yeah, because the LA Times finally caught on to the fact that I'm a fraud.

TrebleRebel,

Compare Ed’s discussion of the science about how silica is not used to coat spores.

Here is Ed’s discussion on the scientist which he just pulls out his ass without having read any of the peer-reviewed literature on the subject.

http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:qXSxpsOwM7QJ:www.anthraxinvestigation.com/Update-History2005.html+anthraxinvestigation+%22Microbial+Forensics%22+principle+coating+silica&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us

Now compare it with the discussion by the Dugway scientists who make anthrax simulant for a living. I was always relying on a consulting military scientist who makes anthrax simulant for a living for a different military branch but Ed ignored that expert advice also.

I don’t mind that Ed doesn’t do research.

I only mind he does not make corrections when mistakes are pointed out.

Now do me a favor and post that graphic (I would but I don’t know how).

I only added a label for Charles but Ken is the third circle.

Both Charles and Ken, I would emphasize, are just victims of the theft of biochemistry information. They are in no way complicitous. Not in the least.

The FBI would know this because they understand how infiltration works.

Hatfill included some lengthy discussion on the CIA spy Aldrich Ames and the FBI spy Hansen (sp?) among his exhibits. But you won’t find Ed linking those babies either.

"In the anthrax attack of 2001, some of the material was believed to be in a "fluidized" form (defined here as having fumed silica added).

They're just repeating nonsense from The Washington Post. That information was "discredited" by a letter to the editor explaining that images of the attack anthrax indicated it did NOT contain fumed silica. And the spores were certainly NOT COATED with fumed silica.

That Washington Post article by Gary Matsumoto and Guy Gugliotta was preceeded by another article involving Gary Matsumoto which said,

Four well-placed and separate sources told ABCNEWS that initial tests detected bentonite, though the White House initially said the chemical was not found.

The first battery of tests, conducted at Ft. Detrick, Md., and elsewhere, discovered the anthrax spores were treated with the substance, which keeps the tiny particles floating in the air by preventing them from sticking together — making it more likely that they could be inhaled.

That ABC report was totally "discredited" AND disproven by the fact that aluminum was not found in the attack anthrax, and therefore it could not contain bentonite -- even though Gary Matsumoto briefly tried to convince people that it may have been "aluminum-free bentonite."

And then, of course, there was another article in Science magazine where Gary Matsumoto reported that the attack anthrax contained something else:

About a year and a half ago, a laboratory analyzing the Senate anthrax spores for the FBI reported the discovery of what appeared to be a chemical additive that improved the bond between the silica and the spores. U.S. intelligence officers informed foreign biodefense officials that this additive was “polymerized glass.”

Yet, AFIP evidently never noticed the "polymerized glass," since they neglected to mention it. I've asked you before, but you've never answered this question:

Was Gary Matsumoto writing nonsense when he said there was "polymerized glass" in the attack anthrax, or did AFIP totally screw up when they failed to notice it?

Ed at www.anthraxinvestigation.com

It IS true. And you are proving me right.

The material’s light, fine texture and a brown ring around each spore suggest an additive

In other words, THEY SAW NO ADDITIVE, but a "brown ring" on a test suggested there might be one.

we don’t know that they’re additives

How could anyone in their right mind claim this statement says they saw additive? It says THEY DID NOT KNOW WHAT THEY WERE SEEING AND DETECTING.

They had DETECTED silicon and oxygen, and Geisbert had seen some "goop" ooze out of the spores when they were heated under a high-intensity beam, but THEY DIDN'T KNOW WHAT THEY WERE SEEING. General Parker said they were inexperienced with viewing powders.

We do know that we found silica in the samples. Now, we don’t know what that motive would be, or why it would be there, or anything.

They detected silicon and oxygen in the spores. They assumed it was in the form of silica. That does NOT mean that they SAW silica. It does not say they SAW silica. The statement clearly says they don't know "why it would be there." They WOULD know if it was an additive used to weaponize the anthrax.

You have shown once again what I've been saying: they did NOT see any additive in the attack anthrax.

Ed at www.anthraxinvestigation.com

I don’t mind that Ed doesn’t do research.

I only mind he does not make corrections when mistakes are pointed out.

I don't make corrections because you BELIEVE something. You claim to rely on experts, but the facts show you DO NOT UNDERSTAND EXPERTS and DO NOT RELY ON EXPERTS. All you do is look for words and phrases which you can twist to fit your beliefs.

Earlier in this thread, you claimed to be relying on experts who said that Ken Alibek's patent had something to do with coating spores. It did not.

In another thread, you told us how you talked with people at Texas A&M who told you that they sent the Ames strain directly to USAMRIID, and you've talked with people at the University of Iowa at Ames who said they did not have the Ames strain, yet you prefer to rely on the the report by a FREEPER who claims that some postal inspectors told her that the Ames strain DID go to a lab in Ames. And that is the "expert" who you want EVERYONE to believe.

If you "mind" that I do not run my web site the way you think it should be run, please explain to us what you plan to do about it?

I'd like to know, because in yet another thread, someone said this about you:

Nothing personal...but you sound a little bit on the obsessive side, and not completely coherent. Are you surprised that people might ask to have you banned? Besides the obvious trespass of registering under a new name after being banned, you have the sound of someone who might drive halfway across the country to find someone who offended you in a post.

Source: Message #87 at THIS LOCATION.

Ed at www.anthraxinvestigation.com

TrebleRebel had written in an earlier thread:

“Lake claims that weaponized anthrax spores (and weaponized simulants) are NOT coated with silica.”

Ed wrote:

“I don’t claim it. I state it as a FACT.”

Ed continues:

“The idea of coating spores to make them more “flyable” is absolute and total nonsense. It’s beyond that. It’s ridiculous and absurd. It’s just plain STUPID. *** coating spores makes them HEAVIER, and therefore LESS FLYABLE.

Silica is not used to COAT spores”

Ed, all I’m suggesting is that you rely on the published literature by the military scientists who publish studies in the journals relating to aerosol science that contradict what you say. A little less red ink. A little less capitalizing your imagined “facts”. A little more scientific approach. If you are stating a scientific proposition, cite the authority. You needn’t take it personally — or seek to personalize it. I’m just suggesting that the Dugway scientists who make anthrax simulants for a living are expert on the issue and you are not. Your argument that the idea of coating spores to make them more flyable was stupid, ridiculous and absurd, was in fact the specious statement, contradicted by the peer reviewed literature to you at any library.

Your legal commentary also lacks credibility but there you have the self-awareness to not presume to be giving expert commentary. In areas relating to science, you are under the mistaken understanding that you are qualified to address the issue. You’ve done an excellent job of making the Hatfill exhibits available to everyone and everyone is very appreciative of your time and attention to organization.

The Dugway authors explain:

“The focus of the work presented here was to develop a system to prepare multiple samples in a chamber, which allowed predictable concentrations of aerosolized spores (CLOSELY SIMULATING THE TYPE OF SPORES USED IN THE ACTUAL ATTACK) to settle on at least two types of surfaces and at concentrations that tested the limits of detection of the sampling and analytical methods. The second part of the study, to be reported elsewhere, produced a range of low concentration surface loadings on stainless steel and carpet surfaces, sampled the surfaces using several techniques, and analyzed the samples using multiple laboratories.”

You are arguing with a religious fanatic. He believes everything Alibek says like the word of a divine entity.

It doesnn’t matter that 7 authors from the CDC and the US Army at Dugway have just published a paper where they simulated the spores used in the 2001 anthrax attack by COATING anthrax spores with silica. Not does it matter that they published SEM pictures of BG spores made 40 years ago as biowarfare simulants - all COATED with silica. Nor does it matter that the authors REPEATEDLY state throughout the article that aerosol enabling spores for biowarfare are COATED with silica.

If Alibek says (especially when he’s laughing) that there’s no principle to coating then that means coatings have no utility in weapons. Ed obviously knows better than everyone - why do you think he’s sold so many books?

"CLOSELY SIMULATING THE TYPE OF SPORES USED IN THE ACTUAL ATTACK"

Congratulations ZacanPook for finding the key sentence that demonstrates the new CDC/Dugway paper methodology for simulating the type of spores used in the actual attack. I'm waiting for Ed to come back here soon claiming that this plainly written statement doesn't really mean what it says.

Maybe you should have made the statement in Fire-engine red font with EXTRA LARGE font for the word ACTUAL.

Just in case Ed doesn't know what "ACTUAL" means, I've provided a definition below:

Main Entry: ac·tu·al
Pronunciation: \ˈak-ch(ə-w)əl, -sh(ə-w)əl; -chü-əl, -shü-\ Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English actuel, from Late Latin actualis, from Latin actus act
Date: 14th century
1obsolete : active
2 a: existing in act and not merely potentially b:
existing in fact or reality c: not false or apparent
3: existing or occurring at the time : current the actual commission of a crime>

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.