Any of you people still around and remember this??
One more time ~ the FBI does not believe its own thesis; else they'd paid me off. That has not happened.
There are several things going on here. One is the anthrax source. Another is who done it. A third is where did they get that interesting address set in that format.
It was remarkably easy to nail down the address set ~ it came from the June 2001 issue of the Jews For Life newsletter/magazine. Doc Ivins wife appears to have been a member.
The FBI knows that.
This happens to have been a remarkable clue because, if followed (just look at the mailing list for the organization and start visiting everybody with a biochemist in the home) the FBI would have been ON THE SCENE of where they are now stuck way back in 2001.
Once there they'd either had the goods on Doc Ivins, or been able to get to some associate of his that may have been involved. If he'd taken the periodical to work and it'd disappeared, that'd be a clue. If the periodical was sitting on the dining room table that'd been another clue.
A vast number of false leads would have been discounted instantly ~ and that means the false leads provided by Barbara Hatch Rosenberg and her running dog lackeys on the Left at Columbia University would have not gotten in the way of the investigation.
I have no doubt the FBI could have done a better job without some folks running interference to protect their friends from investigation.
So, yeah, I remember this. And I'm still waiting for the FBI to let me know where to get my check.
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.
I'm still around, and yes, I remember it very well.
I'm pretty well convinced that Ivins was the perp. Innocent people who are accused of doing something they didn't do generally don't commit suicide before the trial even takes place.