New book - front cover

Click HERE to Order
from the Printer!


Click HERE to order from Amazon.com!

Analyzing the Anthrax Attacks
(2009-2014 Edition)

Commentary
& Analysis
by
Ed Lake

IF YOU HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION OR SEE ANY ERRORS ON THIS SITE, PLEASE CONTACT ME AT:
detect (at) newsguy (dot) com

The discussion blog for this web site is at
anthraxdebate.blogspot.com

New book - front cover

Click HERE to Order
from the Printer!


Click HERE to order from Amazon.com!
Click HERE to buy the Kindle version!

Click Here to order from Barnes & Noble!
My original analysis and working hypothesis,
and everything from prior to January 1, 2005, 

can still be accessed by clicking HERE.
All the information gathered and analyzed from
January 1, 2005, through December 31, 2008,
can still be accessed by clicking HERE.
Click HERE to buy the Kindle version!

Click Here to order from Barnes & Noble!
 
CONTENTS

(click on the Section to go to it)

Overview
Thoughts and Comments
  Latest references (top)
Latest references (end)

VIDEOS
  12 FACTS which  show that a child wrote the anthrax letters
Ed Lake describes his book "A Crime Unlike Any Other"

KEY SUPPLEMENTAL PAGES

(click on the name to link to the page)
Where & When Bruce Ivins Made the Anthrax Powders ... Allegedly
How Bruce Ivins Made the Anthrax Powders ... Allegedly
FOIA Pictures of Bruce Ivins' Laboratory
FOIA Pictures of Bruce Ivins' Office
The Bruce Ivins Timeline
The Errors That Snared Dr. Bruce Ivins
Bruce Ivins' Consciousness of Guilt
The Coded Message in the Media Letters (the "smoking gun")
Dr. Ivins' "Non-Denial Denials"
Evidence vs. Beliefs
The Mysteries of the AFIP "Report"
The Facts Say: A Child Wrote The Anthrax Letters

The Attack Anthrax Pictures
The annotated version of the Aug. 18, 2008, roundtable discussion
Van Der Waals Forces & Static Electricity: How they affect bacillus spores
The Steven Hatfill Timeline/The Attempted Lynching of Steven Hatfill
The Campaign to Point the Finger at Dr. Hatfill
Dr. Hatfill & The "Clueless" Media
The Media & Iowa State University
PBS Frontline vs. The Anthrax Facts
Anthrax, Assaad, Terror and the Timeline
Other Theories About the Anthrax Case
The Illogical al Qaeda Theory
Mohamed Atta did NOT write the anthrax letters
Reviews of my first book
My comments about other anthrax-related books

Overview

This web site was started on November 22, 2001 to keep track of facts related to the anthrax attacks which had become a major news event during the previous month.  I found that most people only wanted to discuss beliefs, opinions and conspiracy theories.  I wanted to see what the facts said.  Plus, news stories were appearing and then being deleted, and I needed a place to retain the articles which contained new information.  So, for the next seven years I accumulated facts and references and analyzed all the data I could find.  In March of 2005, I even self-published a book describing what the first three years of my analysis had found. 

On August 1, 2008, the news broke that the person the FBI believed to be the anthrax mailer had committed suicide.  His name was Dr. Bruce Ivins, and he worked at the USAMRIID labs at Ft. Detrick, MD.

The conspiracy theorists and True Believers who had argued their beliefs and opinions for the prior seven years were not persuaded by the FBI's evidence.  They continue to argue their beliefs and opinions, claiming that the FBI cannot prove Dr. Ivins was guilty.  After all, if the FBI was right, that would mean they have been wrong for seven years.  And that couldn't be, even though they don't even agree with each other about key facts:

Some still believe al Qaeda was behind the attacks.
Some still believe Saddam Hussein was behind the attacks
Some still believe a vast Jewish conspiracy was behind the attacks.
Some still believe the Bush administration was behind the attacks.
Some still believe the CIA was behind the attacks.
Some still believe pharmaceutical companies were behind the attacks.
Some still believe a writer was behind the attacks in order to sell books.
Some still believe Dr. Steven Hatfill was behind the attacks.
Some still believe a different scientist was behind the attacks.
Some still believe that a military person was behind the attacks.
Some still believe their next door neighbor was behind the attacks.

Some still believe the attack spores were "weaponized" with silica or silicon and that anyone who says otherwise is either lying or incompetent.  They still believe there must be some vast criminal conspiracy to cover up the real facts, because they simply do not believe anything the government - and particularly the FBI - says.

Some still believe that Dr. Ivins did not have the ability to make the attack anthrax. 

And, perhaps most bizarre of all, some still believe that there is some similarity between the "investigation" of Dr. Steven Hatfill (who was eventually exonerated) and the investigation of Dr. Bruce Ivins.  The facts show that the two cases could not be more different.  Dr. Hatfill was the victim of an attempted lynching by conspiracy theorists, people in the media and some politicians.  They worked together for six months to get Dr. Hatfill arrested for a crime he didn't do.  The FBI's Hatfill "investigation" was purely political and based upon "tips" from those same conspiracy theorist scientists who claimed the FBI was "covering up" for Dr. Hatfill when the FBI's investigation found nothing to tie him to the mailings.  The Ivins investigation, on the other hand, was the result of years of detailed scientific analysis and an equally detailed criminal investigation.

The Case Against Dr. Ivins

The facts say that Dr. Ivins was the anthrax mailer:

1.  He was in charge of the RMR-1029 flask containing the "mother" spores which produced the attack anthrax "daughter" spores.  He was in charge of "the murder weapon."

1.1  He tried to destroy "smoking gun" evidence that he had encoded a hidden message inside the media letters, but the evidence was recovered and clearly points to Dr. Ivins as the anthrax mailer.

1.2  He was a diagnosed sociopath.  In 2000, a year before the anthrax mailings, Ivins had talked with his mental heath counselor about his plan to poison a "young woman."  The counselor called the police, but because Ivins hadn't provided a name, there wasn't anything they could do.  The facts indicate the woman was Ivins' former assistant, Mara Linscott.  Ivins evidently changed his mind about poisoning her.

2.  The FBI investigated everyone else who had access to the RMR-1029 flask and eliminated all of them as suspects.  Eliminating potential suspects is routine police procedure.

3.  He had worked with Bacillus anthracis for over 20 years and had all the necessary expertise and equipment to prepare the spores in the anthrax letters.  He could routinely make a trillion spores a week.

4.  He accessed the locked suite (B3) where the RMR-1029 flask of spores was stored at the times the attack anthrax would have been prepared.

5.  He worked alone and unsupervised in his lab for long hours at night and on weekends during the time the attack anthrax would have been prepared.

6.  He had no scientific reason or verifiable explanation for working those hours or at those times.

7.  In December of 2001, Dr. Ivins secretly swabbed and bleached more than 20 areas in his lab, destroying possible evidence.   In April of 2002, he did it again.  Both cleanings were unauthorized and against protocol.  His explanations for doing it were contradictory to his actions.

8.  Investigators examined another flask of Ames anthrax spores created by Dr. Ivins for his own use in his work and found that a percentage of the spores in flask RMR-1030 contained silicon just like what was in the attack spores.

9.  It was not commonplace for him to work long evening hours in the Bacteriology Division's Suite B3 before the anthrax attacks or in the months after the anthrax attacks.  His long hours in Suite B3 at that time broke his normal work pattern.  Suite B3 was a BioSafety Level-3 area.


10.  He had multiple motives for sending the anthrax letters.

11.  He tried various ways to mislead investigators when they started to suspect him.

12.  He had no verifiable alibi for the times when he could have driven to New Jersey to mail the letters.

13.  He was known to drive long distances and to use various methods to mail letters and packages so they could not be traced back to him.

14.  He had various connections to the New Jersey area where the anthrax letters were mailed.  The ZIP Code used in the return address on the senate letters was 08852.  It belongs to Monmouth Junction, NJ.  According to a letter in Ivins' files, his ancestors on his father's side came from an area then known as Monmouth, NJ.  Plus, Monmouth College in Monmouth, IL, is where the Kappa Kappa Gamma sorority (an obsession of Ivins') was founded.

15.  He had serious mental problems, which appear to include murderous impulses.   He'd been seeing psychiatrists since 1978.

16.  The pre-stamped envelopes which were used in the attacks had print defects, and one of the post offices which sold those envelopes was a post office which Dr. Ivins used.

17.  His wife ran a day care center at the time of the attacks, Ivins had many contacts with children, and the facts indicate that a child of about 6 was used to do the actual writing on the anthrax letters.

18.  Investigations found no evidence that someone other than Dr. Ivins sent the letters.

19.  There is no evidence that Dr. Ivins could not possibly have sent the anthrax letters.

20.  People commit suicide to escape justice.  People who are unfairly accused sue their tormenters.

Although the case was officially closed on February 19, 2010, there may still be some additional facts pointing to Dr. Ivins' guilt which have not yet been disclosed by the FBI, specifically information related to his sessions with his psychiatrist or psychologist.  That information is still "under seal" by court order.

Meanwhile, those who cannot accept the FBI's findings continue to use every tactic they can to cast doubt upon the FBI's findings.  They have no proof of Dr. Ivins' innocence, so all they can do is try to make it appear that if there is any doubt - reasonable or not - about Dr. Ivins' guilt, then he must be innocent.

Conspiracy Theorists and True Believers 

Because they often support each other in opposing the FBI's official findings, it is sometimes difficult to tell a Conspiracy Theorist from a True Believer.  But, there is really are very distinct differences:

Conspiracy theorists often do not know or care who sent the anthrax letters, they only know that "the government" cannot be trusted, "the government" is lying about something, and they want to expose it.

True Believers feel they know beyond any doubt who sent the anthrax letters, and anyone who does not believe as they believe - including the FBI - is just not looking at the right facts.

Both will do anything and everything they can to get the undecided and uncertain to join with their cause.  And there are differences in their tactics as the go about their recruiting: 

The #1 tactic used by conspiracy theorists is junk science.  They wildly misinterpret facts about the case, they claim their bizarre misinterpretations prove something, and they demand that those misinterpretations and baseless claims be either accepted or disproved.
 
The #1 tactic used by True Believers is to accuse the non-believer of being "closed minded" and to wear down the non-believer as he tries to prove he is not "closed minded."

There's really no point to arguing with a True Believer.  Back in 1951, Eric Hoffer published his landmark book "The True Believer" in which he stated that the only way to change a True Believer's mind is to convert him to a different belief.  So, unless you are prepared to do that, it's best to just avoid them.  They will bury you in irrelevant facts if you don't avoid them, they'll claim that if you do not read everything they read and interpret everything the way they interpret them, then you are ill-informed and your opinion is worthless.

Conspiracy theorists, however, appear ready to debate some of the relevant facts of the case.  They just move on to different facts if they are proven wrong about their first set of facts.  Example:

The initial theory about the anthrax being "weaponized" was that the attack spores were coated with bentonite and the government was covering up that fact.  That theory was quickly shown to be false.  When the next theory that the attack spores were coated with fumed silica was also disproved, they moved on to a new theory that the attack spores had tiny particles of silica glued to them to defeat van der Waals forces.  When that was shown to be nonsense, they moved on to a theory that the spores were treated with a waterproofing substance that would coat the spore coat without leaving any trace on the exosporium. 

The conspiracy theorists and True Believers seem to have a few followers in Congress.  Perhaps there will also be some Congressional hearings.  I hope so.  Congressional hearings seem to be the only way to clarify certain details about others who were caught up in the investigation. 

Thoughts and Comments
by Ed Lake

Updates & Changes: Sunday, September 14, 2014, thru Saturday, September 20, 2014

September 16, 2014 - When I turned on my computer this morning and did a Google search for anthrax+2001, I found two book reviews for Graeme MacQueen's new book "
The 2001 Anthrax Deception."  One is in al-Jazeera.   It says,

Although the FBI remains committed to the Ivins hypothesis, the case has been disintegrating for the last three years. Currently, it is justly held in contempt not merely by scientists who worked with Ivins but by many journalists as well as several US senators.

Well, as I aways say, "The number of people who believe in something has nothing to do with whether it is true or not."   And whether a disbelief is "justly held" or not depends upon what the evidence says.

The evidence says that Dr. Bruce Ivins was the anthrax killer.  Contrary beliefs and opinions won't change that.  Only solid evidence can change that.  There is NO meaningful evidence which say Ivins was not the anthrax killer OR that someone else was.

The second book review is on the web site "Centre for Research on Globalization," and is titled "The Smoking Guns of the 2001 Anthrax Attacks."  The "smoking guns" appear to be merely some disjointed or irrelevant facts.  Example:

There was a set of 3 letters sent around the same time as the initial anthrax mailings, which attempted to frame the Russians for the anthrax attacks, and which warned of further attacks.  These letters could not have been sent by Dr. Bruce Ivins (the scientist the FBI blamed for the attacks), nor could they have been “copycat” letters
 
So, once again we see an argument that, because there were some anthrax hoax letters sent at about the same time as the real anthrax mailings of 2001, that cannot be a coincidence and the hoax and real letters must be connected.  Here's a comment I wrote for my interactive blog on May 22, 2012:

1. The hoax white powder letter phenomenon really began when, a few weeks prior to the December 15, 1997 announcement of the Anthrax Vaccine Program, US Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen held up a 5-lb. bag of sugar on the Today Show and warned that if the bag contained anthrax, it could kill half of Washington, DC.

2. Between 1997 and 2000, the number of credible bioterror threats or incidents rose dramatically, up to roughly 200 per year, or one biological threat every couple of days. Most of them were anthrax hoaxes.

3. The number of white powder hoaxes got so bad that the Canadian Military did research on how dangerous it would be to open a letter filled with real anthrax powder. Their report was published in September 2001, just before the mailings. You can read it by clicking HERE.

4. Steven Hatfill and his boss at SAIC asked William Patrick III to produced a similar report at about the same time. It was also produced shortly before the mailings.

5. So, we had a constant flow of hoax letters going through the mails - roughly one every couple days.

That means that NONE of the hoax letters that went out in September of 2001 were "copy cats". They were just more of the same -- more hoaxes in the flood of hoaxes.

All you need to do in order to see some sinister connection between the hoax anthrax letters and the real anthrax letters is to be ignorant of the facts.  Back on March 2, 2002, I created a web page where I looked at the facts.  Click HERE.  It says that, according to Richard Preston's book "The Demon in the Freezer, between 1997 and 2000 the number of hoax anthrax letters rose dramatically to about one every couple days.  Plus, it shows articles about anthrax appearing in the news right after 9/11, long before the first stories about Bob Stevens appeared in early October.  The possibility of Muslim terrorists launching an anthrax attack or some other kind of biological weapon attack as a follow-up to 9/11 was being discussed publicly by a LOT of people.

The real anthrax letters were mailed at a time when hoax anthrax letter were common.  That's why all the real anthrax letters sent to the media were simply thrown away or ignored.  Bruce Ivins got the idea to send out real anthrax in letters at the same time that a lot of others were sending out hoax anthrax letters.  It wasn't a coincidence.  It was Bruce Ivins failing to realize how many hoax letters were also in the mails. 

September 15, 2014 (D) - When I wrote my (A) comment this morning, I failed to mention something I read near the very beginning of "
Monty Python and Philosophy" where they described what the various sections in the book would be about:

Harry Brighouse's contribution, "Why Is An Argument Clinic Less Silly than an Abuse Clinic or a Contradiction Clinic?," makes use of the Python's famous "Argument Clinic" sketch (originally in Epispode 29 of Monty Python's Flying Circus, "The Money Programme") to illuminate how the political philosopher John Rawls (1926-2002) analyzed our beliefs about the rightness or wrongness of social practices and institutions.  Far from being a ridiculous scenario, Brighouse suggests, a real argument clinic could serve a genuine and much-needed social function.

The famous "Argument Clinic" sketch?  When I got home this afternoon, I did a search and found it on YouTube.com.  Click HERE.  There's also a Wikipedia article about it HERE.  And a transcript of the sketch is HERE.  There's another HERE.  And HERE.

I'm looking forward to reading that part of "Monty Python and Philosophy."  I can see how "a real argument clinic could serve a genuine and much-needed social function."  But how would you get an Anthrax Truther to go to one?  Argue with him?

September 15, 2014 (C) - If anyone is interested, on my interactive blog I'm currently engaged in another debate with a conspiracy theorist who doesn't seem to comprehend the difference between a belief and an hypothesis.  While doing research for the debate, I found this quote about the difference between a "theory" and an "hypothesis":

Scientists and science writers have a disturbing tendency to misuse these two words. In the vernacular, "hypothesis" and "theory" can be used interchangeably. However, in the scientific literature, scientists and science writers must be careful to distinguish between these two terms. A hypothesis is a tentative explanation that can be tested through investigation; a theory is an established set of ideas that can be used to make predictions.

As I see it, neither a theory nor an hypothesis cannot be logically compared to a belief.  A belief is something a person "believes" regardless of what the facts say.  Specifically, an hypothesis doesn't have anything to do with beliefs.  It just says if A, B and C are true, one possible explanation could be "D."   No one believes "D" is true.   It's just a temporary answer until more evidence can be found.  It might also help show where to look for more evidence which will either help confirm or disprove "D."   It's a tool.  If the tool doesn't work, you probably need a different "tool."  Beliefs are irrelevant.

September 15, 2014 (B) - Yesterday, someone sent me a link to an article from The New Yorker titled "The Twenty-Eight Pages."  This morning, someone else sent me a link to Tampa, Florida's Channel 10 TV station's web site and an article titled "10 investigates allegations of FBI 9/11 coverup." 

The two articles are related to the old story that some Saudis who were living in Florida at the time of 9/11 helped the 9/11 hijackers, and that Saudi Arabian officials helped finance the 9/11 terrorists.   It seems to be mostly allegations, but there are people who are demanding that those allegations be investigated.  The problem with investigating allegations is that it could harm relations between the USA and Saudi Arabia - and the investigation might not find anything that can make a solid case in court.  And, even a solid case can be made, there's no chance of extraditing anyone from Saudi Arabia. 

Nevertheless, a lot of Floridians and others want to "reopen the 9/11 investigation."  But, it's not to investigate some theory that it wasn't Muslim terrorists who were behind the attacks, it's to find out if there are some additional Muslims who should have been arrested and prosecuted for helping the 9/11 terrorists.

I can see the reasoning behind their call to "reopen the 9/11 investigation."  But I can also see that there could be many political reasons for not opening an old bag of worms.

I see no way this crusade could change the facts of who was behind the anthrax attacks of 2001, so I have no "mission" to seek "the truth" on this matter.  I'll leave that to others.  It's not really a crusade to find "the truth."  It's a crusade to find more people to blame for the attacks, people who, if not arrested, might theoretically some day help perpetrate another attack.  I'm not sure it's a "coverup" when the FBI fails to investigate such a matter.  It could just be a situation of where to allocate limited resources.  That's something that people on a mission do not care about.

September 15, 2014 (A) - This is more or less "off topic," but yesterday I finished reading another library book on my Kindle.  I'd been reading this non-fiction book during breakfast and lunch for over a month (when not on a novel reading binge).  Title:
"The Big Bang Theory and Philosophy: Rock, Paper, Scissors, Aristotle, Locke."  As I wrote in my August 17 comment, while it's touted as a philosophy book, it's more like a psychology book.  And psychology is one of my primary lifetime interests.  Philosophy is a very general look at the processes governing human thought and conduct.  Psychology is usually a look at the thoughts and conducts of a particular person or group of persons.  In this case, it's about the thoughts and conduct of the the fictional characters on the TV series "The Big Bang Theory."

The book was so interesting that I bought Season 1 of the TV show on DVD and watched it so that I could understand who was who.  (It is NOT a favorite TV series of mine.)  Since the book is all about the motivation processes and human interaction between the fictional scientists "Leonard Hofstadter" and "Sheldon Cooper" and their next-door neighbor "Penny" and others, I'm also hoping it will help me with my problem of making the characters in my sci-fi novels more interesting.

I also found it interesting that the book is part of a series.  After I finished reading "The Big Bang Theory and Philosophy," I immediately started reading "Monty Python and Philosophy."  I may read "The Avengers and Philosophy" after that.  Or "Batman and Philosophy."  Or "The Big Lebowski and Philosophy."  Those are at my library.  But, some of the others in the series look so interesting that I may actually buy one or two.

I have to be philosophical if I want to continue to argue with conspiracy theorists and True Believers every day.  Remember the motto:
Illegitimi non carborundum                 

September 14, 2014 - While in the past I haven't been particularly interested in conspiracy theories related to the 9/11 terrorist attacks, last week I found watching and listening to 9/11 conspiracy theorists Elias Davidsson and Barbara Honegger explain themselves and their theories to be very interesting.  Their thought processes seem to match the thought processes of Anthrax Truthers very neatly.

For example, no matter how much evidence there is in support of a government claim, they can't see any of it.

Here is how Anthrax Truther Lew Weinstein describes the Amerithrax case:

The FBI’s case against Dr. Ivins is clearly bogus: no evidence, no witnesses, an impossible timeline.
 
And here is how 9/11 Truther Elias Davidsson describes the 9/11 case:

There's no evidence whatsoever that the 19 people accused of mass murder boarded the planes on 9/11.

The above quote from Elias Davidsson can be found on a YouTube video by clicking
HERE and going to the 33 minute mark.

A similar quote can be found on another Elias Davidsson video at the 21 minute mark by clicking HERE:

There is not a single item of evidence pointing that these attacks [on 9/11] were perpetrated by people coming from abroad.  ... There is no single proof that any foreigners committed these acts.  No proof that any Arabs went into these planes.  And, so if these Arabs did not go into these planes, then the official story must be a lie.  ... The truth is that there were no Muslims involved in this crime.

Interestingly, Davidsson explains what he finds impossible to believe about the official version of what happened on 9/11.  At about the 37 minute mark in that same video, Elias Davidsson says ,

We cannot state that the passengers died in these crashes.  We have full reason to suspect that the passengers were murdered somewhere else. Murdered in cold blood by the U.S. Government.  ... It's impossible to believe for most people.  But, the fact that we don't have evidence that people died in the crashes - we don't have evidence - and it forces us to consider that they were killed somewhere else.  These people do not exist anymore.  They have died.  There is no question about that.  Their families mourn them, and there are many people participating in the mourning.  ... These people are certainly dead, and somebody murdered them.  And, I don't believe personally that they were in these planes, because if they were in these planes, then somebody would have piloted these planes.  And nobody in his right mind would pilot these planes to crash these planes -- even a Muslim --- even a Muslim.  I'm sorry.  Nobody in their right mind would do that.  Even absent all that I told you about the lack of evidence, just the thought that somebody would have piloted - with a pilot's license - would be capable of piloting a civilian aircraft - which the alleged hijackers did not have - ....

Even beyond the fact that there is no evidence, the official story is so fantastic - it is so science fiction - to believe that anybody in his right mind had ... the capability and the wish to fly a plane like this is so outrageous that to believe anybody would have crashed the planes with these passengers - and kill themselves at the same time - is itself implausible to the extreme.

It appears that "DXer" finds it impossible to believe just the opposite, that the Muslim terrorists who he fully accepts and believes killed thousands of innocent people on 9/11 did not also kill five people and injure 17 with the anthrax letters mailed after 9/11.  Only Muslim terrorists capable of a crime like 9/11 would do such a thing.  It seems DXer simply cannot believe that a lone scientist could or would do such a thing.  Evidence means nothing to people who find it impossible to believe the truth.

Barbara Honegger's two hour-long talk about the airliner that hit the Pentagon is very interesting - and chilling in its display of angry ignorance.  It's a demonstration of how someone who has no understanding of physics or human nature can misinterpret just about everything that happened on 9/11 at the Pentagon.  She seems to believe it is impossible for a mere airplane to hit the side of the Pentagon and do so much damage.  In her imagination, it should have done no more harm than a bug hitting a windshield.  She finds it impossible to believe that the people who were inside the Pentagon when it was hit by Flight 77 could mistakenly assume it was a bomb of some kind  instead of somehow knowing it was a plane.  She seems to find it impossible to believe that every clock in the area wasn't set to the exact same time.   She seems to find it impossible to believe that the first reports from the scene aren't the most accurate reports.  And she seems to find it impossible to believe that everyone in the world wouldn't do things the exact same way she believes she would do things in such a situation.

Elias Davidsson and others find it impossible to believe that a plane hitting the ground at high speed will plow into the ground instead of just splattering all over the place.  That's why they cannot accept what happened to United Airlines Flight 93 in Pennsylvania.  The physics of mass and velocity seem totally unknown to Davidsson and Honegger.  And, judging by the reactions of their audiences, there are a lot of people just like them.    

It appears that the beliefs of all the 9/11 conspiracy theorists and the anthrax conspiracy theorists can be summarized as follows:

They find it impossible to believe the government's version of what happened.
They believe government officials must all be either incompetent or lying.
If the government is lying, that would constitute a vast criminal conspiracy.
The government will not provide the evidence needed to prove a conspiracy.
Truthers do not have the power needed to force releasing of "the truth."
Therefore, they want a new investigation to find a "truth" they can believe.
And they are trying to convince the public to demand a new investigation.

What they do not seem to understand is that it takes IMPORTANT NEW EVIDENCE to open a new investigation.  The fact that some individual or group of individuals simply cannot believe that anyone would deliberately crash an airliner into a skyscraper won't bring about a new investigation.  Neither will some individual or group who simply cannot cannot believe that a lone American could be behind the anthrax letter attacks of 2001. 

The idea that there's going to be a new investigation to find new evidence is absurd.

Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein didn't sit around and wail and complain and demand that the government find evidence of a conspiracy they believe existed.  Woodward and Bernstein found it.   If the conspiracy theorists and Truthers want a new investigation, they need to find some important new evidence that would require a new investigation.

Displaying abysmal ignorance of the existing evidence isn't going to bring about a new investigation.  It will just show the world that the Truthers are truly a "Lunatic Fringe."

Updates & Changes: Sunday, September 7, 2014, thru Saturday, September 13, 2014

September 13, 2014 - This is totally off topic, but someone might find it interesting.

On Wednesday, I visited a store that sells used books.  It had hardback copies of "High Five" and "Twelve Sharp," the two Stephanie Plum novels by Janet Evanovich that I didn't yet have in my reading queue.  They were just $1.89 apiece, so I bought both.  That means I now have eighteen Stephanie Plum novels in various formats on a shelf or in my Kindle waiting to be read.  And nearly as many Jack Reacher novels by Lee Child.  Plus, two Temperance Brennan novels (#2 & #4) by Kathy Reichs.  Plus a few miscellaneous novels from Jonathan Kellerman, Robert B. Parker, Brad Thor, James Patterson and Scott Turow.

Queue of unread books

I'm still having a difficult time getting started on the second draft of my new sci-fi novel, so I was in the mood to read another novel.  But, also on Wednesday, "The Cold Dish," the first book in the Walt Longmire series by Craig Johnson became available in ebook form from my local library.  I already had #2 and #3 in the series in my Kindle, but I was waiting for #1 to become available before reading any of them.  So, on Wednesday, Thursday and Friday, I read "The Cold Dish." It took about 6 hours of total reading time.  While enjoyable, it definitely wasn't as enjoyable as the Stephanie Plum novels and Jack Reacher novels I've been reading. 

(Walt Longmire is also the main character in the TV series "Longmire" which ran for three seasons on the A&E network before getting cancelled a few days ago.)

So, now I'm between reading binges again, and I'm again trying to get started on that second draft. 

But, first I have to start working on tomorrow's comment for this site.

September 10, 2014 - Lew Weinstein and "DXer" continue to demonstrate how they have no interest in facts.  If some newspaper with an agenda printed distorted nonsense, and if that nonsense agrees with the beliefs shared by Lew and DXer, they'll endlessly use and distort the nonsense as "proof" of their nonsensical beliefs.

Yesterday, in a new post titled "the holes in the FBI case against Ivins are huge … will GAO point this out? … when will GAO report?" they said:

The Justice Department then highlighted the very points that many have said prove that Ivins could not have committed the attacks:

• That the anthrax used in the attacks originated from but did not come directly from Ivins’ flask.
• That the government’s anthrax was “genetically similar, but dissimilar in its form, to the anthrax that resulted in the death of Robert Stevens.”
• That “it would also take special expertise (even among those used to working with anthrax) to make dried material of the quality used in the attacks,” expertise that many of Ivins’ former co-workers said they didn’t believe he had

The words come from an July 18, 2013 article titled "Department of Justice upholds stance on Ivins" in The Frederick News-Post.  Anthrax Truthers Lew Weinstein and DXer appear to view the claim out of context, even though the News-Post said:

In seeking to prove the anthrax attacks were not foreseeable, the Justice Department notes that it is unclear when preparation for the anthrax attacks began.

The Justice Department then highlighted the very points that many have said prove that Ivins could not have committed the attacks:

  • That the anthrax used in the attacks originated from but did not come directly from Ivins' flask.
  • That the government's anthrax was "genetically similar, but dissimilar in its form, to the anthrax that resulted in the death of Robert Stevens."
  • That "it would also take special expertise (even among those used to working with anthrax) to make dried material of the quality used in the attacks," expertise that many of Ivins' former co-workers said they didn't believe he had.

But Boyd said in his Tuesday statement that "as the several motions filed Friday make clear, the Justice Department and FBI have never wavered from the view that Dr. Ivins mailed the anthrax letters. The Justice Department and FBI stand behind their findings that Dr. Ivins had the necessary equipment in the containment suite where RMR-1029 was housed to perpetrate those attacks and that a lyophilizer which he ordered, and which was labeled 'property of Bruce Ivins,' was stationed in a nearby containment suite."

The quotes originated in the U.S. Government's motion for a summary judgment in the Stevens v USA lawsuit.  The Government was seeking to prove that it was not legally "foreseeable" that Ivins would commit such a crime.  If it was not "foreseeable," then the government cannot be held liable.  The plaintiff, Maureen Stevens, was basically attempting to prove that the crime was forseeable, that the government was negligent, and therefore the government was liable and responsible for Ivins' crime.

So, Anthrax Truthers Lew Weinstein and DXer (aided by the News-Post) have done is distort the facts and twist one claim (that the crime was not forseeable) to argue a totally different and preposterous claim - "that Ivins could not have committed the attacks."

The fact that Ivins didn't send out spores taken directly from flask RMR-1029 in no way says he couldn't have committed the crime.  The Truther claim is pure NONSENSE.

The fact that the dry spores that killed Bob Stevens were "genetically similar" to the wet spores used by USAMRIID, but dissimilar in form (wet vs. dry), is a good legal point showing unforseeablity, but that fact in no way says Ivins couldn't have committed the crime.  The Truther claim is pure NONSENSE.

The fact that it takes "special expertise" to make dried spores, expertise that "many of Ivins' former co-workers said they didn't believe he had," shows those co-workers could not forsee that Ivins would commit such a crime.  But, it no way says Ivins couldn't have committed the crime. 
The Truther claim is pure NONSENSE.

And, of course, the two Anthrax Truthers do not allow anyone to dispute their nonsensical claims on their blog, so I have to point them out here on my site.

September 9, 2014 - While doing some research to analyze the similarities in beliefs between various conspiracy theorists, I found a long discussion about the anthrax case that was stared by Ken Dillon on December 12, 2008.  There were 173 comments.  Click HERE to read it.  It involves a number of different people - including me.  That discussion was preceeded by an even longer discussion started by Mr. Dillon on December 9, 2008, with 984 comments from various people.  Click HERE.  So, there was a time when a conversation could be held without Truthers resorting to personal insults and burying the talk under a flood of endless, irrelevant documents.  Nothing was resolved, of course.  No minds were changed.  And there are some very long speeches.  But it was generally a cordial conversation. 

September 8, 2014 (B) - This morning, I decided to do some additional research on some of the anthrax conspiracy theorists who helped Graeme MacQueen with his new book
"The 2001 Anthrax Deception."  I found four very interesting YouTube videos.

Click HERE for a talk by Barbara Honegger.  It has some truly screwball comparisons between Pearl Harbor and 9/11.
  (Her slide show is HERE.)  She believes that neither Pearl Harbor nor 9/11 were surprise attacks.

Click HERE for a truly weird talk about the anthrax attacks by Barry Kissin. 

Click HERE for an interview with Elizabeth Woodworth where she rationalizes disputing the official version of 9/11 without attempting to prove any alternative version.  She also disbelieves that Osama bin Laden had anything to do with 9/11.

If anyone wants to know why conspiracy theorists are viewed as "nut jobs," those 3 videos will explain it - providing you have some comprehension of what really happened.

A fourth video HERE shows Elias Davidsson explaining very calmly, point by point, why he doesn't believe Muslim terrorists were behind 9/11.  He doesn't even believe there were any Muslim terrorists on the hijacked aircraft.  He also seems to believe that tens of thousands of people are involved in the coverup of "what really happened" on 9/11.  He begins his hour long talk by saying it's just his opinion, and he doesn't ask anyone to believe him.  He doesn't seem to be "nuts."  That's what is most scary about him.

September 8, 2014 (A) - In case anyone is interested, it appears that the mapping of the section of the Indian Ocean floor where they plan to continue the search for the wreckage of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370 has found some "hard objects."  However, the "objects" could just be some kind of natural rock formation.  The actual search of the ocean bottom will evidently resume on September 22, with additional ships joining the search in October and November.  Meanwhile, the conspiracy theories continue.

September 7, 2014 (B) - Hmm.  In my previous comments, I failed to mention Graeme MacQueen's credentials for writing
"The 2001 Anthrax Deception."  Amazon.com says:

[The Author] received his Ph.D. in Buddhist Studies from Harvard University and taught in the Religious Studies Department of McMaster University for 30 years. While at McMaster he became founding Director of the Centre for Peace Studies at McMaster, after which he helped develop the B.A. program in Peace Studies and oversaw the development of peace-building projects in Sri Lanka, Gaza, Croatia and Afghanistan. Graeme was a member of the organizing committee of the Toronto Hearings held on the 10th anniversary of 9/11 and is co-editor of The Journal of 9/11 Studies.

Using Amazon.com's "Look Inside" feature, I also examined
the "acknowledgements" section and checked the names of people who helped him with his book.   He says,

Elias Davidsson and Barbara Honegger were ready to help.  Meryl Nass read the manuscript carefully and gave detailed advice.  Barry Kissin helped me at every stage of the research.  .... Philipp Sarasin's work was an essential source of inspiration .... Herbert Jenkins read an early version of this book and offered constructive criticism.  Elizabeth Woodworth carried out a detailed reading of several drafts and had much useful advice.  She shared generously her own research materials and suggested I refashion into a book what was originally only an academic article.

At first glance, it seems to be the blind leading the blind.  After more thorough reading, it is clear that is definitely the blind leading the blind - or conspiracy theorists helping conspiracy theorists.  Elias Davidsson wrote a book called "Hijacking America's Mind on 9/11: Counterfeiting Evidence."  Here's part of the book description on Amazon:

A large body of literature discusses the preplanned destruction of the Twin Towers and of WTC Nr.7, while mainstream media have extensively reported about the reluctance of the Bush administration to investigate 9/11, the destruction of criminal evidence from Ground Zero and other facts suggesting a government cover-up. But they all stopped short of connecting the dots. Four features distinguish Davidsson's book from the rest. He provides: - The definite (or ultimate) demonstration that there is no evidence of Muslim hijackers

Barbara Honegger wrote an op-ed piece for OpEdNews.com that says:

So what is the evidence linking anthrax to Sept. 11? 
 
1) Whatever insiders wrote the letters mailed with the anthrax wanted you to believe they were linked to 9/11. As is well known, the date hand written on the anthrax letters is Sept. 11, 2001. Though the official story -- that the first letter, to Florida photo journalist Bob Stevens, wasn’t mailed until after 9/11 and so anthrax wasn’t part of the actual 9/11 plot -- it’s clear that whoever wrote and dated the letters and added the super-weaponized (3) U.S. military anthrax wanted you to believe there is a direct connection, and that Islamic foreigners were responsible for both.

Reference (3) leads to an article co-authored by Barry Kissin.  That article from Aug. 18, 2008 says:

Ivins had nothing to do with the 2001 anthrax attacks. The attacks were almost certainly carried out by the only group that had the means to produce the highly weaponized anthrax in the letters: the CIA, its contractor Battelle Memorial Institute of West Jefferson, Ohio., and the Army at Dugway in Utah.

Dr. Meryl Nass's opinions are well known.  Her blog is HERE.

Philipp Sarasin wrote a book titled "Anthrax: Bioterrorism as Fact and Fantasy."  This is from a synopsis of the book:

Basing his analysis on government documents and media coverage between the events of September 11, 2001, and the beginning of the Iraq War in March 2003, he shows that the anthrax letters became the necessary fantasy-link between the 9/11 attacks and Saddam Hussein's "weapons of mass destruction."

A Google search for Elizabeth Woodworth finds an article she wrote about Building 7 of the World Trade Center being brought down by a "controlled demolition."

A Google search for Herbert Jenkins finds only a page with his name as the heading, but the page has a YouTube video of an interview with Graeme MacQueen.

(After I posted the above comment, someone advised me of a 5-part video talk by Graeme MacQueen on YouTube.  Click HERE.  He seems to be arguing that, because it wasn't immediately known exactly who sent the anthrax letters, the investigation that followed must all be some kind of U.S. government plot to fool the public.  But he also argues that if anyone disbelieves or disagrees with the official version, then the official version must wrong.  Ignorant opinions override all facts and evidence.)

September 7, 2014 (A) - This morning, I had a comment all written and ready to post to this site as my Sunday offering.  I wrote some of it on Friday and finished it on Saturday morning.  Then, later on Saturday, I read Friday's PressTV article "Neocons confess: 'We did 9/11-anthrax'," which led to Graeme MacQueen's new book
"The 2001 Anthrax Deception."  And this morning I've got only one question on my mind: Why don't the various conspiracy theorists argue with one another?

Dr. Meryl Nass seems to have given Mr. MacQueen's book a glowing review.  Does she agree with MacQueen that the U.S. Government was behind the 9/11 attacks?  Does she believe the Twin Towers were brought down by explosives that were planted by the CIA?  She certainly seems to believe that the U.S. Government was somehow behind the anthrax attacks.  However, all she says in her review is that she disagrees that Bruce Ivins was the anthrax mailer:

"Finally, a book has come out that explodes the FBI's anthrax letters case.  Not
only is there no evidence linking Army scientist Bruce Ivins to the crime--it turns
out his famous flask of anthrax was never proven to be related to the attack
spores!  MacQueen peeks behind the curtain, showing that nothing about the
anthrax letters case is as it seems."

Why don't all these conspiracy theorists argue with one another!?  I think it would be a lot more interesting and we could all learn a lot more if the conspiracy theorists argued with one another, instead of just mindlessly agreeing that the U.S. government cannot be trusted about anything.  I suspect that there are plenty of conspiracy theorists who accept that Ivins was the anthrax killer, but that he was working as an agent or pawn of the U.S. Government.  I'd like to hear them argue with the people who think Ivins had nothing to do with the attacks.

Every day, the cartoon I created in March 2013 seems more and more relevant:

Anthrax Truther beliefs
Why doesn't DXer - who fully and unshakably believes al Qaeda operatives were behind the anthrax attacks - post rants against Graeme MacQueen's book for suggesting that the U.S. Government was behind the anthrax attacks?  This morning DXer posted a large paragraph he found on a the Alibris.com web site which appears copied from Amazon and seems to support the al Qaeda idea before it mildly indicates that MacQueen's point of view is totally different.  And then DXer makes his own point:

Comment:

“(c) these insiders were connected to the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks;”

Yes, but Bin Laden was behind the 9/11 attacks.

In another comment posted this morning in another thread, DXer wrote this:

Has Graeme MacQueen mastered the documents and read the literature? Why would he engage in a structural and historical analysis rather than a documentary and true crime analysis?

Obtain and compare his manuscript to the documents uploaded on this blog.

Instead of arguing his belief that al Qaeda sent the anthrax letters against MacQueen's apparent belief that the U.S. government sent the letters, DXer just asks more of his endless, silly, meaningless questions!  His only argument seem to be that MacQueen doesn't do things the way DXer does them.

Nuts!  I'm running out of time.  I'm just going to post what I already wrote for today.  Here goes:

Writer Leo Rosten once wrote: "I never cease being dumbfounded by the unbelievable things people believe." 

I keep thinking I should create a supplementary web page where I would list The Top Ten Most Unbelievable Things Anthrax Truthers Believe.  But how would I rank them?  Sometimes, each seems more unbelievable than the next.

The belief that the GAO is going to somehow overturn the FBI's finding that Dr. Bruce Edwards Ivins was the anthrax mailer should probably to be at the top of the list.  But, does anyone really believe that is going to happen?  Or are the Anthrax Truthers just trying to make it happen?  The belief that they can make it happen by posting screwball questions to some obscure blog would be almost as unbelievable.

#2 on the list might be how the Anthrax Truthers seemed to believe that the DOJ prosecutors were "Spinning The Theory That Bruce Ivins Was The Anthrax Processer and Mailer" by claiming that flask RMR-1029 was never stored in Building 1412.  It was incredibly dumb, since the facts clearly say it was the FBI who was trying to prove flask RMR-1029 was once stored in Building 1412 (where Steven Hatfill worked), while Dr. Ivins was claiming that flask RMR-1029 was NEVER stored there.

Are the Truthers still arguing that belief?  I've seen no mention of them learning that they were wrong. The claim remains uncorrected on Lew Weinstein's blog.  The longer it remains uncorrected, the dumber it seems.

#3 on the list could be the unbelievable belief that "The anthrax letters are in the handwriting of [Mohammed] Atta."  Anyone with any knowledge of handwriting analysis can see that it isn't Atta's handwriting.
  The facts show DXer's belief is absurd.  But he won't accept what just anyone says.  He wants some official expert to state officially that it is not Mohammed Atta's handwriting.  Until then, he is evidently going to continue to believe that, because there is a similarity in the way Atta drew the number 2 and the way the anthax writer wrote the number 2, that overrides all the many and varied differences in the handwriting.  That's just plain unbelievable

#4 might be the inexplicable belief voiced by more than one Anthrax Truther that the FBI's failure to find evidence everywhere they look is the same as finding exculpatory evidence showing Ivins to be innocent.  That is truly an unbelievable belief.  How can anyone believe that just because the FBI looked for the culprit's DNA in the mailbox where the letters weren't found and didn't find it, that is somehow exculpatory evidence indicating Dr. Ivins was innocent?  Unbelievable!!!

#5 could be the belief that
Adnan El-Shukrijumah was the anthrax mailer.  There's no reason to believe that El-Shukrijuma was even in the U.S. when the anthrax letters were mailed, much less in New Jersey on both dates.  It's an unbelievable belief conjured up by putting 2 and 2 together and getting 437,397.  It makes no sense whatsoever.

#6 might be #1 on some days.  It's the belief that Dr. Ivins didn't have the knowledge to make dry anthrax spores.  That is as unbelievable as beliefs can get.  A three year old child would know that if you leave something wet out in the open air for a few hours it will dry.  Mud will dry and become dust.  There's nothing magic about it.  It's probably one of the first things you learn in microbiology classes: Don't leave wet spores out in the open air.  They'll dry and aerosolize.  Duh!   

#7 ties to #6.  It's the unbelievable belief that Dr. Ivins didn't have the equipment to make the anthrax powders.  It appears to come from some kind of unbelievable belief that the only way anything can be done in a government lab is the safe, official, approved way.  If it is dangerous to make dry anthrax spores, then no one could possibly do it.   If it is not officially allowed to make dry spores, then it cannot be done.  If the approved way to make dried spores is in a drying machine, then that's the only way it can possibly be done.  The fact that dried spores can be created with equipment that is in nearly every BSL-3 lab seems incomprehensible to people with unbelievable beliefs.  All the equipment that Bruce Ivins needed to create the anthrax powders that were in the media envelopes was a biosafety cabinet and some plates covered with anthrax that had been left in a biosafety bag in a corner for a few weeks.  The spores would air-dry in the biosafety cabinet in a few hours.  Or maybe the Truthers have some unbelievable belief that Ivins didn't have any rubber gloves or a utensil to scrape the dried spores out of the plates.  Or do they believe that biosafety cabinets don't work?   

#8 ties to #6 and #7.  It's the unbelievable belief that Dr. Ivins didn't have the time to make the anthrax powders.  DXer endlessly argues his unbelievable belief that if Bruce Ivins had any official work to do during a given day, then Ivins could not possibly have done anything unofficial during that same day.  If Ivins was at a meeting from 5:30 p.m. to 7 p.m., then he could not possibly have gone anywhere else that evening after 7 p.m.  If Ivins was working with test rabbits in October, then he couldn't possibly have had the time to do anything but work with test rabbits during October -- or September or August. It's another unbelievable belief endlessly voiced by DXer.

#9 is the seemingly unshakable and unbelievable belief some Anthrax Truthers have voiced that the attack anthrax was deliberately "weaponized" with silicone or silicon or silica or most unbelievably - "polymerized glass."  The powder in the media letters was 90% dried slime (matrix material) and dead mother germs.  It was only 10% spores.  It's what you get in a Petri dish when you let anthrax bacteria germinate and grow until they run out of food and room.  You get dead bacteria that failed to sporulate, you get the carcasses of mother germs that produced spores, you get the matrix material that is the after-birth slime of sporulation, and you get spores.  And the whole mess will all dry into a soft, crunchy powder in the open air.  How do you  "weaponize" a spore by coating it with "polymerize glass" when it is still inside the mother germ?  How do you do it without also coating the dead bacteria and leaving most of the "polymerized glass" as part of the dried slime?  Some Anthrax Truthers have a totally unbelievable belief that it must have been done somehow.  If it wasn't done the way they believe, then it wasn't a government conspiracy.  And they find that unacceptable.  For some Anthrax Truthers, it's better to believe the unbelievable than to accept that Ivins could have unintentionally created anthrax spores with a "silicon signature" without using some secret and illegal, government-approved weaponization process.   

And what should #10 on the list be?  The unbelievable belief that the FBI claimed that a lyophilizer was used to make the anthrax powders?  The unbelievable belief that beliefs somehow make
Bruce Ivins innocent and the solid facts showing Dr. Ivins was guilty are meaningless and irrelevant?  The unbelievable belief that the attack powders were made in Afghanistan in two different forms, transported to America and then mailed at two different times by Muslim terrorists who included medical advice in the letters to reduce the danger of someone accidentally being harmed by the anthrax?   The unbelievable belief that if anyone makes a mistake, then nothing they ever do afterward can be trusted ever again?  The unbelievable belief that everyone in the government is part of some gigantic conspiracy and - just like the Borg villains on Star Trek - everyone in the government automatically knows what everyone else knows?  The inexplicable and unbelievable and idiotic belief that the Twin Towers were brought down by CIA planted explosives instead of by the hijacked planes that crashed into the towers?

I could go on and on and on and on.


Updates & Changes: Monday, September 1, 2014, thru Saturday, September 6, 2014

September 6, 2014 (B) - Hmm.   I just did a search through the new conspiracy theory book "The 2001 Anthrax Deception" by Graeme MacQueen that I mentioned in my (A) comment this morning, and I found that it has 4 pages (205-208) dedicated to my analysis of the anthrax attacks of 2001 - or more specifically, my 2003 analysis as to whether or not the St. Petersburg letters were part of the attack.  

Cool!  I'm not sure whether that will be enough for me to actually buy a copy of the book, but it might.

Mr. MacQueen cannot see any coincidences between the mailing of the hoax letters and the mailing of the anthrax letters, and he concludes that the St. Petersburg letters were part of the U.S. Government's anthrax letter criminal conspiracy.   He distorts my arguments in this comment from page 207:

(3) Lake's final argument had to do with the copycat phenomenon.  Copycat criminals, he said, will send hoax or implied threat letters after a genuine article is made public.  He implied that the St. Petersburg letters can be dismissed for this reason.  But neither the deadly anthrax letter postmarked on September 18 nor any of the other anthrax letters in the attacks was known to the public when the September 20 threat letter was sent.  The writer of the September 20 letter, if he or she was an ordinary member of the public, could not have been "copying" any of the letters sent in the anthrax attacks.

I implied no such thing.  The notes on page 208 indicate all of MacQueen's information comes from my 2003 page titled "Hoaxes, Psychology & Barbara Hatch Rosenberg."  That page has a quote from Dr. Rosenberg near the very beginning:

Therefore the hoax letters targeting media are not simply a copycat phenomenon. The envelopes on most or all of the hoax letters were addressed in block capitals similar to the addresses on the anthrax envelopes, even though they were mailed before the anthrax envelopes became known.

My actual analysis of the St. Petersburg hoax letters comes near the end of the page:

My analysis of the anthrax cases indicates that none of the hoax letters are connected in any way to the anthrax mailings.  That doesn't mean the hoax letters were coincidental.  It is not a coincidence when it is common to have anthrax hoaxes nearly every week and some such hoaxes occur close in time or location to a real event. 

But, Mr. MacQueen sees it as too much of a coincidence that a hoax letter was sent to Tom Brokaw from Florida at about the same time as an anthrax letter was sent to Tom Brokaw from New Jersey.  I think it all depends upon how many hoax letters Tom Brokaw routinely received in a week or month.  I stand by my analysis.

I also note that "DXer" isn't mentioned in the book.   That's probably because "DXer" believes that al Qaeda was behind the attacks, and Mr. MacQueen clearly believes it was a U.S. Government conspiracy.   Here's what Amazon.com's page says about that:

This book support[s] with a great deal of evidence the following four assertions: (a) the anthrax letter attacks were carried out by a group of perpetrators, not by a “lone wolf;” (b) the group that perpetrated this crime was composed, in whole or in part, of deep insiders within the U.S. state apparatus; (c) these insiders were connected to the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks; (d) the anthrax attacks were meant to play an important role in the strategy of redefinition through which the Cold War was replaced by a new global conflict framework, the Global War on Terror.

One of the web sites helping to promote the book phrases point (c) very differently:

(c) These insiders were the same people who planned the 9/11 attacks

I also notice that Chapter 1 of the book argues that people who have conspiracy theories shouldn't be called "conspiracy theorists."  MacQueen's reasoning includes the argument that people who believe al Qaeda terrorists conspired to commit the 9/11 atrocities are also "conspiracy theorists."  Not so.  The plotting of 9/11 was definitely a criminal conspiracy.  But it is not a "theory" that al Qaeda was behind 9/11.  Their leader admitted it, and there is a mountain of evidence to support it.  That makes it a proven fact"Conspiracy theorists" have beliefs instead of evidence and facts.  And that includes conspiracy theorists like "DXer" who believes without facts and evidence that al Qaeda operatives were behind the anthrax attacks.  And it includes conspiracy theorists like Mr. Graeme MacQueen who believes without facts and evidence that the U.S. government was behind the anthrax attacks.    

September 6, 2014 (A) - One of the first things I do every morning after I turn on my computer is to do a Google search for the words "anthrax" and "2001."  When I did that search this morning, up popped an article from Press TV, which is an Iranian news outlet. The article is titled "Neocons confess: 'We did 9/11-anthrax'."  The article begins with this:

As the 13th anniversary of the crimes of September, 2001 approaches, the neoconservatives are shrieking from the rooftops – and effectively confessing that they were the real perpetrators of the 9/11-Anthrax false flag operation. 

"Shreiking from the rooftops?"  Really?  I haven't been hearing it.  Reading further, the article says,

Everywhere you look in the Zionist-dominated mainstream media, some neocon asset is hyping a ridiculous story about an "Islamic terrorist threat" – and tying it to the upcoming 9/11 anniversary.

Consider the preposterous legend, planted by neocons at Fox News then picked up by the rest of the media, that 11 missing Libyan jetliners may attack the USA on September 11th, 2014. The original Fox News story quotes an unnamed and probably imaginary US government official as saying: "There are a number of commercial airliners in Libya that are missing. We found out on September 11 what can happen with hijacked planes.”

I'm not going to go through all the bizarre conspiracy theory nonsense in the article.  It's even worse than the conspiracy theory nonsense you see on American blogs like Lew Weinstein's.  They twist and distort things and then argue that what they twisted and distorted cannot happen.   It's kind of interesting in a creepy sort of way.  Plus, they provide information that I've never seen before.  Example:

In his new book The 2001 Anthrax Deception, Canadian professor Graeme MacQueen shows how many of the guilt-revealing delusional tales spread by the neocons in the autumn of 2001 related to the anthrax component of the 9/11-Anthrax false flag operation.

Oooo.   That sounds like an interesting book, but not one I'd pay money to read.   Doing a Google search for it, I find it was published by Clarity Press.   MacQueen's page on their site shows book reviews by some familiar names:

"Professor MacQueen provides yet another piece of the puzzle connecting the
terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 to the immediately following anthrax
attacks of October 2001 that were indisputably conducted by Agents of the
United States government."
Francis A. Boyle, author of the U.S.domestic implementing legislation for the
1972 Biological Weapons Convention.

"Finally, a book has come out that explodes the FBI's anthrax letters case.  Not
only is there no evidence linking Army scientist Bruce Ivins to the crime--it turns
out his famous flask of anthrax was never proven to be related to the attack
spores!  MacQueen peeks behind the curtain, showing that nothing about the
anthrax letters case is as it seems."
Meryl Nass, MD, consultant on the prevention and mitigation of bioterrorism for
the Director of National Intelligence and the World Bank

"In The 2001 Anthrax Deception, Dr. MacQueen uncovers the multiple ways
Americans were manipulated to believe in their aftermath that the 9-11 attacks and
the anthrax attacks were a one-two punch delivered by Muslim terrorists with
Iraqi support. Later, when the fact could not be denied that the source of the
anthrax attacks was an American military biolab, all the elaborate claims and
stories about the connections between 9-11 and anthrax disappeared. Dr.
MacQueen shows that indeed 9-11 and anthrax were connected, and that the
false-flag, inside job characteristic that inexorably became part of the official
version of the anthrax attacks must also apply to 9-11."
Barry Kissin, American attorney and author of
The Truth About The Anthrax Attacks
 
Birds of a feather flock together.  It's interesting that Iranian conspiracy theorists seem to find American conspiracy theorists to be "birds of a feather."

(Click HERE for Barry Kissin's 2009 article "The Truth About the Anthrax Attacks.")

September 5, 2014 - At 9:15 a.m. this morning, I finished reading
"Four to Score," by Janet Evanovich.  I got through 90% of it yesterday, read some more at breakfast, and finished it while waiting for some updates to my security software to be done.  It took a total of about 6 hours of reading time, including 30 minutes on the treadmill and 20 minutes on the exercycle at the health club yesterday.  It was a very enjoyable read, and I think I got some very good character development ideas from it for my own book.  I haven't been able to find a reasonably priced copy of the #5 book ("High Five") in the series anywhere.  But, that's probably a good thing.  Because I've got paperback editions of #6, #7, #8, #9, #10 and #11 waiting on a bookshelf behind my computer.

An example of a "character development idea" is how the main character (bounty hunter Stephanie Plum) talks about hating to buy a new car.   Why she hates it:

Nothing I hated more than car shopping.  I'd rather have a mammogram than go car shopping.  I never had enough money to get a car I really liked.  And then there were the car salemen ... second only to dentists in their ability to inflict pain.  Ick.  An involuntary shiver gripped my spine.

The main character in my new sci-fi book is driving a rental because a building collapsed on his car in the previous book.  I think I mention that he doesn't like car shopping, but I make no mention of WHY he doesn't like it.  Explaining motivation is a major part of what "character development" is all about.

Meanwhile, I see September is starting out to be a very busy month for visitors to this web site.  I've had over 700 visitors during 3 of the 4 days so far:

Daily Statistics for September 2014
Day Hits Files Pages Visits Sites KBytes
1 2767 26.93% 2177 26.74% 1671 33.49% 735 25.40% 713 27.34% 224874 26.31%
2 2469 24.03% 1940 23.83% 1073 21.50% 689 23.81% 780 29.91% 203720 23.83%
3 2506 24.39% 1949 23.94% 1111 22.26% 715 24.71% 783 30.02% 198694 23.25%
4 2523 24.55% 2064 25.35% 1129 22.63% 751 25.95% 819 31.40% 226503 26.50%

I had only 3 days with over 700 visitors in all of August, and only 7 in all of July, which was my busiest month since August 2008, when the news broke that Bruce Ivins was the anthrax killer.  There also seems to be a steady increase in the number of sites doing the visiting.  I haven't had over 800 different sites visiting since August 2008, either.  I suspect some of the activity is from people looking for news about the General Accountability Office's Amerithrax review, which I'm expecting to come out late this month or early in October. 

"DXer" is helping raise the numbers.  He visited 30 times in the past 4 days.  I sincerely hope he learned something during all those visits.


September 4, 2014 -
I looked around this morning to see what I can comment upon.  I checked Lew Weinnstein's blog and found that DXer is posting copies of entire articles about the Amerithrax case from October 2011 issues of McClatchy newspapers.  And he's posting links to a lot of additional articles from the past.  He's not explaining WHY he's doing that, of course.  It's all in a thread complaining that the GAO isn't producing their Amerithrax review as fast as DXer and Lew want it produced. 

I also checked the web sites HERE and HERE that keep track of the latest happenings in the search for Malaysia Airlines flight MH370.  Absolutely nothing happening there. 


It appears my email problem has been solved.  I sent an email to the guy in Virginia this morning, and it went through okay.  Someone also sent me a link to a web site where I can check to see if an IP address has been "blacklisted."  It shows the IP address that was giving me a problem yesterday is indeed being "blacklisted" by some people.

Meanwhile, my problem with getting started on the second draft of my sci-fi novel hasn't been solved.  

Also meanwhile, I had been unsuccessfully hunting through stores that sell used-books looking for Janet Evanovich's Stephanie Plum novel "Four to Score."  I'd read the first three books in the series and wanted to read #4.  It wasn't available at my library, and I didn't want to pay full retail price for it.  Yesterday afternoon, I thought I'd look at the reviews for the book.  I discovered that Amazon had the ebook on sale for $2.99.  That's a price I'm willing to pay to read a novel.  So, I bought it.  I read for a little over and hour and finished about 21% of it.  It appears to be about a 6 hour read.  That means I'll probably finish it tomorrow.  It's a very funny and enjoyable book. 

Lastly, in August 2012 my brother in-law asked my opinion of cloud computing.  He was looking for a place to invest.  I sent him a link to an article about it HERE, and I told him I basically agreed with the comment after the article where someone wrote:

Cloud computing is THE most assinine idea ever conceived in IT [Information Technology]. After spending decades and dollars to learn how to keep information secure on a LAN, we're supposed to jump for joy at the prospect of putting our information on the WWW/WAN (in the full control of others) and feel secure?

and this one:

Since the "Cloud" is just a new name for the Internet I would not say it is the most asinine idea ever. I mean it took some marketing person many brain cycles to sell the Internet to a client as a new and improved way of doing things.   You cannot go to a client and say, "I have got this great idea.  Let us put your info/product/storage etc.. on the Internet"  That does not sound good.  "I have got this great idea.  Let us put your info/product/storage etc in the Cloud"  Now that you can sell.  Many people making financial decisions for a company get easily attracted by shiny coins and bright lights it's a great term for an old product wih a new way of implementing it.

Jump on that synergy bandwagon my friend.  The snake oil is here to stay.

I think I may send my brother in-law an email today saying, "I told you so."

September 3, 2014 - Hmm.  Do you ever get the feeling that life is just getting too complicated?  This morning I tried to respond to an email I received overnight from someone in Virginia.  My response bounced back with an error message that said:
(reading BANNER): 554 p3plibsmtp03-03.prod.phx3.secureserver.net bizsmtp 107.14.166.227 has been blocked for the day, for attempting to mail too many invalid recipients. IB113
That IP address isn't mine.   It traces to a Time Warner Cable server in Coudersport, PA.  (I'm on Time Warner Cable, but the guy in Virginia I was trying to email is not.)  I tried sending the same message again and got the same bounceback.  Then I tried sending an email to someone in Boston to make sure all my emails weren't being blocked by Time Warner.  The guy in Boston responded while I was writing this comment, so it's just that one email address that gets the error message.

I haven't ever sent any emails to "invalid recipients," as far as I know.   The friend in Boston who did get my mail this morning is an Internet expert, and we've concluded that the problem email is getting routed through or near IP 107.14.166.277 where someone is doing a lot of spamming.  And my email is getting caught in the Time Warner block on that spamming.

I called Time Warner Cable to make them aware of the problem.  But, they had no clue as to what the problem might be.  They told me to try again tomorrow. 

It's another situation where a non-expert (me) knows infinitely more about the situation than the "expert."   Looking at the source code for the emails I received from the guy in Virginia, I see his emails orginate at an IP address related to his business, then the emails gets passed to Time Warner IP address 107.14.70.244.  
So, there's no way he could be blocking me, as the "expert" at Time Warner suggested.   It appears that some "expert" at Time Warner Cable applied a block for a series of IP addresses (107.14.000.000 thru 107.14.256.256) instead of just the one IP address he wanted to block: 107.14.166.227.  But, the Time Warner "expert" I talked with wouldn't even begin to understand anything about that sort of thing.  He just responds to customers who someone got disconnected from the Internet or who forgot their passwords.

This happened before lunch.  While eating lunch, I realized there was another way to get the message to the guy in Virginia.  I did so.  Now, I have to wait to see if he got it.  He may not check that other source as often as he checks the emails via the address I used.

Life didn't used to be this complicated.  :-(   

September 1, 2014 (B) - Someone sent me a link to a blog that contains what appears to be a list of filings in a lawsuit that retired foreign service officer Kenneth Dillon has instituted against the FBI in order to obtain Amerithrax documents he evidently feels were not adequately supplied via FOIA requests.  Click HERE to go to the blog. 

It appears that all but two of the documents require accessing PACER to obtain the pdf file (or using the other service favored by the web site).  And the two pdf documents that can be accessed for free do not seem to explain anything.

But, I said I'd write a comment about it, and now I have.

September 1, 2014 (A) - If there are any science geeks out there who read this web site, you might be interested in some sensational photographs that NASA put on their web site yesterday showing the space shuttle Endeavour docked with the International Space Station on May 23, 2011.  Click HERE to go to that specific web site entry.  Click HERE to go to the place where the very large images can be viewed and downloaded.

Here's a low-res version of one of the images:

space shuttle Endeavor at space station

Click HERE to go to the hi-res version that is 25.2 inches wide by 16.8 inches high, at 240 pixels per inch.

Updates & Changes: Sunday, August 24, 2014, thru Sunday, August 31, 2014

August 31, 2014 - I keep thinking that there has to be some way to get the Anthrax Truthers to discuss things intelligently.  But, I'm also getting close to simply giving up.

How many times can they bring up the same nonsense without realizing it is nonsense?  How many times can it be pointed out to them that what they're saying is nonsense, without them understanding that it is nonsense.  For example, this is the title of a new thread on Lew Weinstein's blog:


Their "documentary evidence" is the Reference Material Receipt Record form that was created when the contents of flask RMR-1029 were created:

Form RMR-1029 - early version


In the space marked "storage," which is circled in red on the above form, it says "room 115, Bldg 1412."

But, Bruce Ivins claimed repeatedly that the RMR-1029 flasks were "never" kept in Building 1412.  It was the FBI who wanted to know if he was telling the truth or not.

In FBI document #847423, dated September 8, 2004, at the bottom of page 7 and into page 8 it says,

IVINS explained that RMR 1029 was maintained in two 500 mL flasks in suite B3.  When material was needed for a challenge, IVINS would remove the volume of spores needed in the challenge and place this volume in a Gibco serum bottle.  This Gibco serum bottle was then transported to building 1412 at USAMRIID, where it was aliquoted for use in the challenge.  IVINS stated that the two 500 ml flasks that contained RMR 1029 were never taken over to building [1412].

On page 9, Ivins says something similar:

As with RMR 1029, the main flask storing RMR 1030 was never taken from 1425 to 1412.

Six months later, on page 10 of the original version of FBI document #847444, dated March 31, 2005, and under a report section titled "Reference Material Receipt Record Inconsistencies Regarding Location of RMR 1029" Ivins says the same thing, but much more clearly and emphatically:

IVINS advised that the large flask of RMR 1029 was always stored in suite B3 of Building 1425.  IVINS advised that the copy of the form indicating RMR 1029 was stored in room [115] of Building 1412 was wrong.  "We never stored 1029 in the big flask in [115]," he said.  

But, apparently later in the day, Ivins changed his mind - more or less.   Page 93 of FBI file #847545 is a memo that Ivins wrote to the FBI on March 31, 2005.  Ivins stated:

6) Where the flasks of RMR 1029 were kept.  Since we had a lab (115) in Building 1412 at the time, and since the spores were intended for aerosols, it's possible that at least one of the flasks was kept in the lab refrigerator in 115 or in the 1st floor coldroom (much less likely) for a certain amount of time.  We were eventually - I think it was probably before 2001 - "moved out" of the area by Aerobiology, and at that point may be brought RMR 1029 material back to 1425.  I honestly don't remember, but it would make sense. 

So, it was the FBI that determined that flask RMR-1029 could have been stored in Building 1412 for a period of time.  (That would be required for Steven Hatfill to have access to it, since Hatfill worked in Building 1412.)

I recall this same argument from years ago, but it was probably in the posts of mine that they deleted from Lew's blog.  That may be one reason they're bringing up the same nonsense again.  In that discussion, I recall finding some evidence that indicated that RMR-1029 was originally planned to be kept in room 115 in Building 1412, but it never actually happened that way.  Instead, Ivins was moved out of his lab in 1412 before the contents of the flask were created, and the actual storage was always in 1425.

When I get some time, I may go through all the posts I archived from Lew's blog and put them in a file that I can search. 

But, I think the point is made that the FBI was NOT trying to claim that RMR-1029 was never stored in 1412.  Bruce Ivins tried to make that claim, and the FBI's investigation showed his claim to be (apparently) untrue.  Yes, that meant that the people working in Building 1412 (like Steven Hatfill) could have accessed the flask and thus also had to be investigated as possible suspects.  But, it was already known that they had to be checked out, since aliquots from RMR-1029 were routinely sent to Building 1412, and an aliquot could possibly have been used to create the contents of the anthrax letters.

There's no sense in the Anthrax Truther's argument at all.  Even more ridiculous is another discussion they are starting up once again in another new thread: 


The FBI asked questions about olive oil, which in the past had been used at USAMRIID as an anti-foaming agent.  And different anti-foaming agents were suspected of causing the silicon to appear in the coats of anthrax spores.  But, the anthrax truthers can dream up endless other fictional reasons for inquiring about olive oil -- reasons which they can twist to support their beliefs about the FBI and about who actually sent the anthrax letters.  Their reasoning is just plain nuts.

Looking at page 15 of FBI document #847408, which is dated 04/07/2004, I see it says,

XXXXXXXXXX in the past olive oil was used for aerosol challenges.  The olive oil was used for challenges involving toxin proteins.  Olive oil has not been used during challenges for ten (10) years.  XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX has not seen a bottle of olive oil at USAMRIID since the early 1990's.

This appears to be just an example of the FBI trying to find every standard method for making anthrax spores in order to see if any standard method left behind the silicon signature that was found in the attack spores.

The above examples of "new arguments" from the Anthrax Truthers show why they never learn anything.  They aren't looking for what actually happened, they are looking for new ways to argue that the FBI was doing things incorrectly because they believe the FBI is either incompetent or was involved in some criminal conspiracy to blame Bruce Ivins for an act of biological terrorism done by someone else. 

In reality, it is the Anthrax Truthers who are incompetent and who are trying to blame someone else for an act of biological terrorism committed by Dr. Bruce Ivins.


August 30, 2014 - This is off topic, but someone might find it interesting.  This morning I finished reading a hardcover edition of "Déjà Dead" by Kathy Reichs.   Here is part of Kathy Reichs' bio:

Kathy Reichs, like her fictional creation, Temperance Brennan, is forensic anthropologist for the province of Quebec. She is Vice President of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences, serves on the Canadian National Police Services Advisory Council, and is one of only fifty-six forensic anthropologists certified by the American Board of Forensic Anthropology. A professor of anthropology at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte, Dr. Reichs now divides her time between Charlotte and Montreal. Deja Dead, her debut novel, brought her fame when it became a New York Times bestseller and won the 1997 Ellis Award for Best First Novel.

"Temperance Brennan" is, of course, also "Bones" in the TV series of that name, which has so far been on the air for 10 seasons.  (Kathy Reichs is a producer on that show.)

I found the hardcover copy at a used book store for less than a dollar.  As I recall, I stopped watching the "Bones" TV series during season 4 or 5.  I just got tired of Temperance Brennan's lack of ability to understand basic social skills, and the fact that each episode of the show seemed to try to involve a more gruesome death than the previous episode.  But, I was curious about the books and how Kathy Reichs writes.

In
"Déjà Dead," Dr. Brennan is a forensic anthropologist, but her personality is very different from the TV show.  She's a divorced mother with a grown daughter, and her social skills are excellent.  She works in Montreal, Quebec, not in Washington D.C.

The book has a lot of very gruesome details about bodies and how and why murders are committed.  Early in the reading process, I almost gave up on finishing it several times because of all the grisly details.  I stuck it out because Kathy Reichs is a very skilled writer of description and character, an ability I need to develop for my own books.   And she writes in first person, which is how my sci-fi books are written.

So, now the question is: Did I learn enough from
"Déjà Dead" to get back to work on my own book and try to make my descriptions and characters more interesting?

Time will tell.

August 28, 2014 - I see that DXer seems to have ended his "bloodhound evidence" rants.  He's gone back to arguing the nonsense that Ivins' work with rabbits at the time of the anthrax attacks somehow proves Ivins couldn't be the anthrax mailer, and DXer found someone who agrees with him.  So, he's as firm in his beliefs as ever, and there's clearly no way any facts could change his mind.  He's also posting comments about how the FBI should have done their investigation in order to conform to DXer standards.

During the course of our "debate," I found a copy of "Bacillus anthracis comparative genome analysis in support of the Amerithrax investigation," the peer reviewed science article about how work with DNA helped find the source of the anthrax used in the anthrax attacks of 2001.  It came out in March 2011, but, previously I'd only provided a link to the abstract and links to articles about the report.  An example HERE says:

It took nearly a decade before University of Maryland researchers were allowed to talk about their work identifying the anthrax strain used in the 2001 deadly letter attacks. But now, they and the other key members of the high-powered science team have published the first account of the pioneering work, which launched the new field of “microbial forensics” and gave bioterrorism investigators a way to “fingerprint” bacteria.

Until last week, I didn't have a copy of the article in my files.  I'm not sure why, but now I do.  While reading it I noticed this statement:

The comparison of the Ames Ancestor genome sequence identified no differences compared with that of the Ames Florida isolate, an isolate obtained directly from the individual infected at the AMI building. This finding suggests that the variation in the Ames Porton isolate was most likely caused by years of laboratory culture and treatments to remove the plasmids.

That statement seems to indicate that the basic DNA of the supply of Ames anthrax used at Porton Down is/was no longer identical to the DNA of the original sample of "ancestor Ames" they obtained from USAMRIID.  Nor, of course, does it match Ames Florida, which was taken from the body of Bob Stevens.   It seems that, over the years, whenever Porton Down would start to run low on Ames, they would use their remaining supply to grow a new supply - sometimes using added chemicals.  And, as a result, they bred a new variation of Ames.  Ames Porton with the two plasmids pX01 and pX02 is genetically different from Ames Ancestor, and, of course, so is plasmidless Porton Ames.  That seems to mean that if they supplied some other lab with a sample of "Ames Porton" (or if al Qaeda stole some of Ames Porton), the DNA of that sample would not be identical to "Ames Ancestor" or "Ames Florida."  And, of course, it would not be a match to spores found in the anthrax letters.  

If my understanding is correct, that means that any belief DXer might still have that al Qaeda could have obtained Ames Porton and used it to create the attack spores cannot be true.  The DNA would not match -- even if they somehow managed to magically grow all four of the morphs that were in both the attack powders and in flask RMR-1029.

August 27, 2014 - Yesterday afternoon, probably in response to the comment I wrote here yesterday morning, "DXer" posted this comment to Lew Weinstein's blog:

The bloodhounds did not alert to Bruce Ivins.

The bloodhounds DID alert to Patricia Fellows, the lab technician spinning things against Ivins. (Willman, p. 200). The deployments occurred the latter half of 2002.

The FBI should produce to GAO the bloodhound canine report relating to Bruce Ivins showing that there not a positive alert.

It constitutes prosecutorial and investigative misconduct to withhold evidence tending to be exculpatory — whether from a judge, jury, the public, superiors — or the GAO..

Okay, this time DXer provided a reference I can check out.  Here's what it says on page 200 of David Willman's book "The Mirage Man":

          As of January 2003, Lambert and his investigators knew that the dogs had alerted on at least one other scientist, Patricia Fellows, who formerly worked at USAMRIID but was implicated by no credible evidence. (20)  A document that Lamert prepared for Director Mueller's personal briefing of Senators Daschle and Leahy in January 2003 said that bloodhounds had reacted to Hatfill and Fellows only, adding "however, she assisted with the initial processing of the Daschle/Leahy evidence." (21)
          By this Lambert was suggesting that although the dogs' identification of Hatfill remained significant, their reactions to Fellows could be discounted because she had helped the FBI handle the anthrax letters in the fall of 2001 and imparted her scent at that time to the materials that were later presented to the dogs.  Others within the FBI saw the bloodhounds' identification of Fellows differently:  It was a strong reason to abandon all of the dog "evidence." (22)

David Willman explains some of the many problems with "dog evidence" on the previous page of his book (page 199), including cases where the "dog evidence" was wrong.  Then he wrote,

          Nonetheless, Richard Lambert persisted in making the dog evidence a pillar of the FBI's case against Hatfill.  His approach  raised concerns among some scientific specialists at the FBI.  Said one of them, Agent Jenifer Smith, "Dogs work extremely well with explosives.  They work really well with drugs.  But a major investigation like this, you're  going to suddenly start relying on dog technology?  It was surprising to see those things used in an organization where we don't use psychics." (18)
          The unavoidable problem with relying on the bloodhounds to pinpoint a killer or a rapist is that there is no way to know what scent or other factor a dog may be reacting to.   

The bloodhounds supposedly sniffed scents (PLURAL) taken from the Leahy anthrax letter.  No one knows what kind of scents were extracted from the Leahy letter by the STU-100 vacuum device.  They don't know how many different scents there were on the envelope or to whom or what the scents belonged.    The anthrax letters had been dropped in a mailbox, then transported to a post office, then run through postal machines, mixed with countless other letters, and handled by an unknown number of people, before the Leahy letter was finally recovered by the FBI. 

For all that we humans know, the dogs could have been reacting to machine oil or wool clothing or a type of shoe leather or paper fibers or a brand of shampoo. 

While many others in the FBI totally disagreed with him, senior FBI agent Richard Lambert was evidently convinced that Dr. Hatfill was the anthrax mailer.  Lambert was apparently grasping at straws in an attempt to find evidence to support his belief (much as DXer is doing today in trying to show al Qaeda was behind the anthrax attacks).  Special Agent Lambert's "dog evidence" was pure crap.  Many others in the FBI knew it was pure crap.  The fact that Lambert relied upon crap didn't change the fact that it was crap.

And now DXer wants that crap "evidence" to be used as exculpatory evidence proving Bruce Ivins was innocent.  That is just plain ridiculous.

The GAO is undoubtedly aware that the bloodhounds didn't react to Ivins when they were searching for a scent taken from the Leahy anthrax letter.  All it means is that the dogs probably weren't looking for Ivins' scent.  No one knows what scent they were looking for, since the bloodhounds reacted to both Patricia Fellows and Steven Hatfill.

And no one cares.  It was an investigative avenue that went nowhere

Whether something is true or not is not affected by how strongly someone believes it.  SA Lambert evidently believed all the conspiracy theorists who were pointing at Dr. Hatfill as being the anthrax mailer.  Lambert was under extreme pressure to find the anthrax mailer.  The bloodhounds provided him with some hope that he'd found some useable evidence to help prove that Dr. Hatfill was the anthrax killer.

SA Lambert evidently clung to that hope until he transferred off the case and was replaced by SA Edward Montooth. 

It's difficult to figure out exactly what DXer is thinking when he endlessly argues about the bloodhound "evidence." But, this morning I see a whole new string of rants on the subject.  Whatever he is trying to do, he is trying very hard to do it.


Late yesterday, DXer also ranted about polygraph tests.  Here is his recommendation:

The FBI should rely more on hard science that has been proved by repeated, controlled experiments in peer-reviewed literature. Lead bullet analysis and hair analysis are just of the many fields that have led to false convictions.

Using the best possible methods not only helps avoid false convictions but helps make sure the perpetrator is caught — and the threat neutralized.

Duh!  Unfortunately, in our real world we don't have control over what evidence is found.  And investigations are done by human beings who often make mistakes.  Early in an investigation you can have ten different investigators with ten different theories of who did it.  And each can have his or her own reasons for believing what they believe.  But, the system doesn't work on beliefs.  It works on evidence.  And, gradually over a period of years, the evidence in the Amerithrax investigation began to point to Dr. Bruce Edwards Ivins as being the anthrax killer.   Evidence that was initially ignored was reevaluated and added to the pile.  Example: Testimony from Nancy Haigwood.  And scientific areas where there seemed no hope of finding evidence turned out to provide some of the best evidence.  Example: Microbial Forensics.

DXer is evidently grasping at straws in hopes of finding some way to convince people that he knows "the truth" and that the FBI was wrong.  Trying to argue that the bloodhound "evidence" is somehow exculpatory of Dr. Ivins is an indicator of pure desperation.

If DXer wants to convince people that he is right and that al Qaeda operatives were actually behind the anthrax attacks of 2001, all he needs to do is provide BETTER evidence than the FBI has against Bruce Ivins.  Is that too much to ask?  Silly arguments over bloodhound evidence isn't going to convince anyone.  Complaints that the FBI isn't following investigative tracks that DXer wants them to follow isn't going to convince anyone.

If DXer believes that
Yazid Sufaat created the attack spores, that Mohammed Atta wrote the anthrax letters and that the anthrax letters were mailed by Adnan El-Shukrijumah, DXer should provide evidence to support those beliefs.  DXer should provide meaningful evidence of exactly how Yazid Sufaat obtained anthrax from flask RMR-1029 and how and where Yazid Sufaat made the spores.  DXer should explain how the handwriting on the anthrax letters matches Mohammed Atta's handwriting.  DXer should explain how it is certain Adnan El-Shukrijimah mailed the letters.  Complaining that the FBI should find the evidence for him just shows that DXer has no meaningful evidence to support his beliefs.

He's just arguing his unsupported and illogical beliefs against the solid facts found by the FBI which prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Dr. Ivins was the anthrax killer.


August 26, 2014 - This morning, I see there are several more posts by "DXer" to Lew Weinstein's blog on the subject of the use of bloodhounds in the Amerithrax investigation.  I can't make much sense of any of them.  One post even says,

Amerithrax represents the greatest counterintelligence analysis in the history of the United States.

Really?  Or did "DXer" simply forget to include the word "failure," which he typically includes when he writes such sentences?

Another comment provides a good example of how "DXer" cannot and will not explain his own arguments:

When Scott Decker in his manuscript announces the use of carbon dating as pointing to Dr. Ivins’ guilt, the skeptical reader’s reaction should be: Hunh?

Why doesn't DXer explain how Scott Decker used carbon dating in this way?  DXer not only seems incapable of explaining anything, he seems to deliberately write comments that require explaining before they make any sense.  But, more likely he's just trying to say he has read Scott Decker's unpublished manuscript, and if anyone wants to know what DXer is talking about, that person should read Decker's manuscript, too.   Until then, DXer's comment will remain unchallenged. 

This is probably yesterday's most ridiculous comment by DXer:

Like the other science used in Amerithrax — to include the analysis of the ink, paper, toner, photocopier tracks, hair, fiber, digital forensics , chemical analysis of Flask 1029 etc, the evidence tended to be EXCULPATORY of Dr. Bruce Ivins.

There might be something genuinely interesting about bloodhound evidence in the files that DXer mentions, but none of it relates to the case against Bruce Ivins.  DXer's absurd rantings about such things being "EXCULPATORY of Dr. Bruce Ivins" change nothing.  So, there doesn't seem to be any reason to try to decipher any more of DXer's gibberish.  He's evidently just on another one of his incomprehensible rants. 

August 25, 2014 - It's difficult to be certain, but I seem to be having another indirect discussion with the conspiracy theorist/True Believer known as "DXer," where he posts his arguments to Lew Weinstein's blog, and I post my arguments here on my site. 

In yesterday's comment, I pointed out that the bloodhounds used during the Amerithrax investigation had nothing to do with the case against Bruce Ivins.  The bloodhounds were used in an investigation of a different "person of interest," Steven Hatfill.  Later in the day, DXer posted what appears to be a response.  I can't be certain it is a response, because it says nothing about my earlier comment.  Instead, it presents what seems to be a totally different argument regarding the bloodhounds.  Only this time DXer tries to show why he believes it is related to the case against Bruce Ivins.  DXer wrote:

In her civil deposition in the Hatfill lawsuit against the United States, Virginia Patrick explained that the FBI Agents — one included Scott Decker — told her and her husband that the bloodhounds were the “smoking gun” that proved Dr. Hatfill was behind the anthrax mailings.
...

In the living room, agents told them they knew Hatfill was the mailer because of the “smoking gun” evidence. The entire news-reading world would soon know what the FBI suspected and what it claimed as the “smoking gun.”

She knew that the bloodhounds — who arrived just 5 minutes from when one of the agents called — had been waiting nearby. She describes the demonstration as involving someone with a handkerchief and taking it behind a tree — and then the bloodhound finding the agent.
...

This supposed “smoking gun” evidence pointed AWAY from Bruce Ivins.

The deposition of Virginia Patrick (the wife of William Patrick III) can be viewed by clicking HERE to access a pdf file, and then going to page 208 in that file.

Reading the deposition, the first thing that becomes clear is that it is unclear if the FBI agents ever actually used the term "smoking gun."  Steven Hatfill's lawyer, Tom Connolly, asked a question answered by Virginia Patrick,

Q.  Did the FBI agents say to you words to the effect that the FBI had smoking gun evidence to demonstrate that Dr. Hatfill was the anthrax killer.

A.  Yes.

Hatfill's lawyer uses the term "smoking gun" over and over.   During the meeting with the FBI, Mr. and Mrs. Patrick did not accept that bloodhounds were as reliable as the FBI agents were claiming.  Mrs. Patrick says she asked the FBI agents,

if this really proves that Steven did this why don't you arrest him
 
But, she doesn't recall what their response was.

The idea that the bloodhounds had provided "smoking gun" evidence is so ridiculous that no one believes it, then or now.  DXer seems to be merely using it as some kind of desperate claim that it points away from Dr. Ivins.  But, it doesn't really point anywhere.  It's  just nonsense.  So, the question really is: Why did the FBI agents say such a thing?

Back on July 3, 2005, I wrote a long comment about the deposition of Virginia Patrick.  As part of that comment, I wrote:

To me, the incident is further evidence that the real purpose for having the bloodhounds sniff around various locations was to determine where Dr. Hatfill had and had not been during the period when the FBI had lost their tail on him.  If Dr. Hatfill had visited the Patricks that same day or the day before, and he gave Virginia Patrick a hug, he could have left enough of his scent on her for the bloodhounds to detect it.

It seems certain that, on July 31 and August 1, 2002, FBI agents were trying to find out if Hatfill had visited the Patricks during the period where the FBI had lost their tail on Hatfill.   At the time, the conspiracy theorists who were out to lynch Dr. Hatfill for the anthrax attacks considered Bill Patrick to be a possibly accomplice.  And, during that 2002 trip to Louisiana to interview for a job, Dr. Hatfill had apparently ditched the FBI's tail on him on the morning of July 31.  (Dr. Hatfill told me on the phone that ditching the FBI at that Denny's restaurant in Louisiana was "unintentional".)   To the FBI, when a suspect ditches his tail, that can be viewed as a serious indicator of guilt.  But, more importantly at the time, if there had been another anthrax attack after the FBI lost their tail on Dr. Hatfill, it would have been disasterous to the FBI.  It could have literally destroyed the FBI.

It seems obvious that the FBI gave the Patricks a line of bull about the bloodhounds as a way of getting them to let the bloodhounds sniff around their property without a search warrant.  They were looking for Hatfill's scent.  The FBI agents probably also wanted to make it clear to the Patricks that if they assisted Hatfill in any way, they might be tried as accomplices to whatever criminal acts Dr. Hatfill had committed or might commit.

There was no new anthrax attack during the time Hatfill wasn't being tailed by the FBI.  The bloodhounds did NOT provide any "smoking gun" evidence for or against anyone.   The statements supposedly made by the FBI to Virginia Patrick about the bloodhounds providing "smoking gun" evidence were in no way related to the DOJ's case against Dr. Bruce Ivins.   And, anyone who suggests that the FBI agents' line of bull to the Patricks somehow points "AWAY from Bruce Ivins" is living in a fantasy world.   End of story.

August 24, 2014 - Last week, for reasons that he almost certainly cannot and will not explain, "DXer" started posting bizarre and meaningless comments about bloodhound evidence on Lew Weinstein's blog.  For example, this morning he posted this:

Is there a canine deployment sheet(s) for Dr. Ivins? How many deployments were there as to all subjects. What percentage of those deployments resulted in alerts?

And this is from a few days ago:

The mailed letters were used as the scent article. At Denny’s were the dogs alerting to olive oil used in connection with the mailed letters? Denny’s sells french fries.

French fries prepared in olive oil?  Yech!  The comment continued with this:

The bloodhounds were an important scientific method used in Amerithrax that served to seriously derail the investigation even though the method had never been validated.

Wha...?  Here's another example of DXer's comments about bloodhounds last week:

In its report, GAO should set forth the facts relating to the FBI’s reliance on the bloodhounds and STU-100.

WHY!!???   I did some research and found that the STU-100 is a like a handy-vac designed specifically for forensic work:

The Scent Transfer Unit (STU-100) was specifically designed for Forensic Specialists, Investigators, Evidence Response Teams, Identification Departments and Scent Dog Handlers. The Scent Transfer Unit allows law enforcement to collect evidence from any item without destroying fingerprints on the item, collect trace evidence at a crime scene without contamination, collect scent evidence from hard to access places not accessible to a search dog and gives law enforcement a scent pad to store in scent banks for future use on repeat offenders

STU-100

There is absolutely NO bloodhound evidence in the DOJ's case against Bruce Ivins.  

The word "bloodhound" does not appear anywhere in the Amerithrax investigative summary.  Nor does the word "scent."  Yet, DXer inexplicably posted this:

What specific additional sourcing exists that the bloodhounds were “trained specifically to sniff out RMR-1029.” How would that be attempted? The FBI Agents should explain the method they relied upon for all those years in support of its “FBI’s Theory.” With 60 additional Scent Transfer Units purchased by the FBI in 2010 or so, if we don’t learn from mistakes, we are bound to repeat them.

I did a Google search for the quote "trained specifically to sniff out RMR-1029” and was surprised to find it came from The Washington Post.  In her review of David Willman's book "The Mirage Man," Dina Temple-Raston wrote:

Willman writes that the FBI felt it had an unassailable source: a team of bloodhounds from Southern California. They had been trained specifically to sniff out RMR-1029.

The problem is: David Willman wrote no such thing in his book.  At least not that I can find.  (Bloodhounds aren't listed in the index, but they are mentioned on page 172.)  The comment DXer relies upon seems to be some kind of bizarre misunderstanding by Dina Temple- Raston.   Most of the time, the bloodhounds were looking for Steven Hatfill's scent.  Other times, the bloodhounds were looking for a human scent extracted from the envelopes after the envelopes had been irradiated.  Training bloodhounds to sniff out anthrax from RMR-1029 would be STUPID beyond belief, since trying to find anthrax spores by using a bloodhound would also mean that the bloodhound would probably die of anthrax if it found any.

I also did some quick research into the STU-100 Scent Transfer Unit and found an FBI web page which provides all the information that anyone probably needs to know about the subject.  Here are a couple paragraphs:

The use of the STU-100 has been controversial in several court proceedings. A review of defense expert witness testimonies and the subsequent appellate court decisions highlight the misunderstanding of human-scent evidence (California vs. Flores 2000; California vs. Willis 2002; California vs. Willis 2004).

In one testimony, a defense expert in veterinary medicine testified, “We don’t know what human scent is” (California vs. Flores 2000). Yet in a later testimony, this same expert stated the method to clean scent from the STU-100, “does not remove all of the odors reliably by any means.” That he had never seen the STU-100 before the day of this testimony did not deter the expert from opining, “It’s going to collect a sample that has an unknown degree of contamination” (California vs. Willis 2002). These types of unsupported opinions have cast an inaccurate and negative light on a very useful tool. The notion that a scent pad collected by any means contains only one scent is not realistic. That multiple scents on a scent article render a positive outcome useless has been scientifically proven wrong. All scent collection methods will create pads with blended odors. Because human scent is easily transferred, a positive trail or identification resulting from any scent article only shows a relationship to that article and must be verified and corroborated through other investigative means.

And here's the conclusion drawn by the authors of the FBI article:

Used with discretion, the information gained from human-scent-discriminating dogs can be a valuable tool for law enforcement. The ability of these dogs to establish a connection between people and crime scene evidence has been demonstrated through scientific study, practical experience, and confirmed criminal case results.

However, in the world of conspiracy theorists and True Believers, it appears that unless something can be certified as 100% reliable and 100% accurate, then it is totally and completely worthless.  And even if a device like the STU-100 had absolutely NOTHING to do with the DOJ's case against Bruce Ivins, it seems the mere fact that the FBI used one during the course of the investigation somehow proves something to the Anthrax Truthers.  What it proves, they cannot explain.

It's just more of their inexplicable, screwball nonsense.

Bloodhounds have been used to track scents for hundreds of years.  Are they 100% accurate?  Probably not.  But they are still the best tool available for the work they do.  

In another ridiculous post last week, DXer wrote this on a different subject:

Armed with additional exemplars of Atta’s handwriting, GAO has the expertise in-house to make its own comparison of the handwriting.

I have obtained from USAMRIID and uploaded numerous samples of Dr. Ivins’ handwriting — which looks nothing like the mailed anthrax letters.

Why on earth would the GAO "make its own comparison of the handwriting" on the anthrax letters versus Mohammed Atta's handwriting?  Should it be done just because DXer continues to believe that Muslim terrorists were behind the anthrax attacks?   In another post last week, DXer wrote:

I have suggested that Atta’s friend, Adnan El-Shukrijumah, was the mailer of the Fall 2001 anthrax letters. He was with Atta in Florida when immigration forms were filled out. The GAO should obtain and state the conclusion of the FBI’s handwriting expert who compared Shukrijumah’s handwriting with the Fall 2001 letters. That same examiner concluded that Dr. Ivins probably did not write the letters.

Anyone should be able to clearly see that Mohammed Atta's handwriting does NOT match the handwriting on the anthrax letters.  The only people who wouldn't be able to see that would be people who are obsessed with a theory that Mohammed Atta wrote the letters and/or people who cannot comprehend basic handwriting analysis.  Besides, Adnan El-Shukrijumah was almost certainly in Afghanistan at the time of the mailings. 

The GAO's job isn't to second guess the FBI's investigation and do an amateur criminal investigation of their own.  That would be unbelievably stupid and irresponsible.   Here's what the GAO says about their responsibilities on their web site:

The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) is an independent, nonpartisan agency that works for Congress. Often called the "congressional watchdog," GAO investigates how the federal government spends taxpayer dollars.
...

Our Mission is to support the Congress in meeting its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and ensure the accountability of the federal government for the benefit of the American people. We provide Congress with timely information that is objective, fact-based, nonpartisan, nonideological, fair, and balanced.

The primary job of the GAO is to look for waste and inefficiency in the government.

Did the FBI waste money during their investigation of the anthrax attacks of 2001?  Probably.  But, that doesn't mean it was "waste" that can be corrected by some finding by GAO accountants.  Perhaps, while doing a criminal investigation, the FBI shouldn't investigate everyone who might be responsible for a crime, they should investigate only the person who was actually responsible for the crime.  That would definitely save the taxpayers a lot of money.  Of course, if the GAO knows how to do that, they would need to explain as part of their findings the technique the FBI should use to investigate only guilty people.  However, I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for that kind of "finding."

It's hard to imagine what the GAO will recommend in its review of Amerithrax.  They certainly will not recommend that the case be re-opened and that al Qaeda be blamed until it can be proved that al Qaeda was NOT responsible.  Nor will the GAO recommend that the FBI consult with conspiracy theorists on all controversial cases.

I'm looking forward to reading the GAO's review.   I'm also looking forward to the reactions from the conspiracy theorists and True Believers when the review doesn't show what they want it to show.   But I already know what the conspiracy theorists will be saying.  They'll be saying that, because the GAO's report didn't show the FBI was wrong about who mailed the anthrax letters, that proves there's a government conspiracy going on, and the GAO is just another part of that vast government conspiracy.

Hiring Conspirators

All prior Thoughts and Comments are also available.
Click HERE for year 2014 - Part 3.
Click HERE for year 2014 - Part 2.
Click HERE for year 2014 - Part 1.
Click HERE for year 2013 - Part 3.
Click HERE for year 2013 - Part 2.
Click HERE for year 2013 - Part 1.
Click HERE for year 2012 - Part 3.
Click HERE for year 2012 - Part 2.
Click HERE for year 2012 - Part 1.
Click HERE for year 2011 - Part 3.
Click HERE for year 2011 - Part 2.
Click HERE for year 2011 - Part 1.
Click HERE for year 2010 - Part 2.
Click HERE for year 2010 - Part 1.
Click HERE for year 2009 - Part 2.
Click HERE for year 2009 - Part 1.
Click HERE for year 2008.

Click HERE for year 2007.
Click HERE for year 2006.
Click HERE for year 2005.
Click HERE for year 2004.
Click HERE for years 2001, 2002 and 2003.


References:

The FBI's summary report of the Amerithrax case
The revised version of the FBI' summary report of the Amerithrax case
Search warrants and attachments to the Summary report from the DOJ's web site
The 2,720 pages of supplementary files for the Amerithrax case in the FBI's "vault"
Dr. Bruce Ivins' emails while at Ft. Detrick from USAMRIID's web site
NAS "Review of the Scientific Approaches Used During the FBI's Investigation of the Anthrax Attacks of 2001"
HistoryCommons.org - Timeline of the 2001 Anthrax Attacks

Edited version of the Hatfill v Ashcroft et al lawsuit Court Docket
Edited version of the Hatfill v Foster/Vanity Fair/Readers Digest Court Docket
Edited version of the Hatfill v The New York Times Court Docket
Edited version of the Maureen Stevens vs The United States lawsuit Court Docket (with full depositions)
Edited version of the Maureen Stevens vs Battelle Memorial, et al lawsuit Court Docket
UCLA's "Disease Detectives" site about the anthrax outbreak of 2001
Frederick Police Department's report on Ivins' Suicide
Report of the Expert Behavioral Analysis Panel

Click HERE to view references from 2005 through 2008.
Click HERE to view pre-2005 references.

NOTE: The (X) following references below includes a link to my copy of the articles, which may or may not be visible on-line.

2009

The New York Times - Jan. 3, 2009 - "Portrait Emerges of Anthrax Suspect’s Troubled Life - (X)
Scientific American - Jan. 5, 2009 - "A steady stream of clues pointed to Ivins during FBI anthrax investigation" (X)
CNN - Jan. 6, 2009 - "'Let me sleep,' anthrax suspect wrote before suicide" (X)
Associated Press - Jan. 6, 2009 - "Records reveal anguish of anthrax suspect's wife" (X)
The Frederick News-Post - Jan. 23, 2009 - "
Army releases some Ivins e-mails" (X)
The New York Times - Feb. 4, 2009 - "Science Found Wanting in Nation's Crime Labs" (X)
Science Magazine - Feb. 7, 2009 - "
U.S. Army Lab Freezes Research on Dangerous Pathogens" (X)
The New York Times - Feb. 9, 2009 - "Army Suspends Germ Research at Maryland Lab" (X)
The Baltimore Sun - Feb. 10, 2009 - "Biodefense lab starts inventory of deadly samples" (X)
WTOP.com - Feb. 10, 2009 - "Lawer: Evidence against Bruce Ivins 'Undercut'" (X)
The Washington Post - Feb. 10, 2009 - "Most Research Suspended at Fort Detrick" (X)
Scientific American - Feb. 10, 2009 - "Army anthrax lab suspends research to invertory its germs" (X)
Nature - Feb. 25, 2009 - "Anthrax investigation still yielding findings" (X)
New Scientist - Feb. 27, 2009 - "Revealed: Scientific evidence for the 2001 anthrax attacks" (X)
Rush Holt - Mar. 3, 2009 - "Holt Introduces Anthrax Commission Legislation" (X)
MyCentralJersey.com - Mar. 3, 2009 - "Holt seeks congressional anthrax commission" (X)
FBI Press Release - Mar. 6, 2009 - "FBI responds to Science issues in Anthrax case" (X)
FoxNews.com - Mar. 7, 2009 - "FBI's Evidence in Anthrax Case Leaves Puzzling Scientific Questions" (X)

Associated Press - Mar. 7, 2009 - "Ruling lets anthrax suit go forward" (X)
Los Angeles Times - Mar. 8, 2009 - "Anthrax hoaxes pile up, as does their cost" (X)
USA Today - Mar. 10, 2009 - "15,300 government workers have access to agents of bioterror" (X)
The Times of Trenton (Opinion by Rush Holt) - Mar. 12, 2009 - "Preventing Bioterrorism" (X)
New Scientist - Mar. 13, 2009 - "Columbus innocent over anthrax in the Americas" (X)
USA Today - Mar. 14, 2009 - "Tracing anthrax's American roots" (X)
Associated Press - Mar. 24, 2009 - "Letters mimicking anthrax scare sent to Congress" (X)
Associated Press - Mar. 31, 2009 - "Judge dismisses lawsuit over anthrax letter" (X)
The Scotsman - Apr. 4, 2009 - "Dorothy H. Crawford: World waits for ground-breaking anthrax evidence" (X)
Seed Magazine - Apr. 14, 2009 - "The Anthrax Agenda" (X)
The Palm Beach Post - Apr. 15, 2009 -
"Judge urges settlement in 'National Enquirer' anthrax case" (X)
The Frederick News-Post (Columnist/Opinion) - Apr. 22, 2009 - "Cold Comfort" (X)
The Washington Post - Apr. 22, 2009 - "Deadly Pathogens May Have Gone Missing at Fort Detrick" (X)
Sciencemag.org - May 6, 2009 - "FBI Anthrax Investigation Under Scientific Review" (X)
The New York Times - May 7, 2009 - "F.B.I. to Pay for Anthrax Inquiry Review" (X)
The Frederick News-Post (editorial) - May 14, 2009 - "End Of Story?" (X)
The Frederick News-Post (commentary by Barry Kissin) - May 24, 2009 - "The Lynching Of Bruce Ivins" (X)
Associated Press - May 28, 2009 - "Prosecutor in anthrax, Blackwater cases resigns" (X)
Frederick News-Post - June 17, 2009 - "USAMRIID finds more than 9,200 unrecorded disease samples" (X)
Associated Press - June 17, 2009 - "9,200 Uncounted Vials Found At Army Biodefense Lab" (X)
The Washington Post - June 18, 2009 - "Inventory Uncovers 9,200 More Pathogens" (X)
Frederick News-Post - July 2, 2009 - "Committee to review FBI anthrax investigation" (X)
Microbe - July 2009 - "Questions Linger over Science behind Anthrax Letters" (X)
Frederick News-Post - July 26, 2009 - "
Anthrax case: Amerithrax debate lives online" (X)
Frederick News-Post - July 26, 2009 - "Anthrax case: Seeking an Ending" (X)
Frederick News-Post - July 26, 2009 - "
Anthrax case: Studies scrutinize lab security, shy away from federal investigation" (X)
Associated Press - July 26, 2009 - "US on verge of closing anthrax probe after 8 years" (X)
The Washington Times - July 30, 2009 - "Lessons learned from the anthrax letters" (X)
Associated Press - July 30, 2009 - "Review begins of FBI science in anthrax case" (X)
Frederick News-Post - July 31, 2009 - "Group begins scientific review of FBI's anthrax investigation" (X)
Frederick News-Post (editorial) - July 31, 2009 - "Dubious study" (X)
Nature - July 31, 2009 - "Anthrax investigation probe undeway" (X)
Frederick News-Post - Aug. 1, 2009 - "Experts urge panel to deepen forensic understanding" (X)
The Washington Post - Aug. 1, 2009 - "Lawmaker 'Skeptical' of Anthrax Results" (X)
USA Today - Aug. 3, 2009 - "Anthrax case not closed: Panel reviews Bruce Ivins, mail probe" (X)
Frederick News-Post (Opinion) - Aug. 12, 2009 - "A Shocking Mockery" (X)
Frederick News-Post - Aug. 13, 2009 - "Fort Detrick passes national accreditation" (X)
Frederick News-Post - Sept. 25, 2009 - "Panel continues study of anthrax mailings" (X)
Frederick News-Post - Sept. 26, 2009 - "Expert: Anthrax spore coatings not unique" (X)
USA Today - Oct. 5, 2009 - "Behind the scenes, system sniffs for biological attacks" (X)
BBC - Dec. 17, 2009 - "Anthrax found in dead heroin user from Glasgow" (X)
The Wall Street Journal - Dec. 19, 2009 - "A Conspiracy-Theory Theory" (X)
Newsweek - Dec. 21, 2009 - "Red Mind, Blue Mind" (X)
Digital Journal - Dec. 27, 2009 - "NH Woman Critically Ill With Anthrax" (X)
The Associated Press - Dec. 27, 2009 - "Drums a possible source of anthrax in N.H. woman" (X)
Medical News Today - Dec. 29, 2009 - "Anthrax Found in Drums Linked to Infected Woman" (X)
Associated Press - Dec. 30, 2009 - "Anthrax case: Drum suspicions are detailed" (X)

2010
Washington Examiner (Opinion) - Jan. 1, 2010 - "Who was behind the September 2001 anthrax attacks?" (X)
The Associated Press - Jan. 11, 2010 - "Fed panel wants more scrutiny of biolab workers" (X)
The Wall Street Journal (Opinion) - Jan. 24, 2010 - "The Anthrax Attacks Remain Unsolved" (X)
The Washington Examiner (Opinion) - Jan. 29, 2010 - "Anthrax attacks still unexplained" (X)
The Wall Street Journal (Letter to Editor) - Jan. 31, 2010 - "Anthrax Case: FBI Used Good Science" (X)
Frederick News-Post - Feb. 19, 2010 - "
Ivins' attorney: Anthrax case to be closed today" (X)
The Associated Press - Feb. 19, 2010 - "AP Source: FBI formally closes anthrax case" (X)
The New York Times - Feb. 19, 2010 - "F.B.I., Laying Out Evidence, Closes Anthrax Letter Case" (X)
Reuters - Feb. 19, 2010 - "Anthrax investigators looked at 1,000 suspects" (X)
USA Today - Feb. 19, 2010 - "'Ġodel, Escher, Bach' author downplays FBI anthrax case link" (X)
USA Today - Feb. 19, 2010 - "Q&A: Anthrax and Ivins Case" (X)
The Baltimore Sun - Feb. 19, 2010 - "Anthax investigation closed" (X)
The Los Angeles Times - Feb. 20, 2010 - "U.S. closes case on anthrax letters" (X)
The Washington Post - Feb. 20, 2010 - "FBI investigation of 2001 anthrax attacks concluded; U.S. releases details" (X)
The Palm Beach Post - Feb. 20, 2010 - "U.S. closes 2001 anthrax case" (X)
USA Today - Feb. 20, 2010 - "Anthrax myth persists despite evidence" (X)
The New York Times (opinion from Nov. 10, 2001) - Feb. 20, 2010 - "On the trail of the anthrax killers" (X)
The Wall Street Journal - Feb. 20, 2010 - "U.S. Closes Case in Anthrax Attacks" (X)
AntiPolygraph.org - Feb. 20, 2010 - "DOJ Rationalizes Away Polygraph's Failure to Catch Alleged Anthrax Killer" (X)
Frederick News-Post - Feb. 20, 2010 - "Government  closes 'Amerithrax' case" (X)
Frederick News-Post - Feb. 23, 2010 - "FBI report fails to end questions about Ivins' guilt" (X)
The Daily Princetonian - Feb. 24, 2010 - "FBI closes anthrax letter investigation" (X)
The New York Times - Feb. 24, 2010 (opinion) - "Haste Leaves Anthrax Case Unconcluded" (X)
Asia Times - Feb. 25, 2010 - "Doubts cloud closing of anthrax case" (X)
The Baltimore Sun - Feb. 26, 2010 -
"Bill for more investigation of '01 anthrax case passes House."  (X)
The Times of Trenton - Feb. 26, 2010 - "Holt: Last word not in on anthrax case" (X)
The New York Times (editorial) - Feb. 28, 2010 - "The F.B.I.'s Anthrax Case" (X)
The Frederick News-Post - Feb, 28, 2010 - "FBI reports chronicle Ivins investigation" (X)
TheSmokingGun.com - Mar. 1, 2010 - "The Strange World of Dr. Anthrax" (X)
FoxNews.com - Mar. 1, 2010 - "Anthrax Letter Scientist 'Obsessed' with Bondage, Sorority"  (X)
The Trentonian - Mar. 1, 2010 - "The Smoking Gun reports: Anthrax mastermind was cross-dresser" (X)
The Register (UK) - Mar. 2, 2010 - "The anthrax scare: Case and flask closed" (X)
The Frederick News-Post - Mar. 4, 2010 - "Police: Ivins not linked to other unsolved cases" (X)
The Frederick News-Post - Mar. 4, 2010 - "Holt seeks investigation into FBI's case against Ivins" (X)
Anderson Cooper 360 - Mar. 5, 2010 - "Inside the mind of the suspected anthrax killer" (X)
Courier News (opinion) - Mar. 7, 2010 - "Bioterror preparedness needs a boost from congress" (X)
AOLnews.com - Mar. 10, 2010 - "Lawer Doubts Case Against Anthrax Suspect" (X)
CNN (opinion) - Mar. 12, 2010 - "Can the House trust the Senate?" (X)
Bloomberg - Mar. 15, 2010 - "Obama Veto Is Threatened On 2010 Intelligence Budget Measure" (X)
Bloomberg - Mar. 15, 2010 - "Obama Veto Is Threatened On 2010 Intelligence Budget Bill (Update 1)" (X)
RawStory.com - Mar. 15, 2010 - "Protecting agencies from oversight, Obama threatens to veto intelligence funding" (X)
Frederick News-Post - Mar. 20, 2010 - "Adminstration rejects call to further probe Amerithrax" (X)
Pittsburgh Review-Journal (Opinion) - Mar. 21, 2010 - "Anthrax questions" (X)
Accuracy In Media - Mar. 24, 2010 - "Obama Obstructs Oversight of FBI in Anthrax Case" (X)
The Huffington Post - Apr. 14, 2010 - "Crying Wolf: The Terrorist Crop-Duster" (X)
The Atlantic - Apr. 16, 2010 - "The Wrong Man" (X)
MSNBC - Apr. 16, 2010 - "Exonerated anthrax suspect: FBI harassed me" (X)
Foreign Policy - Apr. 19, 2010 - "The Elite Med Squad That Saved You from Anthrax" (X)
Salon.com (Glenn Greenwald) - Apr. 21, 2010 - "Unlearned lessons from the Steven Hatfill case" (X)
UPI (Opinion) - Apr. 22, 2010 - "Outside View: Anthrax Letters: Was Bruce Ivins Hounded to Death?"  (X)
The New York Times - Apr. 22, 2010 - "Colleague Disputes Case Against Anthrax Suspect" (X)
Science Magazine - Apr. 22, 2010 - "Ex-USAMRIID Scientist Defends Bruce Ivins Using Back-of-the-Envelope Math" (X)
ProPublica.org - Apr. 23, 2010 - "Colleague Says Anthrax  Numbers Add Up to Unsolved Case" (X)
PhysicsToday.org - Apr. 27, 2010 - "Co-worker says Ivins didn't make anthrax letter spores" (X)
Frederick News-Post (Opinion) - May 1, 2010 - "Anthrax attacks, cont'd" (X)
The Racine Journal-Times - June 11, 2010 - "The Armchair analyst: Ed Lake has spent nine years tracking the anthrax investigation" (X)
The Wall Street Journal (blog) - Sept. 16, 2010 - "GAO to Take Look at FBI Anthrax Probe" (X)
The New York Times - Sept. 16, 2010 - "New Review in Anthrax Inquiry" (X)
The Times of Trenton - Sept. 16, 2010 - "Holt: FBI anthrax investigation is itself subject of probe" (X)
The Frederick News-Post - Sept. 17, 2010 - "GAO to review FBI's Ivins investigation" (X)
The Washington Post - Oct. 4, 2010 - "William C. Patrick III, 84, dies (X)
The New York Times - Oct. 10, 2010 - "William C. Patrick III, Expert on Germ Warfare, Dies at 84" (X)
The Frederick News-Post (Opinion by Barry Kissin) - Oct. 16, 2010 - "In the shadow of 9/11" (X)
The Frederick News-Post -Nov. 30, 2010 - "Amerithrax experts debate FBI findings, insist Ivins was innocent" (X)
The Baltimore Sun - Dec. 5, 2010 - "Researcher tells how anthrax may have been made" (X)
The Frederick News-Post - Dec. 5, 2010 - "Ivins' lawyer, colleague share details FBI left out" (X)
Homeland Security Today - Dec. 9, 2010 - "Science Report on FBI Anthrax Probe Delayed Again" (X)
The New York Times - Dec. 9, 2010 - "F.B.I. Asks Panel to Delay Report on Anthrax Inquiry" (X)
The Miami Herald - Dec. 9, 2010 - "FBI seeks delay in outside review of anthrax probe" (X)
The Frederick News-Post - Dec. 10, 2010 - "Amerithrax review delayed after FBI releases more docs" (X)
Science Magazine - Dec. 10, 2010 - "New FBI Material Delays Academy Report on Anthrax Attacks" (X)
The Frederick News-Post - Dec. 11, 2010 - "National Academy of Science review panel surprised by FBI's last-minute document release" (X)

2011

Gazette.net - Feb. 14, 2011 - "Report on FBI's anthrax findings to be released Tuesday" (X)
The New York Times - Feb. 15, 2011 - "Review Faults F.B.I.'s Scientific Work in Anthrax Investigation" (X)
The Washington Post - Feb. 15, 2011 - "Anthrax report cast doubt on scientific evidence in FBI case against Bruce Ivins" (X)
The Los Angeles Times - Feb. 15, 2011 - "Evidence linking anthrax to Bruce Ivins 'not as definitive as stated,' panel says" (X)
CNN - Feb. 15, 2011 - "Scientific review reaches no conclusion on source of anthrax" (X)
NPR - Feb. 15, 2011 - "FBI Faulted For Overstating Science In Anthrax Case" (X)
ABC News - Feb. 15, 2011 - "Panel Review Questions FBI Theory in Anthrax Attacks after 9/11" (X)
USA Today - Feb. 15, 2011 - "Panel can't rule out other sources of deadly anthrax spores" (X)
The Washington Post - Feb. 15, 2011 - "Ivins case's inconvenient issue: his polygraph" (X)
Nature - Feb. 15, 2011 - "Science falls short in anthrax investigation" (X)
CIDRAP News - Feb. 15, 2011 - "NRC: Data insufficient for firm conclusion in anthrax case" (X)
Frederick News-Post - Feb. 16, 2011 - "Report casts doubt on FBI's investigation of anthrax attacks" (X)
Salon.com (opinion) - Feb. 16, 2011 - "Serious doubt cast in FBI's anthrax case against Bruce Ivins" (X)
New Scientist - Feb. 16, 2011 - "Scientists critical of FBI's anthrax conclusions" (X)
The Washington Post - Feb. 16, 2011 - "Sen. Leahy on anthrax case: 'It's not closed.'" (X)
CIDRAP News - Feb. 16, 2011 - "Anthrax expert says NRC report supports FBI" (X)
The Washington Post (Editorial) - Feb. 17, 2011 - "Answers in 2001 anthrax attack are still elusive" (X)
Frederick News-Post (Opinion) - Feb. 19, 2011 - "NAS on Amerithrax" (X)
Frederick News-Post - Feb. 20, 2011 - "One year after FBI closes Ivins case, doubts still linger" (X)
Frederick News-Post (Opinion) - Feb. 21, 2011 - "Flawed Science" (X)
The Boston Globe (Editorial) - Feb. 22, 2011 - "Consider the case solved" (X)
The Brown and White - Feb. 25, 2011 - "Gast heads panel discussing anthrax letters" (X)
Stanford Medicine - Feb. 25, 2011 - "New review of anthrax case discussed by review committee vice chair" (X)
The Baltimore Sun - Feb. 28, 2011 - "Trouble in the air at Ft. Detrick" (X)
The New York Times (letter to the editor from Rush Holt) - Mar. 1, 2011 - "The Anthrax Attacks" (X)
University of Maryland (press release) - Mar. 7, 2011 - "University of Maryland School of Medicine publishes scientific paper on 2001 anthrax attacks" (X)
UPI - Mar. 8, 2011 - "Science behind anthrax letters revealed" (X)
News-Medical.net - Mar. 8, 2011 - "Institute for Genome Sciences plays key role in investigation of anthrax attacks" (X)
ScienceBlog.com - Mar. 8, 2011- "Now, the story can be told - how scientists helped ID 'Amerithrax'" (X)
NPR - Mar. 9, 2011 - "Lab Vs. Courtroom: Different Definitions Of Proof" (X)
LiveScience.com - Mar. 14, 2011 - "Anthrax in 2001 Letters was Traced to Maryland by Genetic Mutations" (X)
DiamondbackOnLine.com - Mar. 17, 2011 - "UMD: Anthrax Investigation" (X)
VillageSoup.com - Mar. 18, 2011 - "Q&A: Meryl Nass" (X)
The Los Angeles Times - Mar. 22, 2011 - "Report  Faults Army in 2001 anthrax mailings" (X)
The New York Times - Mar. 23, 2011 - "Panel on Anthrax Inquiry Finds Case Against Ivins Persuasive" (X)
CNN - Mar. 23, 2011 - "Suspect in 2001 anthrax case had long history of mental problems" (X)
Associated Press - Mar. 23, 2011 - "Expert panel faults Army in anthrax case" (X)
The Miami Herald - Mar. 23, 2011 - "FBI's anthrax suspect is likely killer, panel concludes" (X)
MSNBC - Mar. 23, 2011 - "Medical records point to doctor in anthrax attacks, report says" (X)
ABC - Mar. 23, 2011 - "Report: 2001 Anthrax Attacks Were Preventable" (X)
The Washington Times - Mar. 23, 2011 - "Panel: Anthrax-attack suspect sent up red flags" (X)
Reuters - Mar. 24, 2011 - "U.S. Experts: Army researcher was anthrax attacker" (X)
Wired Magazine - Mar. 24, 2011 - "Anthrax Redux: Did the Feds Nab the Wrong Guy?" (X)
The Times (Trenton, NJ) - Mar. 25, 2011 - "Holt remains skepical about conclusions in anthrax investigation" (X)
Wired Magazine - Mar. 28, 2011 - "Postage Stamps Delivered Anthrax Suspect to FBI" (X)
The Gazette - Apr. 7, 2011 - "Joe Volz: Frederick massacre averted?" (X)
The Washington Post - Apr. 16, 2011 - "How anthrax sleuths cracked the case by decoding genetic 'fingerprints'" (X)
The Miami Herald - Apr. 20, 2011 - "Was FBI too quick to judge anthrax suspect the killer?" (X)
TheRealNews.com - Apr. 21, 2011 - "Did FBI Target Wrong Man as Anthrax Killer" (X)
ProPublica.com - April 23, 2011 - "Colleague Says Anthrax Numbers Add Up to Unsolved Case" (X)
Palm Beach Post - Apr. 30, 2011 - "Doubt of anthrax suspect's role resurfaces in lawsuit" (X)
BioPrepWatch.com - May 2, 2011 - "Attorneys contest Ivins' guilt" (X)
McClatchy Newspapers - May 19, 2011 - "FBI lab reports on anthrax attack suggest another miscue" (X)
TickleTheWire.com - May 26, 2011 - "Rep. Nadler Criticizes the FBI in Letter to Director Mueller Over Anthrax Probe" (X)
McClatchy Newspapers - May 26, 2011 - "Congressman presses FBI for anthrax information" (X)
The Los Angeles Times - May 29, 2011 - "The anthrax killings: A troubled mind" (X)
The Daily Beast - June 3, 2011 - "Anthrax Attacker Bruce Ivins' Obsessions" (X)
Associated Press - June 3, 2011 - "The anthrax scare and one deeply troubled man" (X)
The Frederick News-Post (Opinion by Barry Kissin) - June 4, 2011 - "Lessons from Amerithrax" (X)
The Frederick News-Post (Opinion) - June 6, 2011 - "A marathon, not a sprint" (X)
The Gazette - June 9, 2011 - "A treasure trove of information about Amerithrax" (X)
RealClearPolitics.com - June 9, 2011 - "Anthrax Attacks and America's Rush to Judgment" (X)
The Washington Post (Opinion) - June 10, 2011 - "Inside our own labs, the threat of another anthrax attack" (X)
The Los Angeles Times - June 12, 2011 - "Book Review: 'The Mirage Man' by David Willman" (X)
The Boston Globe (Opinion) - June 15, 2011 - "Revisiting Mueller and the anthrax case" (X)
Clinical Psychiatry News - June 21, 2011 - "Use of Psychological Profile to Infer Ivins' Guilt is Problematic" (X)
The Philadelphia Inquirer (book review) - July 17, 2011 - "Bungled pursuit of a killer" (X)
The Boston Herald - July 18, 2011 - "Justice Department lawyers contradict FBI findings in anthrax case" (X)
Salon.com - July 19, 2011 - "DOJ casts serious doubt on its own claims about the attack anthrax" (X)
Frederick News-Post - July 19, 2011 - "Justice Department filings poke holes in Ivins' case" (X)
The New York Times - July 19, 2011 - "U.S. Revises Its Response To Lawsuit On Anthrax" (X)
Associated Press - July 19, 2011 - "Justice Department corrects court filing in anthrax suit" (X)
The Washington Post - July 19, 2011 - "Justice Department corrects legal filing regarding anthrax attacks" (X)
MSNBC - July 19, 2011 -
"Government lawyers backtrack on anthrax case" (X)
Village Voice (blog) - July 19, 2011 - "Bruce Ivins Maybe Didn't Send Anthrax, Government Admits in Court Papers" (X)
The Macon Telegraph - July 19, 2011 - "Justice Department retracts court filings that undercut FBI's anthrax case" (X)
The Sacramento Bee - July 20, 2011 - "Justice Dept backtracks on anthrax claims" (X)
Wired Magazine - July 20, 2011 - "Justice Department Trips in Anthrax Case.  Again" (X)
Miami Herald - July 20, 2011 - "Justice Department waffling in anthrax case could be costly, experts say" (X)
ProPublica.org - July 20, 2011 - "Government Anthrax Flip-Flop Could Boost Victim's Lawsuit" (X)
CIDRAP news - July 20, 2011 - "DOJ defense of Army lab stirs up anthrax case controversy" (X)
The Frederick News-Post (Opinion) - July 25, 2011 - "Another Ivins twist" (X)
The New York Times - July 26, 2011 - "Suspect's Manifesto Points to Planned Anthrax Use, But Also to a Lack of Expertise" (X)
ProPublica - July 26, 2011 - "Stephen Engelberg on the FBI's Anthrax Case" (X)
Global Security Newswire - July 27, 2011 - "Norway Killer Wrote of Anthrax Attacks" (X)
Kansas City Star - July 27, 2011 - "Judge says US must show 'good cause" to revise anthrax filing" (X)
The Miami Herald - July 29, 2011 - "Judge allows feds to revise filing in anthrax case" (X)
The Washington Post (review) - Aug. 11, 2011 - David Willman's 'The Mirage Man'" (X)
WMD Junction - Aug 22, 2011 - "New Questions About the FBI's Anthrax Case" (X)
NPR (Laurie Garrett interview) - Aug. 26, 2011 - "A look back at 9/11 in 'I Heard the Sirens Scream'" (X)
National Journal - Sept. 1, 2011 - "After 9/11, Anthrax Attacks Seemed Too Natural" (X)
CIDRAP news - Sept. 1, 2011 - "Public health leaders cite lessons of 2001 anthrax attacks" (X)
The Kansas City Star - Sept. 2, 2011 - "Sen. Grassley asks Justice Department to explain contradictory acts on anthrax" (X)
Montgomery Life - Sept. 7, 2011 - "9/11 Ten Years Later" (X)
Ames.Patch.com - Sept. 8, 2011 - "Ten Years after 9/11: ISU Recalls Anthrax Scare" (X)
The Journal Gazette (Fort Wayne, IN) - Sept. 11, 2011 - "Pence: 'Remember the triumph of freedom'" (X)
Wired Magazine - Sept. 11, 2011 - "Terror and Bioterror: 9/11 to 10/4 - Part 1" (X)
Arizona Daily Sun - Sept. 12, 2011 - "NAU researcher thrust into the maelstrom" (X)
National Review - Sept. 14, 2011 - "Saddam: What We Now Know" (X)
The Guardian - Sept. 15, 2011 - "The anthrax scare: not a germ of truth" (X)
New Scientist - Sept. 15, 2011 - "Did research funding lead to anthrax attacks?" (X)
Asbury Park Press - Sept. 16, 2011 - "Another 10th Anniversary: Anthrax Attacks" (X)
The Wall Street Journal (Book Review) - Sept. 17, 2011 - "When Death Came Hand-Delivered" (X)
Wired Magazine - Sept. 18, 2011 - "Terror and Bioterror: 9/11 to 10/4 - Part 2" (X)
Wired Magazine - Sept. 25, 2011 - "Terror and Bioterror: 9/11 to 10/4 - Part 3" (X)
USA Today - Sept. 30, 2011 - "Strides in biodefense follow 2001 anthrax scare" (X)
CNN - Oct. 1, 2011 - "Strange sorority fixation was link that led to anthrax suspect" (X)
USA Today - Oct. 2, 2011 - "Al Qaeda lab lingers in anthrax story" (X)
Wired Magazine - Oct. 2, 2011 - "Terror and Bioterror: 9/11 to 10/4 - Part 4" (X)
The Daily Mail (UK) - Oct. 3, 2011 - "The laboratory crush that led the FBI to the U.S. Anthrax killer" (X)
Annals of Internal Medicine - Oct. 3, 2011 - "The Anthrax Attacks 10 Years Later" (X)
The Hartford Courant - Oct. 5, 2011 - "Anthrax Attacks Still A Mystery After 10 Years" (X)
PBS (Press Release) - Oct. 5, 2011 - "Frontline Investigates the Anthrax Mailings" (X)
University of Wyoming News - Oct. 7, 2011 - "UW Professors: Accused Anthrax Killer Couldn't Have Done It" (X)
Aberdeen News - Oct. 9, 2011 - "Ten years since Daschle received anthrax-laced letter" (X)
The Times of Trenton - Oct. 9, 2011 - "A decade on, legacy of anthrax attack lingers in Mercer County and beyond" (X)
The New York Times - Oct. 9, 2011 - "Scientists' Analysis Disputes F.B.I. Closing of Anthrax Case" (X)
The Baltimore Sun - Oct. 9, 2011 - "Frontline's 'Anthrax Files' takes hard look at FBI role in suicide of Ft. Detrick scientist" (X)
The Kansas City Star - Oct. 10, 2011 - "Fresh doubts raised on 2001 anthrax attacks" (X)
PBS Frontline - Oct. 10, 2011 - "Clair Fraser-Liggett: 'This Is Not an Airtight Case By Any Means'" (X)
PBS Frontline - Oct. 10, 2011 - "Edward Montooth: 'The Mandate Was to Look at the Case with Fresh Eyes'" (X)
PBS Frontline - Oct. 10, 2011 - "Rachel Lieber: 'The Case Against Dr. Bruce Ivins'" (X)
PBS Frontline - Oct. 10, 2011 - "Paul Keim: 'We Were Surprised It Was the Ames Strain'" (X)
PBS Frontline - Oct. 10, 2011 - Nancy Haigwood: “I Had a Gut Feeling It Was Bruce”  (X)
PBS Frontline - Oct. 10, 2011 - "New Evidence Adds Doubt to FBI’s Case Against Anthrax Suspect" (X)
PBS Frontline - Oct. 10, 2011 - "Did Bruce Ivins Hide Attack Anthrax from the FBI?" (X)
PBS Frontline - Oct. 10, 2011 - "Was FBI’s Science Good Enough to ID Anthrax Killer?" (X)
The Miami Herald - Oct. 11, 2011 - "Decade-old anthrax attacks included hit to Boca Raton offices" (X)
Science Magazine - Oct. 11, 2011 - "New Challenge to FBI's Anthrax Investigation Lends an Ear to Tin" (X)
The Macon Telegraph - Oct. 11, 2011 - "Was FBI's science good enough to ID anthrax killer?" (X)
Caspar Star-Tribune - Oct. 11, 2011 - "University of Wyoming professors seek to clear former colleague's name in anthrax controversy" (X)
The Gazette - Oct. 12, 2011 - "Questions remain 10 years after anthrax mailings" (X)
The Miami Herald - Oct. 12, 2011 - "Newly released files cloud FBI's anthrax finding" (X)
Council on Foreign Relations (opinion by Laurie Garrett) - Oct. 12, 2011 - "The Anthrax Letters" (X)
Journal of Bioterrorism & Biodefense - Oct. 13, 2011 - "The 2001 Attack Anthrax: Key Observations"
ProPublica.com - Oct. 15, 2011 - "Despite Evidence of FBI Bungling, New Probe Into Anthrax Killings Unlikely" (X)
The Los Angeles Times - Oct. 16, 2011 - "Science in anthrax letter case comes under attack" (X)
The New York Times (editorial) - Oct. 17, 2011 - "Who Mailed the Anthrax Letters?" (X)
Fox News - Oct. 18, 2011 - "Doubts Persist About Anthrax Investigation 10 Years Later" (X)
The Daily Reveille - Oct. 20, 2011 - "Professor is worldwide anthrax specialist" (X)
The Washington Post (editorial) - Oct. 21, 2011 - "New questions about FBI anthrax inquiry deserve scrutiny" (X)
The Frederick News-Post (opinion by Barry Kissin) - Oct. 22, 2011 - "Anthrax whodunit" (X)
The Vancouver Sun - Oct. 22, 2011 - "Was this man the anthrax killer?" (X)
The New York Post - Oct. 23, 2011 - "Anthrax and the FBI" (X)
The Vancouver Sun - Oct. 24, 2011 - "The Hunt for America's anthrax killer" (X)
ProPublica.com - Oct. 24, 2011 - "Secret Reports: With Security Spotty, Many Had Access to Anthrax" (X)
The New York Times - Oct. 27, 2011 - "The Anthrax Investigation: The View From the FBI" (X)
The Palm Beach Post - Oct. 28, 2011 - "Lantana anthrax widow settles $50 million lawsuit against federal government" (X)
NPR - Oct. 29, 2011 - "Scientific Case Still Open on 2001 Anthrax Case" (X)
Associated Press - Oct. 30, 2011 - "Settlement reached in anthrax death lawsuit" (X)
Reuters - Oct. 30, 2011 - "Deal reached in U.S. 2001 anthrax death suit: filing" (X)
Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists - Nov. 1, 2011 - "Amerithrax review: Lessons for future investigations" (X)
AAAS - Nov. 1, 2011 - "Ten Years After Deadly Anthrax Mailings, AAAS Event Explores Lingering Questions"  (X)
Patch.com - Nov. 21, 2011 - "The Day Terror Came to Oxford" (X)
Associated Press - Nov. 29, 2011 - "U.S. to pay widow $2.5M in 2001 anthrax death" (X)
AP & Time Magazine - Nov. 29, 2011 - U.S. to pay widow $2.5M in 2001 anthrax death" (X)
CNN - Nov, 29, 2011 - "Family of 2001 anthrax victim settles with government" (X)
Palm Beach Post - Nov. 29, 2011 - "U.S. to pay Lantana widow $2.5 million for the 2001 anthrax attack that killed her husband" (X) (X)
The Washington Post - Nov. 29, 2011 - "Federal government settles suit in fatal anthrax attacks" (X)
The New York Times - Nov. 29, 2011 - "U.S. Settles Suit Over Anthrax Attacks" (X)
ProPublica.org - Nov. 29, 2011 - "Government Settles Case Brought By First Anthrax Victim For $2.5 Million" (X)
Palm Beach Post - Nov. 30, 2011 - "Anthrax victim's wife: $2.5 million settlement brings 'a little finality'" (X)

2012

Journal of Bioterrorism & Biodefense - Jan. 31, 2012 - "Letter to the Editor in response to 'The 2001 Attack Anthrax: Key Observations"
The Washington Post - Jan. 27, 2012 - "Justice Dept. takes on itself in probe of 2001 anthrax attacks" (X)
Slate Magazine - Jan. 30, 2012 - "How fake bioterrorism attacks became a real problem" (X)
Gazette.Net - Mar. 22, 2012 - "Paul Gordon: An exercise in futility"  (X)
The Cavalier Daily - Mar. 23, 2012 - "Panel reviews 2001 attacks" (X)
Frederick News-Post - Apr. 8, 2012 - "Beyond the breach: Officials take a look at security and safety a decade after anthrax scare" (X)
BusinessInsider.com - Nov. 26, 2012 - "Nick Kristof: Here Are 3 Things I've Been Very Wrong About."
Racine Journal-Times - Dec. 8, 2012 - "Local Man self-publishes book about anthrax attacks"
Journal of Bioterrorism & Biodefense - Dec. 17, 2012 - "Evidence for the Source of the 2001 Attack Anthrax"

2013

NewsWithViews - Apr. 20, 2013 - "The Media Wants Arabs Exonerated" (X)
Frederick News-Post - July 28, 2013 - "Questions on anthrax suspect linger"  (X)
Frederick News-Post - July 29, 2013 - "Scientists who worked with Ivins still question government's methods" (X)
The Trentonian - Oct. 20, 2013 - State Watch: "Ready for Anthrax Sequel? (X)


2014

Hartford Courant - April 14, 2014 - "Oxford Woman, 94, An Unlikely Victim Of Anthrax Attacks" (X)
Accuracy in Media - May 21, 2014 - "Lies of the 9/11 'Truth' Movement" (X)


© 2001-2014 by Ed Lake

All Rights Reserved.