CNN & the anthrax mystery

[Missouri Mule]

Heads-up: There is supposed to be a program on CNN tonight at 9 PM CT regarding the anthrax mystery. Set your DVR if you are interested. I don't know if anything new will be revealed but it might be worth your while.

One of these days the truth will come out and there will be some mighty red faces around here. Don't ask me how I know this but I do. I can however verify that the investigation continues. Whether or not CNN will actually make news is not known but since it is an "official" news source, I thought I would make everyone here aware of it.

[JD3]

Heads-up: There is supposed to be a program on CNN tonight at 9 PM CT regarding the anthrax mystery. Set your DVR if you are interested. I don't know if anything new will be revealed but it might be worth your while.

One of these days the truth will come out and there will be some mighty red faces around here. Don't ask me how I know this but I do. I can however verify that the investigation continues. Whether or not CNN will actually make news is not known but since it is an "official" news source, I thought I would make everyone here aware of it.


Are you implying you have inside informatioin or special intutition?

[Missouri Mule]

Are you implying you have inside informatioin or special intutition?

The former (edited.)

[JD3]

The former (edited.)

Just checking. Perhaps you'll share. ;)

[Missouri Mule]

Just checking. Perhaps you'll share. ;)

I wish I could but it would just giving up sources that I can't discuss. Plus it would sound too self-serving. All I can say is that I know what I know. I'll just leave it there.

It is difficult for me to understand how our mainstream media has been so silent about this story. Sometimes I wonder about them. I'm not expecting much from CNN on this but they may surprise us. Occasionally they hit the long ball. Perhaps this will be one of those times.

[JD3]

I wish I could but it would just giving up sources that I can't discuss. Plus it would sound too self-serving. All I can say is that I know what I know. I'll just leave it there.

It is difficult for me to understand how our mainstream media has been so silent about this story. Sometimes I wonder about them. I'm not expecting much from CNN on this but they may surprise us. Occasionally they hit the long ball. Perhaps this will be one of those times.


I suspect it may be your source is lacking. Kind of like trusting Hayes at the Weekly Standard. I'll certainly be interested if you or anyone else prove me wrong. It has happened, but we have been down this road a long time and I find faith isn't much help. Many had similar faith that Kay and el would turn up those wmds. And many sources reported they had. Hayes is still promising documents he hasn't delivered.

So, I'll wait and see if any of these actually pan out, but I hope you don't mind if I am not so easily swayed. ;)

[Missouri Mule]

I suspect it may be your source is lacking. Kind of like trusting Hayes at the Weekly Standard. I'll certainly be interested if you or anyone else prove me wrong. It has happened, but we have been down this road a long time and I find faith isn't much help. Many had similar faith that Kay and el would turn up those wmds. And many sources reported they had. Hayes is still promising documents he hasn't delivered.

So, I'll wait and see if any of these actually pan out, but I hope you don't mind if I am not so easily swayed. ;)

Nope. Not an opinion writer or investigative reporter. That's all I will say.

[JD3]

Nope. Not an opinion writer or investigative reporter. That's all I will say.

Doesn't change what I am saying at all. If the source had legs, this would be news. Again, if you prove me wrong, bravo. If not, well, there you go again. ;)

[Missouri Mule]

Doesn't change what I am saying at all. If the source had legs, this would be news. Again, if you prove me wrong, bravo. If not, well, there you go again. ;)

Doesn't merely have legs, but VERY long legs. And that IS my final comment (regarding what I know about the case.) On this coming program tonight will be hosted by Anderson Cooper. One can visit the CNN site for further information.

[JD3]

Doesn't merely have legs, but VERY long legs. And that IS my final comment (regarding what I know about the case.) On this coming program tonight will be hosted by Anderson Cooper. One can visit the CNN site for further information.


We'll see. ;)

[JD3]

I'm watching the show, but the story isn't about the anthrax mystery. :confused:

[Missouri Mule]

I'm watching the show, but the story isn't about the anthrax mystery. :confused:

It's two hours long. You'll just have to wait until that segment comes up. I'm watching my DVR and Steven Colbert right now.

[JD3]

You'd think they would lead with something so earth shaddering.

[Missouri Mule]

You'd think they would lead with something so earth shaddering.

It is entirely possible that they don't have anything and I tried to make this clear when I posted this thread. I'll let you know if they have even a clue after I view it.

Norman Ornstein is on Colbert right now so I'll learn more there right now anyway. He is analyzing Congress right now.

[JD3]

Well, let me know. I'm off to get my son from work.

[Missouri Mule]

Well, let me know. I'm off to get my son from work.

A waste of time. They said exactly two words that had anything to do with my source and they were off by one in the count. Obviously the press hasn't a clue; not a clue. Sorry. I had no way to know what would be on the program.

[JD3]

OK, that was a waste. Nothing new. The opinion was from the Post writer that it was doen by an American. No reason to think it will be solved soon. So, I don't get the secret here.

[JD3]

A waste of time. They said exactly two words that had anything to do with my source and they were off by one in the count. Obviously the press hasn't a clue; not a clue. Sorry. I had no way to know what would be on the program.


But they did say the evidence points most to an American source. It is quite possible your source doesn't have a clue. Being objective here, we must consider that possibility as well.

[Missouri Mule]

But they did say the evidence points most to an American source. It is quite possible your source doesn't have a clue. Being objective here, we must consider that possibility as well.

Yes AND no. It depends on the definition of "is" so to speak. Not trying to be evasive (yes I am, and I have no choice.) All I can say there were two words in the entire report that were relevant and the number was off by one.

The reporter cited knows nothing. Less than nothing, actually. I no longer believe that we have any really good investigative reporters in the mainstream news. The bloggers are probably much more accurate.

For example I was reading a blog today coming out of Iraq on a daily basis, written by an Iraqi. There was more useful news there than comes out of all of the mainstream news combined. They consist of a pitiful bunch of do-nothing herd mentality that simply boggles the mind.

Just once in my lifetime, I would actually like the mainstream news take an issue, any issue, and actually inform the public accurately, completely, and without any bias. I fear that I will never see that day.

[Nuke the Oil]

OK, then at least spread an unfounded rumour. Who do you think did it?

[Missouri Mule]

OK, then at least spread an unfounded rumour. Who do you think did it?

It's late and I don't want the feds knocking on my door in the middle of the night. And I can assure you that I will spread no unfounded rumours. I just really hate being so evasive here but I just can't go further. I should never have brought it up, actually. I was hopeful that they would finally make some news. Sadly, that was not the case. And no, I'm not the scholar who was played by Russell Crowe. That is to say, I'm neither psychotic nor paranoid. Why did I ever bring this subject up anyway? I overdosed on stupid pills today. Best explanation I can come up at this late hour.

I'll give you a clue to this puzzle. You are closer to this than I am. If that makes no sense, it is purely intentional. But it is a clue.

[JD3]

Yes AND no. It depends on the definition of "is" so to speak. Not trying to be evasive (yes I am, and I have no choice.) All I can say there were two words in the entire report that were relevant and the number was off by one.

The reporter cited knows nothing. Less than nothing, actually. I no longer believe that we have any really good investigative reporters in the mainstream news. The bloggers are probably much more accurate.

For example I was reading a blog today coming out of Iraq on a daily basis, written by an Iraqi. There was more useful news there than comes out of all of the mainstream news combined. They consist of a pitiful bunch of do-nothing herd mentality that simply boggles the mind.

Just once in my lifetime, I would actually like the mainstream news take an issue, any issue, and actually inform the public accurately, completely, and without any bias. I fear that I will never see that day.

I am serious here. I think you are mistaken. I think you. like many, look for things to affirm your belief system. If they do, they are good. If they don't, they are lacking. I see too much of this today. Bloggers sometimes get it right, but on the whole they get more wrong than right.

I'll go where ever the evidence takes us here, but there is nothing to suggest more than was reported tonight.

[Missouri Mule]

I am serious here. I think you are mistaken. I think you. like many, look for things to affirm your belief system. If they do, they are good. If they don't, they are lacking. I see too much of this today. Bloggers sometimes get it right, but on the whole they get more wrong than right.

I'll go where ever the evidence takes us here, but there is nothing to suggest more than was reported tonight.

Forget the blog comment. That was just to make an example of the lack of real reporting. This has NOTHING to do with a belief system. That sounds so self-serving I am almost ashamed to have to say it.

I was looking at something earlier tonight that essentially confirms the veracity of my information.

Here is what you can do. Go back to the basic facts. Begin at the beginning. What we know for a certainty. Not speculation. Absolute fact. No faith. Fact. Proven fact. Undisputed fact. Back to the beginning. What the reporter gave was just fluff and an opinion of no value. The newscast may have well been interviewing the local trash collector for all it was worth.

An investigation must begin with known facts. Not faith. Facts. Back to the beginning. Start there. Here you go. That's it.

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn1473

[nonsqtr]

Yeah, I remember that. The whole Ames thing mysteriously disappeared off the radar screen at one point, as I recall. Definitely gives one pause for consideration, doesn't it?

[JD3]

Forget the blog comment. That was just to make an example of the lack of real reporting. This has NOTHING to do with a belief system. That sounds so self-serving I am almost ashamed to have to say it.

I was looking at something earlier tonight that essentially confirms the veracity of my information.

Here is what you can do. Go back to the basic facts. Begin at the beginning. What we know for a certainty. Not speculation. Absolute fact. No faith. Fact. Proven fact. Undisputed fact. Back to the beginning. What the reporter gave was just fluff and an opinion of no value. The newscast may have well been interviewing the local trash collector for all it was worth.

An investigation must begin with known facts. Not faith. Facts. Back to the beginning. Start there. Here you go. That's it.

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn1473

Fact:

The bacteria used for the anthrax attacks in the US is either the strain the US itself used to make anthrax weapons in the 1960s, or close to it.

Fact:

It is not a strain that Iraq . . . mass-produced for weapons.

Fact:

Iraq favoured the Vollum strain

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn1473


So, I am missing your point. BTW, all of this was essentially in the CNN report.

[Missouri Mule]

Yeah, I remember that. The whole Ames thing mysteriously disappeared off the radar screen at one point, as I recall. Definitely gives one pause for consideration, doesn't it?

I really wish I could be more specific (I really do) but just keep your eye on the facts. I can't believe that CNN didn't even bother to discuss what is known. It tells me once again that the news media is being cut out of information because the investigation is not dead as the reporter said she believed.

And btw, I don't believe that I ever brought up Iraq during this thread. Don't read anything into that however. (For Joe)

[JD3]

And btw, I don't believe that I ever brought up Iraq during this thread. Don't read anything into that however. (For Joe)

No, you didn't. But your implied something new, which nothing you present is new. And we do have a history on this argument. All the information todate suggests an American as the party involved. Again, nothing new. And that was the point of the CNN story. There is nothing new.

[JoeR]

What is the point of starting a topic if you are going to be completely nebulous about it?

[Missouri Mule]

No, you didn't. But your implied something new, which nothing you present is new. And we do have a history on this argument. All the information todate suggests an American as the party involved. Again, nothing new. And that was the point of the CNN story. There is nothing new.

There is something new. Very new. But it wasn't in the report. The CNN report was shocking in is lack of new information. Why present it at all?

I'll tell you what. Send me a PM and I'll send you a link. The new information is contained within that link but you must never tell another soul on earth and I won't help you further than this link. I must have your solemn promise. And we must never speak of it again except in person.

[Missouri Mule]

What is the point of starting a topic if you are going to be completely nebulous about it?

National security comes to mind. BTW, I started a topic only to advise a "heads-up" that this subject was going to be discussed on CNN. I wasn't given an advance copy of the program so I didn't know and said right up front that it might be a dud; which it was. My crystal ball isn't working very well these days. I apologize for that shortcoming.

[Mirror Lake 444]

There is something new. Very new. But it wasn't in the report. The CNN report was shocking in is lack of new information. Why present it at all?

I'll tell you what. Send me a PM and I'll send you a link. The new information is contained within that link but you must never tell another soul on earth and I won't help you further than this link. I must have your solemn promise. And we must never speak of it again except in prison.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Nuke the Oil]

It's late and I don't want the feds knocking on my door in the middle of the night. And I can assure you that I will spread no unfounded rumours. I just really hate being so evasive here but I just can't go further. I should never have brought it up, actually. I was hopeful that they would finally make some news. Sadly, that was not the case. And no, I'm not the scholar who was played by Russell Crowe. That is to say, I'm neither psychotic nor paranoid. Why did I ever bring this subject up anyway? I overdosed on stupid pills today. Best explanation I can come up at this late hour.

I'll give you a clue to this puzzle. You are closer to this than I am. If that makes no sense, it is purely intentional. But it is a clue.

This must be very sensitive and specific information if the g-men are going to kick down your door if you talk about it in a vague sense. Is the source of the anthrax important, or who actually used it?

[Missouri Mule]

This must be very sensitive and specific information if the g-men are going to kick down your door if you talk about it in a vague sense. Is the source of the anthrax important, or who actually used it?

Both..

[JD3]

Yet, being unverifiable, meaningless and untrustworthy. Frankly, I have to believe if there was anything certain, we'd hear more.

[Missouri Mule]

Yet, being unverifiable, meaningless and untrustworthy. Frankly, I have to believe if there was anything certain, we'd hear more.

Thanks Joe, for playing me like a cheap fiddle.

[JD3]

Thanks Joe, for playing me like a cheap fiddle.


I have not played you and do not understand your comment. It is poor practice to make an argument with something that cannot be verified. I didn't tell you to revisit this thread, and I said nothing as it sat here. But you are making claims that we cannot verify and your suggestion of them having validity demands conformation. If you can't do that, you should hold your hand from the keyboard.

[Missouri Mule]

I have not played you and do not understand your comment. It is poor practice to make an argument with something that cannot be verified. I didn't tell you to revisit this thread, and I said nothing as it sat here. But you are making claims that we cannot verify and your suggestion of them having validity demands conformation. If you can't do that, you should hold your hand from the keyboard.

We have privately communicated on this subject and I asked you about a half dozen times to delete this thread because of national security concerns. I'm not about to sell the nation down the river to win some kind of manufactured argument. This was a thread to advise of an upcoming program. And then you kept pumping me for additional information I could not share. Read your own comments.

BTW, I never made any claims; only that I had information I couldn't share openly on a web site. What information I had came to me came by private e-mail. And I'm not about to declare that to the world. We have no idea who monitors these political web sites. But we do know that terrorists use the internet. Should we tell them the posse is after them and that their identities are known? I think not.

[JD3]

We have privately communicated on this subject and I asked you about a half dozen times to delete this thread because of national security concerns. I'm not about to sell the nation down the river to win some kind of manufactured argument. This was a thread to advise of an upcoming program. And then you kept pumping me for additional information I could not share. Read your own comments.

BTW, I never made any claims; only that I had information I couldn't share openly on a web site. What information I had came to me came by private e-mail. And I'm not about to declare that to the world. We have no idea who monitors these political web sites. But we do know that terrorists use the internet. Should we tell them the posse is after them and that their identities are known? I think not.


The thread isn't up for me to delete. Others have joined in the discussion and while I posed deleting, the consensus was not to. However, it was dying a slow death until you resurected it. You bumped it and not me.

I broke no agreement made in our private conversations. I have given no information. I never say anything I fear anyone monitor. As for pumping information, we have history of discussion on this and you imply you know more. If you could not share, you should not have mentioned it. It leaves people with the impression that you have it figured out and know something you don't know. On a board like this, you should only present what you can share.

But, as a matter of fact and clarity, I doubt your source.

[Missouri Mule]

The thread isn't up for me to delete. Others have joined in the discussion and while I posed deleting, the consensus was not to. However, it was dying a slow death until you resurected it. You bumped it and not me.

I broke no agreement made in our private conversations. I have given no information. I never say anything I fear anyone monitor. As for pumping information, we have history of discussion on this and you imply you know more. If you could not share, you should not have mentioned it. It leaves people with the impression that you have it figured out and know something you don't know. On a board like this, you should only present what you can share.

But, as a matter of fact and clarity, I doubt your source.

I knew my trying to explain this would be fruitless. For the record I just sent an e-mail to my source but I don't have to get further confirmation to know that the investigation is not dead as the program implied.
========================================
For those who may be interested in this subject and in a very long, detailed and exacting discussion of the background this subject is one of the best analyses I have yet seen. (I have previously shared this with Joe.) However anyone can read this link and make up your own minds whether or not there is any substance to this anthrax story. Although this is not my source it is highly informative. Long but worth the read.

http://mysite.verizon.net/vze43v8m/alqaeda,anthraxa.html#Jdey

[JD3]

I knew my trying to explain this would be fruitless. For the record I just sent an e-mail to my source but I don't have to get further confirmation to know that the investigation is not dead as the program implied.
========================================
For those who may be interested in this subject and in a very long, detailed and exacting discussion of the background this subject is one of the best analyses I have yet seen. (I have previously shared this with Joe.) However anyone can read this link and make up your own minds whether or not there is any substance to this anthrax story. Although this is not my source it is highly informative. Long but worth the read.

http://mysite.verizon.net/vze43v8m/alqaeda,anthraxa.html#Jdey

The program did not say it was dead. The said quite the opposite. They said many agents from the FBI and the Postal inspectors office were working around the clock. They did say there was nothing new to report and that the evidence still pointed to an American source.

[Missouri Mule]

The program did not say it was dead. The said quite the opposite. They said many agents from the FBI and the Postal inspectors office were working around the clock. They did say there was nothing new to report and that the evidence still pointed to an American source.

They always say that. "Working around the clock?" But what did the reporter say? That she doubted it would ever be solved -- that the case had "grown cold." What's the point of "working around the clock" if it will never be solved. That's what the report left us believing. If the case had "grown cold", what are they checking? 25 agents in all, no less.

I said at the very outset that that the investigators were checking on specific information. I know this to be true. That's not a case "grown cold." That's an active investigation with real leads.

Did you read the whole link I just posted? If someone comes away believing that it is an American or non-American with all of that to wade through, that is quite a leap in "faith."

1) There have been no further anthrax attacks. If an American they would presumably still be here capable of carrying out further attacks. Why not? Are they dead? What was their motivation? If they went to all of this trouble, what was their objective? Even the Unabomber domestic terrorist came back time and again with a motive in mind. Why not even an anonomyous letter explaining what he wanted to accomplish? We've heard nothing since. Not a single world. Virtually all domestic terrorists sooner or later reveal their objectives. Offhand, I can't think of a single one that hasn't.

What is the purpose? Yet, we know that al Queda and/or Iraq had plenty of motivation. On balance it would appear to me that a non-American would be a more likely suspect. What American gains from these acts? Did he/she/they commit suicide over their guilty consciences? Let's get real here.

2) In order to believe that it is a domestic source one would have to believe that just Americans had access to the Ames strain of anthrax; known to be the source of the anthrax. I've seen no such reports that would substantiate that belief. In point of fact, there is an abundance of information that points to the availability to a very large number of people. This was, as best as I can determine, the driving force behind the wholesale destruction of the remaining samples after 9/11.

Now, I would like for you to give me a plausible reason why any American would do this horrible act. Why have they not followed up? What do you think happened? I gave you something important, although you don't realize what you have. Now you should reciprocate and give me something. What do you know that I don't know? A logical explanation/scenario/theory will suffice. Deduce that from the known facts we already have at our disposal. There are many.

If anyone else wants to try their hand with this mystery, please feel free to chime in. Think of me as a modern day "Deep Throat." I've already provided one clue to another poster earlier in this thread. As they said in Watergate, follow the money. Today, we must follow the clues, the motivation, the logic. Who gains? Who loses? Who had access to the Ames strain of Anthrax? Who could have sent it? Why did it stop? Was it merely an experiment? Was it intended to demonstrate its efficacy? Are we likely to have further large-scale attacks in the future? Or was this just a one time event never to be solved like the dissappearance of Judge Crater or Jimmy Hoffa? What does your logic and common sense suggest?

[Dangerrmouse]

My common sense suggests that it is a steaming crock of s-peculation from start to finish. The investigation has gone cold because a reporter doubts it will be solved? I think not.

[Missouri Mule]

My common sense suggests that it is a steaming crock of s-peculation from start to finish. The investigation has gone cold because a reporter doubts it will be solved? I think not.

Did you read the link I posted?

Is it your opinion that I am posting speculation regarding my knowledge? Just curious.

[JD3]

Yes, I read the entire source and I am not convinced by it. It relies on us accepting things not proven. If any of this was, it wouldn't be the mystery it is and no one would be stumpted.

Again, I doubt both your sources.

[Missouri Mule]

Yes, I read the entire source and I am not convinced by it. It relies on us accepting things not proven. If any of this was, it wouldn't be the mystery it is and no one would be stumpted.

Again, I doubt both your sources.

What in particular do you not accept in the link I posted here? Seemed pretty complete to me. Give me an example. Just one.

[Dangerrmouse]

Did you read the link I posted?

Is it your opinion that I am posting speculation regarding my knowledge? Just curious.

Yes, I read the link. I posted a comment on its content too.

[JD3]

What in particular do you not accept in the link I posted here? Seemed pretty complete to me. Give me an example. Just one.

Start with the Language:

A leaked top secret Canadian Security Intelligence Service report may provide the missing piece of evidence needed to identify the long elusive anthrax mailer.

Then there is this which shouldn't be ignored:

While confirmation is still lacking . . . .

And is only one person's:

A Theory Of The Case

Now look what is being asked of the reader here:

If we assume that Jdey indeed was the recipient of vials of anthrax

You know what they say about assumptions. What we have here is more speculation and guess work. The author speculates about what Atta must have needed or wanted or did, and asks us to assume and accept without doubt what has nothing factual to back it up. I find this seriously flawed.

[Missouri Mule]

Start with the Language:

Then there is this which shouldn't be ignored:

And is only one person's:

Now look what is being asked of the reader here:

You know what they say about assumptions. What we have here is more speculation and guess work. The author speculates about what Atta must have needed or wanted or did, and asks us to assume and accept without doubt what has nothing factual to back it up. I find this seriously flawed.

It is impossible to categorically define every possible theory and assumption as fact. So long as it is stated as such, it passes muster in my book. I assume this web site is liberal based on certain assumptions I have. Would I be wrong?

Come one, give me a break. The link was complete in virtually all respects; with detail that the general public will never see in a hundred years. Every day we see statements attributed to unnamed sources in major newspapers and news outlets. Every criminal investigation, be it of national or international origin begins with the assumption that everyone is a suspect although we know that they aren't. It is a process of elimination. We even choose our life partners to a large extent on this principle. That's why we have the dating ritual. There is a "theory" that every date might be the perfect mate, but very few pan out. And we know very little to begin with. In this instance, the link is replete with an abundance of facts that are almost beyond belief and it is cavalierly dismissed as speculation. All this tells me is that this proves once again that certain people will believe what they want to believe regardless of the facts in front of them. In a criminal case the standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt." That's not 100%. In a civil case, it is a "preponderance of evidence." That's over 50%. In this case 99.99% is proven fact. And the theory was an attempt to make sense of what was unknown. That's not a cheap way out. It is called good investigation and a workable hypothesis. What do you think the CIA and FBI do? They never have ALL the facts. In our own lives, we never have ALL the facts. We fill in gaps of knowledge to make sense of it all. We posit theories and use our common sense and gray matter. We do it every day. Every one of us. Most of the time it works. Sometimes it doesn't.

I find it highly unlikely that anyone could have begun to read and understood the wealth of information contained in that link.

"Nothing factual?" Good golly, and gee whiz. This was one of the great mysteries of the 9/11 Commission Report. The only thing that we can go on is logical conclusions based on likely scenarios. The principles are dead. They are unavailable for cross examination.

As far as I am concerned, this is is. I've said that before. I will NEVER again share private information such as I shared with you. That is my promise to you. And this is one promise you can rest assured that I will keep.

Yes, and I know that you will have the last word as always. I will not respond.

[Missouri Mule]

Yes, I read the link. I posted a comment on its content too.

Did you read and understand all of it? It was a very long and detailed analysis. Certainly you can't believe it is all speculation. Why don't you flesh out your working knowledge of this subject? I'm interested in your views. Give me something to chew on. If you find gaps, I'll check further and see if there is an explanation. Certainly you can do that much for me, can't you?

And bear in mind that this author is not my source. That is an entirely different matter.

[JD3]

It is impossible to categorically define every possible theory and assumption as fact. So long as it is stated as such, it passes muster in my book. I assume this web site is liberal based on certain assumptions I have. Would I be wrong?

Come one, give me a break. The link was complete in virtually all respects; with detail that the general public will never see in a hundred years. Every day we see statements attributed to unnamed sources in major newspapers and news outlets. Every criminal investigation, be it of national or international origin begins with the assumption that everyone is a suspect although we know that they aren't. It is a process of elimination. We even choose our life partners to a large extent on this principle. That's why we have the dating ritual. There is a "theory" that every date might be the perfect mate, but very few pan out. And we know very little to begin with. In this instance, the link is replete with an abundance of facts that are almost beyond belief and it is cavalierly dismissed as speculation. All this tells me is that this proves once again that certain people will believe what they want to believe regardless of the facts in front of them. In a criminal case the standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt." That's not 100%. In a civil case, it is a "preponderance of evidence." That's over 50%. In this case 99.99% is proven fact. And the theory was an attempt to make sense of what was unknown. That's not a cheap way out. It is called good investigation and a workable hypothesis. What do you think the CIA and FBI do? They never have ALL the facts. In our own lives, we never have ALL the facts. We fill in gaps of knowledge to make sense of it all. We posit theories and use our common sense and gray matter. We do it every day. Every one of us. Most of the time it works. Sometimes it doesn't.

I find it highly unlikely that anyone could have begun to read and understood the wealth of information contained in that link.

"Nothing factual?" Good golly, and gee whiz. This was one of the great mysteries of the 9/11 Commission Report. The only thing that we can go on is logical conclusions based on likely scenarios. The principles are dead. They are unavailable for cross examination.

As far as I am concerned, this is is. I've said that before. I will NEVER again share private information such as I shared with you. That is my promise to you. And this is one promise you can rest assured that I will keep.

Yes, and I know that you will have the last word as always. I will not respond.


That is an odd statement. I didn't betray any confidence you shared, so I really don't understand your statement at all. However, that is your choice.

However, speculation is just that, speculation. We can all speculate and convince ourselves that any from Saddam to Bush to Micheal Jackson did it. However, to make reasoned progress we need evidence a little harder than someone's assumptions and speculations. Surely you can see that.