Am I the only one that thinks DU is maybe, just maybe, jumping the gun a little...

[varkam]

on this whole Ivins thing?

[TZ]

1. Yes. There are a lot of assumptions being made

As I've told others, I have a loose connection to both the anthrax vaccine program and to Detrick.I hate the assumption that Ivins couldn't have POSSIBILY killed himself. And the really annoying part is the assumption that someone else MUST have carried out the attacks without realizing that creating/handling weapons grade anthrax WITHOUT HARM TO ONESELF is a very very rare skill that even most biologists would not have access or opportunity. Hell, I wouldn't be able to do it. And I've seen the actual USAMRIID labs...You can't just waltz in there!
And funny...he had interest in the vaccine program..I've known for awhile that it had to be someone in the vaccine program because in the 2000/2001 time period the vaccine program was in deep trouble..after words..it got much better funding..To the detrement of some other programs (the company I was working for at the time had access to USAMRIID labs...except they had a lot less access after the anthrax incident).
There is one thing that the CT's are on to that I agree with. While I'm pretty sure that Ivins was involved (the physical/DNA evidence has long said it had to be someone from Detrick involved) theres no way that he could have done this entirely by himslf. Someone else had to know/suspect maybe even help.
Thats one quasi-insiders POV on this.

[Warpy]

7. All I say is that a lot of the official story smells bad

and that's because it does.

It reads like a scientist who became unstable offed himself in a grotesquely painful way and is being convicted after the fact to get the investigation tied up into a neat little package so it can be dropped.

At least it got them to admit where the mailings originated and that there was no way it was a bathtub operation done outside that facility.

[TZ]

8. I think they are covering for someone else

No way is this a "lone gunman" situation. Someone else, who probably has some political pull somewhere was involved or at least in the know. There were lots of other people associated with the troubled anthrax vaccine program.

[HamdenRice]

2. In what way?

It seems to me that most of the posts are about how the official narrative is being systematically discredited. Few with scientific backgrounds believe that Ivins could have weaponized the anthrax by himself.

That means that there was a criminal conspiracy and yet the FBI has consistently focused on "lone nut" scientists (Hatfil, now Ivins).

If the FBI is smart enough to have read/heard what the many, many people with science and bioweapons background have to say -- ie that a lone scientist could not have done this -- then for some reason they are avoiding the real investigation, which means they are engaged in a cover up.

That kind of bogus narrative and that kind of behavior on the part of the Bush administration's policiticized Justice Department would lead most people of a skeptical frame of mind to be doubtful of the official story.

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[HamdenRice]

11. And this is your best argument?

Not to worry, I now always alert on jerkoff smilies.

[mr blur]

13. Keeps you busy, I imagine. Hope so, anyway. (nt)

[Pale Blue Dot]

4. I'm going to say something that's not going to be popular.

The speed at which some in this forum are dismissing a look at obvious irregularities in the Ivans story is bothering me. To be a skeptic means that we apply critical thinking skills to ALL claims. We cannot, and should not, dismiss a claim ONLY because it is a conspiracy theory. What we need to do is examine all of the evidence with a skeptical eye and dismiss or accept claims based on that evidence.

What happens now is that eventually people divide into 2 camps: those who believe in every claim, no matter how outlandish, and those who believe in no claims, no matter how plausible or evidence-based.

The way I see it, right now there are enough plausible questions about this story that there should at least be an investigation (which, as it turns out, probably won't happen - which will feed the most extreme conspiracy theories.)

We can't dismiss claims right off the bat because they appear to be a conspiracy. We need to investigate, look very carefully at the evidence, and then make a sound judgment.

[realisticphish]

5. i sort of agree

in that to do this, if it is a conspiracy, requires far fewer people to be involved than MIHOP. Conspiracies DO happen, what was prohibitive about MIHOP was the scale. So, I saw we wait and see what comes out. Maybe nothing will, maybe it is a conspiracy, i don't know. But I also get annoyed with every little thing the government does being labeled as some soviet-style manipulation. It's overly paranoid, IMHO. But I suppose we'll see about this one.

[TZ]

6. Please reread my post Finfann

Outside of Lizerdbits--I might be the only person on this board that is familiar with Detrick/anthrax vaccine program..I did NOT dismiss the fact that there is something wrong here that is being covered up. HOWEVER there is a lot of scientific fact which DOES point to Ivins involvement..Despite claims otherwise...There are maybe 4 labs in the country that could handle anthrax...But only DETRICK has the proper facilities to weaponize this weapon, except for PERHAPS the CDC, but I highly doubt they would do that there. (Biosafety level four).
If it wasn't a bioweapons researcher..how the HELL could someone send out lethal anthrax without infecting themselves? There is DNA evidence here that points to the Detrick labs..and those labs are pretty well monitored (if there is even a HINT of a problem a researcher gets hauled off and thrown in the "slammer" for a good amount of time....To prevent not only the researcher but others from getting sick) There are records that he was in the lab at odd hours working on something that no one knows what..No one should be in those labs by themselves period, for safety reasons..so that right there is suspicious.

But he could not do this himself, however, he has access...means AND motivation as he was involved in the vaccine program.
Even a lot of people I have firmly in the woo camp do think Ivins was involved.

[Pale Blue Dot]

9. This really wasn't directed at you (or anyone in particular).

You DID offer evidence in your post, and that is what we, as skeptics, need to do.

If we decide one way or the other before we see the evidence then we're no better than the worst conspiracy theorists.

[varkam]

10. I didn't mean to see as if I was dismissing it out of hand.

I just have read umpteen posts saying that Ivins is most definitely a patsy, and that seems to be getting a lot of play. Maybe there's more to it, but I don't think that there's enough evidence to really make a judgment on that yet.

[dropkickpa]

14. I agree that there are inconsistencies

But I think many of them boil down to CYA (cover yer ass). There WAS obviously a breakdown in security in the lab, and the inconsistencies point, at least to me, to people working to cover their own fuck-ups. How far up and down the CYA goes is what is really what I question, not Ivins involvement.

[TZ]

15. Pretty true

Before 2001, security at Detrick wasn't that strict..now USAMRIID had special precautions...but still I heard some stories from people who used to work there that were a bit..distressing. Admitting that someone could be working unmonitored in BSL-4 is pretty embarrassing....

[dropkickpa]

16. That's the thing for me

If they are admitting to THAT oversight (pretty damn big problem in my opinion), what *aren't* they admitting to fucking up? Having dealt with CYA debacles in research, I can only imagine.

[dropkickpa]

17. To clarify

I've been on the incident investigative end of things, rather than the CYA end. Some of the crap and huge effort people come up with to CYA their very minor fuck-ups amazes me. I am WAY too lazy to come up with that sort of effort.

[lizerdbits]

12. I've been too busy at work to pay much attention to details

But we have a relatively new employee who used to work at Detrick and said this guy was quite strange. If what my mom was telling me Saturday based on news reports was true (the obsession with some sorority, telling a therapist he was going to kill some woman if her soccer team lost, stalking, etc) then this guy clearly had some obvious mental problems.
When you get a clearance to work with select agents (defined as biologicals or toxins that could severely affect public or animal health) the DOJ I think just looks at your public record background. I just filled out a sheet with my SSN, answered a few questions and about 3-4 months later I'm allowed into certain areas unescorted with my special badge. No references or interviews. So if Ivins was really this nuts but was never involuntarily committed to a mental institution (a specific question on the form) and never convicted of a felony the person hundreds of miles away who's never met him doing this check is never going to know that he's got this history that may be well known to acquaintances. I don't know when they started doing these checks either, apparently pretty much anybody could work with this stuff many years ago. This whole discussion came up at work because we were wondering if they were going to start looking at people more closely who have access and we will have to provide childhood references. :)

I think Finnfan's post is a good one, but I've got to get to work, I'll see if I can check in on the thread tonight. And no, you sure as hell can't wander onto Detrick and certainly not into USAMRIID.