|
Post by Michael on Oct 11, 2016 18:11:54 GMT -5
Someone just sent me the much anticipated "review" posted by an individual who has a habit of trying to harm any book which does not line up with Fisher's book (written in 1987).
This person once knee-capped A&M's book with a review claiming they "never did" any research at the NJSP Archives. If true, that is a valid point. Questions for this "Reviewer:"
1. How much time have you spent, in your life, researching the files at the NJSP? Remember, this is verifiable. 2. Did you ever misrepresent newspaper reports as police reports? If so why? 3. Did you ever invent conversations then quote them? If so why? 4. Did you ever say you had a copy of a page out of a log book that you never had? If so why? 5. Why do you hate anything that contradicts your main source - Fisher's book written in 1987? 6. Why do you rant about the xerox machine at the NJSP Archives? Do you think it copies fakes? When Lloyd's book came out scores of Readers praised it. Among the (1) or (2) bad reviews was this same "Reviewer" who knee-capped it as well. And so of course my book receives the same treatment. First is the fact I knew whatever I wrote would get a bad review from him. It's his only way of trying to be relevant. I wear it like a badge of honor because if he liked it I'd know it was terribly wrong. Next, anyone who accepts his mis-information isn't someone I'd want reading the book. After all, it's an advanced reader and not meant for people like him who know very little about the case.
Here is a quick rebuttal to some of his child-like points:
1. I didn't even know how many times my name appeared. It was a simple template which was fine for me. (Not good for you? Who cares?)
2. He didn't read my introduction or did not understand it. Probably both. That's on him.
3. He seems to hate footnotes. This is non-fiction. (Why not look them up? Don't have them? Why not?)
4. In the NYU Chapter, he claims I didn't know the paper trail involved (!!!) then insinuates I believe he was to speak at the event. Again, this guy cannot read. I quoted Schwarzkopf who actually said what I quoted. I cannot change what he said or the integrity of the quote is lost.
5. He goes on to repeat that tired old excuse for why Lindbergh missed this dinner ignoring that I totally debunk it. He has no other recourse because the documentation proves it. Absolutely proves it. No letter can reverse this documentation because one source has it coming from Lindbergh HIMSELF.
6. The confession. This information does not stand alone, and is surrounded by (2) other pieces of information that Rev. Schutter could never have known about. I've always known something was said that day so when he was telling me about this I knew it was true. Had I not researched I wouldn't have had a clue and probably doubted it.
7. I included the child's burial permit because one existed. That was the original plan to bury him. (Try reading the book to know why that didn't happen.)
8. Proof-Reading. I made some mistakes based on the fact one Editor corrected so much he adjusted the quotes AND footnotes. In reversing these changes, I also reversed some things I didn't want undone. The Keaten mistakes.... Anyone who actually does research at the NJSP Archives has seen this and completely understood how this happened. Those who do not won't understand so I'll explain. Where Keaten's name is mentioned it's almost 50/50 Keaten/Keaton. So when I see the name spelled either way it does not raise a red flag. I am not a Writer and make no apologies for making mistakes that would not come from being one.
That's it. This guy is looking for attention. A good friend once told me to never wrestle with a pig. You both get dirty and the pig likes it.
*** One other shot this guy takes is that I say the McLean ransom was 100 million. Does anyone know where he's getting this from? My footnotes all say 100,000.000 - that's one hundred thousand. I'm assuming he can't see the decimal point (.) and thinks it's a comma (,) but I'd like to make sure. The reason it's written that way is because that's how it is in the title of the Report. Something he obviously does not have in his possession to review himself.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 12, 2016 5:42:31 GMT -5
Just some rambling points to make clear my position...
I wrote this book for several reasons. In the past I would post my points along with full citations only to have "others" call down to the Archives for them, and if Mark could find them, then falsely claim they themselves "found" it at the Archives once Mark mailed it off. This caused me to stop with the citations. After researching at the NJSP Archives for as long as I have, I found so much new material that I believed putting it together in one spot was absolutely necessary. Next, no one could later say it wasn't true or that they had been the one to find it. I honestly wrote it for our discussions. It wasn't meant to end discussion, or for me to tell people what to think. Anything in it's pages is up for interpretation and debate by whoever is reading it. What I find most hypocritical is when someone who refuses to do Archival Research TELLS people what to think, attempts to harm facts with no reasonable counter argument, or simply makes things up. I don't expect anyone to have much of the documentation that I've found, so how can anyone who does not have it - not even a glimpse - say the sources aren't real or relevant? The first step for anyone is to read everything they can. Waking up, buttering toast, then thumbing through Fisher's book counts, but that cannot be the basis for claiming to be, or portraying oneself as an Expert on the case. I hope that by writing this book, and continuing to reveal more new material by and through my next volumes, it will motivate people to take the next step by heading to one of the various Archives. Some people dread the idea that others will do that so they torpedo the idea with this silly notion that all one needs to do is ask "them" as if they magically know based on the limited resources they happen to have available to them. There's never enough resources and there's always more out there to be discovered.
Next, I chose a very simple template for this book. I wanted it to have the chapter names on the pages but my choice was either that or the one with the footnotes at the bottom. For our purposes I believed the footnotes at the bottom was most important. This idea that I wanted to have and/or specifically instructed my name to be placed there instead is asinine. I mean, who the hell even thinks like that? I've promoted the book here and on my LinkedIn page. I had several suggestions of a book signing to which I declined. I've had my publisher offer several packages to promote the book, some of which cost next to nothing which I have ignored. This idea that I wrote this book to make money is also ridiculous. I know that most people don't get that, but again, for me it's about the material and the knowledge that can come from it. The fact this book is selling more copies then I have ever envisioned may upset some but I could care less about their psychological issues which surround this fact.
Now getting to the footnotes...
Researching then finding specific items is merely a step in the process. What do I mean by that? Well, when I was first told about the "confession" I had to research the person who heard it. For example, if the guy wasn't even in the area at the time then it could not be true. Next, where did he go to school. Where was his church. What was his reputation. That's a lot of work and I get it that many people don't want to do that or simply don't have the time. But isn't it reckless to pretend? Or to simply dismiss something without looking into it? I say it is. To my point further, on page 103 of my book, footnote 271 reveals something quite interesting. It's not like I just found this document then blindly used it as a source. I researched the person who made this statement. Again, this takes time. And so once I discovered he was creditable for more reasons then one, I knew I had something worth adding. For someone who doesn't like it to simply say "innuendo" without reading that report or researching this person represents an extreme negligence and a very serious in flaw their "research" - if they even have that ability to begin with.
So again, these facts are out there to be interpreted by the Reader in any way they choose. But they need to be out there because they're real. The days of fiction revolving around this case are over, and I am going to keep proving it with each and every volume. If there are those who think I am an idiot or something then don't buy them. I mean, I don't buy books I don't want to read so it would make sense not to. Or am I wrong about that?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 13, 2016 1:48:09 GMT -5
Someone just sent me the much anticipated "review" posted by an individual who has a habit of trying to harm any book which does not line up with Fisher's book (written in 1987). Here is a quick rebuttal to some of his child-like points: 1. I didn't even know how many times my name appeared. It was a simple template which was fine for me. (Not good for you? Who cares?) 2. He didn't read my introduction or did not understand it. Probably both. That's on him. 3. He seems to hate footnotes. This is non-fiction. (Why not look them up? Don't have them? Why not?) 4. In the NYU Chapter, he claims I didn't know the paper trail involved (!!!) then insinuates I believe he was to speak at the event. Again, this guy cannot read. I quoted Schwarzkopf who actually said what I quoted. I cannot change what he said or the integrity of the quote is lost. 5. He goes on to repeat that tired old excuse for why Lindbergh missed this dinner ignoring that I totally debunk it. He has no other recourse because the documentation proves it. Absolutely proves it. No letter can reverse this documentation because one source has it coming from Lindbergh HIMSELF. 6. The confession. This information does not stand alone, and is surrounded by (2) other pieces of information that Rev. Schutter could never have known about. I've always known something was said that day so when he was telling me about this I knew it was true. Had I not researched I wouldn't have had a clue and probably doubted it. 7. I included the child's burial permit because one existed. That was the original plan to bury him. (Try reading the book to know why that didn't happen.) 8. Proof-Reading. I made some mistakes based on the fact one Editor corrected so much he adjusted the quotes AND footnotes. In reversing these changes, I also reversed some things I didn't want undone. The Keaten mistakes.... Anyone who actually does research at the NJSP Archives has seen this and completely understood how this happened. Those who do not won't understand so I'll explain. Where Keaten's name is mentioned it's almost 50/50 Keaten/Keaton. So when I see the name spelled either way it does not raise a red flag. I am not a Writer and make no apologies for making mistakes that would not come from being one. I think the review this person did on your book was biased with an intent to harm and discredit both the author and the material. About the only thing this person gets right is that the book is reasonably priced and is a good companion book for Lloyd Gardner's excellent book. The rest was hardly worth the time I spent reading it. Some companion points to go along with your rebuttal points: 1. Unbelievable that someone would even do a count like this!! It shows the pettiness of this person and it is a complete distortion of why your name appears as a page header. There is nothing wrong with it being there. You wrote the book. It goes along with the title on the opposite page! 2. Lets be generous and say he didn't understand. You very wisely withheld including your own personal theory because you wanted the reader to draw their own conclusions about the facts you were presenting. You did an excellent job presenting those facts because this man drew from reading them that Lindbergh and Gow must be involved with what happened. He saw it and didn't like it. Facts are facts whether we like them or not! 3. I think he dislikes footnotes that support facts he doesn't like or that challenge the historical record. He really needs to get better acquainted with all the documentation that surrounds this kidnapping. He really limits his knowledge by just using the trial for the be all and end all of this case. 4 & 5. I nearly fell out of my chair when I read that he thought you were "not really familiar with the paper trail involved." Truly this man is deluding himself. He claims that the NYU letter sent to Lindbergh's office had the wrong date on it, having March 4 instead of March 1 as the date of the dinner. Are we supposed to believe that out of the 1800 guests invited, the only one who received a letter with the wrong date on it was Lindbergh??? Seriously??? I would love to see that letter. Since this man says he researched this, perhaps he could clear this whole thing up by posting the actual letter with the wrong date on it. That would be a factual confirmation of what this reviewer is claiming is true. He needs to back up this claim he is making if he wants it to be believed. 6. This was a great find. You deserve credit for doing the research and making the contact. This is something that people who follow this case would want to know about. Haven't we all wondered if there was a genuine confession in this case? Now we know there was! 7. Here again is another good fact revealed in a book filled with so many of them. The Lindbergh's must have thought about burying their son. How many of us ever knew that? Cremation was actually a second choice. Obviously the reviewer of Michael's book didn't know this. I guess he never bothered looking into this. It takes lots of research to find out all these unknown facts. 8. I wonder if this reviewer spent any time reviewing the proof reading done on Jim Fisher's book. If he had he would have found the errors that exist in that book. I did. Mistakes happen and they don't always get caught, even by very good proof readers. When you research this case, you will see that some of the documents have spelling errors in the text. When you are using that document a source material for what you are writing, in order to maintain the integrity of the item, you leave the misspellings as they are. This is not the mistake of the author because he uses the material "as is". How come the man doing this review doesn't know this?? Maybe he needs to spend more time on research to understand how this process works.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 13, 2016 11:20:15 GMT -5
Everything in my book is coming from the source material. I believe everyone who spends money on a book absolutely has the right to "review" the work whether that be negative, positive, or a combination of both. However, it should be one made in good faith. To accuse me of not properly researching something is an accusation I take seriously. What's worse is you would have a better chance of seeing Big Foot then running into this guy at the NJSP Archives! With this in mind, how can he possibly criticize a source when he doesn't even know what's in it? It's the height of hypocrisy. I've wasted enough time on this Charlatan.
Now let's get back to legitimate discussion where I want to comment on a couple of your points above:
4&5: Whether or not there was such a letter - your point alone disproves the argument that his belief was the dinner was on the 4th. However, to ignore all the facts that I've presented in Chapter 2 is something that cannot be done. I've given multiple sources for the reason and that was he "forgot." One source was Lindbergh himself. So if it was a date mix-up then we're going to need documentation to back-up something which proves Lindbergh was lying about that. It was Lindbergh's position that he forgot and I proved it.
7: The burial permit was issued. That's a fact. Now I've always believed it was Lindbergh's intention to cremate the body ASAP as evidenced by what happened. That's certainly a debatable position and as always, I am open to discussion about it. However, since the belief was he would be dug up if buried then we know why his remains were not buried.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 13, 2016 13:29:50 GMT -5
4&5: Whether or not there was such a letter - your point alone disproves the argument that his belief was the dinner was on the 4th. However, to ignore all the facts that I've presented in Chapter 2 is something that cannot be done. I've given multiple sources for the reason and that was he "forgot." One source was Lindbergh himself. So if it was a date mix-up then we're going to need documentation to back-up something which proves Lindbergh was lying about that. It was Lindbergh's position that he forgot and I proved it. You certainly made clear Lindbergh's true position on the NYU dinner date. He admitted he forgot about it. Plain and simple. So why is this fact unacceptable? Why is it necessary to have some kind of cover story (mistaken about the date) to explain why Lindbergh was home that night? If Lindbergh wanted the cremation from the get-go then whose belief was it that the body would be dug up if it was buried? Was this Anne's concern or did she have nothing to do with how the body would be handled? By whose authority was the burial permit issued if it wasn't by the family?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 13, 2016 15:47:25 GMT -5
You certainly made clear Lindbergh's true position on the NYU dinner date. He admitted he forgot about it. Plain and simple. So why is this fact unacceptable? Why is it necessary to have some kind of cover story (mistaken about the date) to explain why Lindbergh was home that night? He clearly knew the date was March 1st, and his position was that he did not go because he forgot. Those who have anointed him a Saint like the confused date excuse better, however, the source material disprove it beyond all doubt. Like I said, if someone wants to prove Lindbergh a liar with some other documentation which clearly shows he actually believed it was the 4th I'm open to it. If Lindbergh wanted the cremation from the get-go then whose belief was it that the body would be dug up if it was buried? Was this Anne's concern or did she have nothing to do with how the body would be handled? By whose authority was the burial permit issued if it wasn't by the family? I believe he was always going to cremate him. My opinion here. It seems to me they wanted to bury the ashes. Again, my opinion based upon all the documentation I've read. But the Police believed if they did that his remains would be dug up. Keaten himself believed this. So that's why I feel his ashes were scattered instead. Here too it's debatable and if someone wants to disagree they're welcome to. If they wanted to disprove it then I'm going to need more. The burial permit was secured by the family after making claim to the corpse. State Law required it before it could be removed from the Morgue. The permit was signed by the Registrar of Vital Statistics.
|
|