Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 2, 2016 14:20:20 GMT -5
Hi Sweetwater,
I have not received a shipping notice and I have not received my book either. Still waiting...anxiously!!!
|
|
dave
Detective
Posts: 130
|
Post by dave on Sept 2, 2016 15:55:31 GMT -5
Hey Jack,
I sent you a massage. Check it out it will explain why the hold up on "Thee Book!"
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 3, 2016 7:54:47 GMT -5
I wish I had an update as to when they will be rec'd but I don't. I just know when I ordered my copies they told me to expect them "in a month." In my mind, and I could be wrong, it has to do with the initial production and after that time new orders will be much quicker.
On the cover...
I think the Publisher did a great job creating the vision I had for it. Too many books have what I consider a "usual" cover and since this isn't a "usual" book that type of presentation did not appeal to me.
|
|
|
Post by sweetwater on Sept 3, 2016 19:00:10 GMT -5
I just have a feeling that, for those of us who ordered on or around August 17, books are going to be in the mail this coming week, after the holiday. Just a hunch, so I'm surely not sure -- but hope I'm right!
Edited to add: Michael, are you getting updates on how many books are being ordered? I'm doing a little "promoting" for you here and there. I know you are not in this for the sales, but I think your hard, long work deserves the widest audience possible.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 4, 2016 7:33:20 GMT -5
Edited to add: Michael, are you getting updates on how many books are being ordered? I'm doing a little "promoting" for you here and there. I know you are not in this for the sales, but I think your hard, long work deserves the widest audience possible. Thank you. The publisher has a log-in somewhere for Authors. Once I saw it wondered how to set it up, looked for the answer for about 10 minutes but when I couldn't find it decided I didn't care anyway. I am thinking the log-on info might come with my first order. Anyway that's probably something I'll look at (if I can figure it out) before I decide to create the next book. I think I might have mentioned this before but I'll do it again in case I didn't... When I first started to seriously want to get this 1st book done I was told Publishers believed there wasn't a big enough market on the subject, and what little there was already had a million books to choose from. In short they didn't see any money in it. So when you look at what I've written, a book where only people who really know the case can pick up and read without becoming confused, that's about 10% or 20% of those numbers. So for me I believe if you're "one of us" then it's a book you'll want. I know I am breaking all the rules here by doing everything "my" way instead of what's considered the "right" way.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Sept 8, 2016 5:15:24 GMT -5
To Michael:
Are the floorboards on the cover of your book supposed to represent the layout of Hauptmann's attic?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 8, 2016 16:06:59 GMT -5
To Michael: Are the floorboards on the cover of your book supposed to represent the layout of Hauptmann's attic? No. The fact it might bring Hauptmann's attic to mind is just an accidental bonus.
|
|
dave
Detective
Posts: 130
|
Post by dave on Sept 11, 2016 12:21:24 GMT -5
Being a part of an organization that doesn't play well with others, and can't keep their comments to themselves, I have to spread some love here, today. Big "Sweets" theory was a wash. Mike needs to make a call and rip someone a new one. Now I'm being very kind here so I'll leave at that.
Bottom line though is timing. Someone here completely missed the boat. The breakout date for the book should have been set for two weeks from now. But when Mike says, "It's not about the money," your going to have problems, and you should always have someone with you who feels it's all about the money. Don't get me wrong here I think a labor of love is great and the meek will get the earth, but never get pushed around! Never!
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 11, 2016 15:48:04 GMT -5
Being a part of an organization that doesn't play well with others, and can't keep their comments to themselves, I have to spread some love here, today. Big "Sweets" theory was a wash. Mike needs to make a call and rip someone a new one. Now I'm being very kind here so I'll leave at that. I've got to tell you Dave, this post was entertaining as hell despite the fact I didn't understand a word of it.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 16, 2016 6:17:54 GMT -5
I was recently notified that Amazon, Barnes & Noble, Sony and Kobo should be getting the Ebook versions of my book in the near future. Since several people have asked me about an Ebook version I wanted to share this with you.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 17, 2016 14:34:19 GMT -5
Since the Publisher is asking for my input concerning the price of the ebook I am going to do my best to keep it under $10. It's important to me that everyone be able to afford the new facts I've discovered - which I believe will lead them to the truth about what really happened.
|
|
|
Post by feathers on Sept 22, 2016 19:04:53 GMT -5
Just to let everyone know - the book is now available on Amazon for Kindle for $7.57. I am starting to read it now!
|
|
|
Post by feathers on Sept 22, 2016 19:07:01 GMT -5
Ok first comment - there is a disclaimer page that says this book is work of fiction and any resemblance to real people blah blah blah. Hopefully that can be removed at some point.
|
|
|
Post by feathers on Sept 22, 2016 20:55:21 GMT -5
The footnotes look fine to me.
And no one is ever going to mistake it for a fictional work. Maybe you can get someone to do a Dragnet introduction for the audiobook version - "The story you are about to hear is true...."
It is very enjoyable so far!
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 23, 2016 16:04:18 GMT -5
Ok first comment - there is a disclaimer page that says this book is work of fiction and any resemblance to real people blah blah blah. Hopefully that can be removed at some point. That's been removed. Thanks again for bringing it to my attention. Infinity moved real quick to make this right.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Sept 23, 2016 16:47:03 GMT -5
Okay, just finished it on Kindle. Very nicely done--and while it may not come easily, I don't know what you mean when you've said you're a bad writer. Anyway, I'm sure I'll have more, but first question: I know it's just the first volume, but the Kindle edition ends at the two pictures of Keaton and Lamb, then the footnotes begin. Is that how it's supposed to be? I ask because you mention, for instance, the deathbed confession early on, but don't elaborate, and the whole book seems to just stop. Will more, like the confession, be in subsequent volumes, or is there more in Vol. 1 that for some reason the Kindle edition cut off?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 23, 2016 16:59:10 GMT -5
Okay, just finished it on Kindle. Very nicely done--and while it may not come easily, I don't know what you mean when you've said you're a bad writer. Anyway, I'm sure I'll have more, but first question: I know it's just the first volume, but the Kindle edition ends at the two pictures of Keaton and Lamb, then the footnotes begin. Is that how it's supposed to be? I ask because you mention, for instance, the deathbed confession early on, but don't elaborate, and the whole book seems to just stop. Will more, like the confession, be in subsequent volumes, or is there more in Vol. 1 that for some reason the Kindle edition cut off? LJ, The hard copy has the footnotes on each page. I don't have a kindle so I don't know what it looks like. The last 2 illustrations are both Keaten and Lamb at the end of the last chapter - "Lt. 'Buster' Keaten." I don't know what you mean about the confession. Send me a PM So I can better understand your question.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 23, 2016 18:35:53 GMT -5
One of the reasons I chose the template for my book that I did was for the footnotes to be at the bottom of each page. I personally never like flipping back and forth to see what the source is for any fact so I found it beneficial to have them at a glance below. It seems the format for the Kindle doesn't allow for that, unfortunately, but I wanted to make sure I mention that the hard copy will.
|
|
|
Post by feathers on Sept 25, 2016 21:42:19 GMT -5
I have read the book once already, and am now reading it a second time more carefully and making notes for my own reference.
First of all, I agree with LJ – the book is very well written, as I think everyone on the board expected, despite Michael’s protestations to the contrary. I found it clear and articulate and enjoyable to read. I also liked the subject matter format. For me, it really allowed the important facts to be highlighted and presented in a clear way, that otherwise might get lost in an “ordinary” chronological narrative.
Of course, that means that the book is not for someone brand new to the case, as it assumes a basic knowledge of the events and people involved. But once someone has that under his or her belt, I think Michael’s book is required reading.
Certainly I would hope that going forward the mistakes Michael identifies will not be repeated by researchers. Either new authors will have to address his points, or they will reveal the thinness of their knowledge of the case. Most recent books on the case claim that they will go back to basics and reveal the myths surrounding the case – this is the first book I have seen that kept that promise.
As far as the facts go, I don’t believe that I am in disagreement with any of the factual assertions. Everything is well documented and referenced. That is not to say that I knew all of this already – most of what is in the book is new to me and where it is not, Michael often takes a fresh/different angle to which demonstrates new significance to familiar facts.
I know people are eager to discuss the book, yet at the same time, I am not sure how much to get into until more people have had a chance to read it (BTW I think it is worth getting the hard copy).
Anyway, here are some general thoughts to start:
(1) The first chapter sets out various sighting of cars in the area before and the day of the kidnapping (and provides interesting insights on Millard Whited). I take it that these vehicles were never identified or matched with someone who admitted being the driver on those occasions (except for the Morrow car and the occasion the state police believed the vehicle was Lindbergh’s). Is that right? They are all unaccounted for?
(2) One thing I take from the book is that the state police actually did a better job than they are generally credited with. Is that fair to say?
(3) I am impressed with the number of credible people at the time who had suspicions of Lindbergh.
(4) Who is Morris Bealle in relation to Garsson?
(5) I am interested in that undated Plain Talk article – does the content give any indication of when it was published (ie before Hauptmann’s arrest or after? or was it at the time of Garsson's legal troubles in the 1940s?)
(6) How on earth did you find Dr. Schutter?
(7) I know Ortleib was brought in for questioning in mid-April, was it just because of the Cummings’ connection or was there something more to tie him in?
I shouldn’t get carried away, so I’ll stop there!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 26, 2016 9:57:04 GMT -5
A TRIUMPH FOR TRUTH "I am always coming across things during my searches that I never had expected to find...that's why I find them - looking for something else and stumbling across important stuff." Michael Melsky - May 2003"To do so we must start from scratch. Go piece by piece, lay out the facts...not what someone tells us to be true, but what the source material says. We cross reference it to everything else then let the chips fall where they may." Michael Melsky - July 2011"You think about something for years in a certain way. But consider many of the facts which lead you to this are different. Some things embellished, omitted or lied about. It changes History." Michael Melsky - June 2012"I am attempting to lead you, the reader, to the truth by giving you the facts you had no idea existed." Michael Melsky, 2016, Author, The Dark Corners of the Lindbergh Kidnapping Volume OneMichael's philosophy, his quest for a complete and corrected account of the kidnapping to be known, and his meticulous form of researching this case has culminated in producing an outstanding, compelling, and massively documented volume on the Lindbergh kidnapping that is unequaled. Each of the chapters in this book are filled with Michael's discoveries about the people, the evidence and the events that shape this kidnapping. I had to read the kindle book twice because there is so much new material to digest. All of Michael's many years of research shine brightly in this first volume. When it is read, it becomes abundantly clear that this book is all about the truth - the whole truth - and nothing but the truth. Michael does an excellent job of giving you these facts while still allowing you to evaluate their importance and then apply them to what you know about this kidnapping. This book makes great use of Michael's writing style and is a true reflection of his strong ability to write and to communicate his material effectively. You will find yourself being amazed and challenged by what you read in this volume. I am going over it yet again because I know I will have questions for Michael about what he has written. Michael's book is a MUST READ for everyone who follows the Lindbergh case. Bravo, Michael!
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 26, 2016 14:45:34 GMT -5
First thing I want to do is thank everyone for such positive feedback. Way back when, I was told this type of book "wouldn't work." So I am especially happy (so far) everyone 'gets' it. One certainly needs to know the case in order for both - that to happen and the book to actually work. Certainly I would hope that going forward the mistakes Michael identifies will not be repeated by researchers. Either new authors will have to address his points, or they will reveal the thinness of their knowledge of the case. Most recent books on the case claim that they will go back to basics and reveal the myths surrounding the case – this is the first book I have seen that kept that promise. Don't hold your breath! One of the things I've noticed over the years is that if someone doesn't want to accept something they ignore it, or they attack the source with something unsavory and usually having to do with something completely irrelevant. My guess is they will be ignored up and until they become too well known for that tactic to be successful. (1) The first chapter sets out various sighting of cars in the area before and the day of the kidnapping (and provides interesting insights on Millard Whited). I take it that these vehicles were never identified or matched with someone who admitted being the driver on those occasions (except for the Morrow car and the occasion the state police believed the vehicle was Lindbergh’s). Is that right? They are all unaccounted for? With those exceptions - yes. What I tried to do here was document those items that needed a closer look. I avoided those sightings that were solved, such as the Dorothy Walker account for example. Also, as you can see after reading the book, there were other accounts I had to mention later in another chapter. Doing that was the only way I could get what was in my head on paper and seemed to be the right order of things. (2) One thing I take from the book is that the state police actually did a better job than they are generally credited with. Is that fair to say? That depends on the subject/situation. In some cases they are clearly short changed. But in other situations I think you can see where the criticism was deserved. (3) I am impressed with the number of credible people at the time who had suspicions of Lindbergh. You and me both.
(4) Who is Morris Bealle in relation to Garsson?
Bealle worked for The Plain Truth magazine and interviewed Garsson in early 1935. I believe that interview was the source of their articles surrounding him although there may have been more after that but I have no documentation to prove it.
(5) I am interested in that undated Plain Talk article – does the content give any indication of when it was published (ie before Hauptmann’s arrest or after? or was it at the time of Garsson's legal troubles in the 1940s?)
Many of these articles found at the NJSP Archives were cut out then mailed in. Some have the dates but many do not. Because of what I wrote above, it seems obvious to me it's after Hauptmann's conviction but before Garsson legal troubles. Anywhere between 1935 and 1938.
(6) How on earth did you find Dr. Schutter?
There's still a lot of people in the area whose families were here back then. I am not saying this is the case with him, but I've had many people ask me how I knew their relative had a connection once I got a hold of them.
(7) I know Ortleib was brought in for questioning in mid-April, was it just because of the Cummings’ connection or was there something more to tie him in?
The whole thing started due to that phone call. He claimed to have heard Ortleib say that it would be a good plan to kidnap the Lindbergh child.
|
|
dave
Detective
Posts: 130
|
Post by dave on Sept 28, 2016 15:10:48 GMT -5
I contacted the publisher of Mikes book yesterday. Printing started Monday, 26 Sept.. Books should be shipped end of next week.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 1, 2016 14:18:47 GMT -5
OMG!!!!!!!
My copy of The Dark Corners of the Lindbergh Kidnapping Volume 1 arrived today!!!
It looks perfect!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 3, 2016 16:49:49 GMT -5
A quick question before I post something about your book. Regarding Chapter One - the vehicle sightings you talk about in this chapter, some I am not familiar with at all. Does this chapter contain the car sightings that you consider the most important ones?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 3, 2016 17:37:57 GMT -5
A quick question before I post something about your book. Regarding Chapter One - the vehicle sightings you talk about in this chapter, some I am not familiar with at all. Does this chapter contain the car sightings that you consider the most important one? There were many sightings that I did not bring up. That is because my goal here was to document in one place what I believed needed a closer look. As I mentioned earlier, I avoided those sightings that were solved and as you can see after reading the book, there were other accounts I had to mention later in another chapter. Doing that was the only way I could get what was in my head on paper and seemed to be the right order of things. There was only one more that I am interested in that did not make it into the book, but I might add that to my next volume. Is this the type of answer you were looking for or are you looking for something different?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 3, 2016 21:21:54 GMT -5
There were many sightings that I did not bring up. That is because my goal here was to document in one place what I believed needed a closer look. So I am clear, the many sightings you did not bring up are ones that were investigated as much as was possible and were either solved or became dead ends? I guess I am getting confused by what you mean by "needed a closer look". Do you mean that the police may not have investigated these sightings to the extent they should have? Since Ben Lupica is talked about in this chapter, do you feel that Ben's sighting account needed a closer look by the NJSP?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 3, 2016 21:53:14 GMT -5
Michael,
In Chapter One (page 2) you bring up Alfred Hammond's car sighting. In the police report you sighted in your footnote on this page, Corporal Ritchie and Detective Carr mention in that report they asked Mr. Clark, Traffic Superintendent of the Reading Railroad to locate the gateman that covered for Alfred Hammond on Sunday February 28th. Did Ritchie and Carr get to interview this man who covered for Hammond? They wanted to see if this fellow also saw the blue car that Hammond was saying he saw for 5 mornings.
Did the police ever try to link car sightings together? I have been looking at the possibility that what Rebecca Bush reported to the police on March 3 and 4 might also link to the car Hammond saw for 5 days which might have belonged to Philip Cantania who figures large in Rebecca Bush's statement.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 4, 2016 6:39:52 GMT -5
I guess I am getting confused by what you mean by "needed a closer look". Do you mean that the police may not have investigated these sightings to the extent they should have? It's simply my perspective concerning what I felt was interesting enough to bring up here. As you can see I am not "big" on the Jennings account yet I could not omit it. The object was to both inform and inspire more research - not shut it down like Fisher's "Ghosts of Hopewell" obviously attempts to do by misinforming those who choose to read it. One could ask why I did not bring up Haver, Skillman, or Kelshaw, etc. etc. etc. I'd say that's great it's noticed and to keep going by exploring it!
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 4, 2016 7:06:30 GMT -5
Did Ritchie and Carr get to interview this man who covered for Hammond? They wanted to see if this fellow also saw the blue car that Hammond was saying he saw for 5 mornings. I was able to find a report concerning their interview with John Schmitt. It consists of three sentences where it's reported that he did not recall seeing this automobile. One of the things that I did in researching this angle was to look at everything I could find. If I had accepted Fisher's "suggestion" that Hammond was dropped because he was looking for money (misleading), or that the NJSP files show "no contact" with him after May 1933 (which is untrue) I wouldn't have mentioned him. And so after finding that his book should be relegated to the trash can of history, I studied what Hammond's job consisted of. These men were employed to lower the gates if a train was to approach. I discovered that Hammond kept the gate arms down then went out to lift them up for any on-coming car. This was actually against the law and those arms were supposed to be up until the approach of a train. This drew complaints which ultimately led to a citation from the State Utility Board. What I could not discover was whether or not Schmitt was doing the same at the time. Did the police ever try to link car sightings together? I have been looking at the possibility that what Rebecca Bush reported to the police on March 3 and 4 might also link to the car Hammond saw for 5 days which might have belonged to Philip Cantania who figures large in Rebecca Bush's statement. No. The NJSP showed some attempt. The FBI Summary shows they did too but made some mistakes because they did not have all the information needed to do so. Well you aren't alone in suspecting Cantania (see page 221 of my book).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 4, 2016 11:25:22 GMT -5
I was able to find a report concerning their interview with John Schmitt. It consists of three sentences where it's reported that he did not recall seeing this automobile. Three sentences?? Not much of an interview. I would not dismiss Hammond's sightings just because Schmitt doesn't recall seeing a certain car. This highlights just one of the many reasons that your book is so exceptional. You don't stop at the first explanation for something or just take something someone else says as the complete and accurate explanation for what is going on. You research and then research some more to get all the facts so you can make a proper determination about the how and why of what happened. The fact that Hammond kept the gate in the down position explains why he noticed the cars crossing over. He would notice a car that was appearing each day since he had to lift the gate to let them pass. Hammond said that each morning he saw the car it was coming from the Lindbergh estate direction. I thought this was interesting. This car must have used a different route heading in the direction of the Lindbergh home or they must have traveled through Hammond's gate at night which would mean someone else was handling that gate during those hours. Did the NJSP ever check on the possibility that another shift worker might have seen this car in the evening hours?
|
|