luf12
Trooper II
Posts: 70
|
Post by luf12 on Nov 30, 2018 14:57:16 GMT -5
I want to know your opinions of the LindyKidnap yahoo group.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Dec 1, 2018 3:38:28 GMT -5
I want to know your opinions of the LindyKidnap yahoo group. What is the web address for that?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 1, 2018 8:48:10 GMT -5
I want to know your opinions of the LindyKidnap yahoo group. I wouldn't know Luf.... I actually thought it was shut down. So for me its hard to say because I have no idea who is over there. What I do know is that in the past one gentlemen was mimicking Fisher by inventing conversations - something I've always found both outrages & inappropriate. Anyway, I recommend you use your own personal judgement but all the while demand the source for whatever is being discussed so you know it isn't a product of someone's imagination. And from being here you'll know that Fisher's books, Trial Testimony, and the FBI Summary are all open to challenge by other sources.
It's all about learning. If you or anyone else think they can learn something over there then I'd say go for it.
======= I didn't know where to post this document so I am adding it here. I always thought this was neat so under the circumstances it gives me an opportunity to post it.
|
|
luf12
Trooper II
Posts: 70
|
Post by luf12 on Dec 1, 2018 12:22:31 GMT -5
|
|
luf12
Trooper II
Posts: 70
|
Post by luf12 on Dec 1, 2018 12:26:50 GMT -5
I want to know your opinions of the LindyKidnap yahoo group. I wouldn't know Luf.... I actually thought it was shut down. So for me its hard to say because I have no idea who is over there. What I do know is that in the past one gentlemen was mimicking Fisher by inventing conversations - something I've always found both outrages & inappropriate. Anyway, I recommend you use your own personal judgement but all the while demand the source for whatever is being discussed so you know it isn't a product of someone's imagination. And from being here you'll know that Fisher's books, Trial Testimony, and the FBI Summary are all open to challenge by other sources.
It's all about learning. If you or anyone else think they can learn something over there then I'd say go for it.
======= I didn't know where to post this document so I am adding it here. I always thought this was neat so under the circumstances it gives me an opportunity to post it. It haven't been shut down. It is still active. One member of that group claimed your Dark Corners Volume 1 was poorly written and poorly researched.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 1, 2018 14:41:01 GMT -5
It haven't been shut down. It is still active. One member of that group claimed your Dark Corners Volume 1 was poorly written and poorly researched. I will say that I am painfully aware that my final edited proof for V1 wasn't what was published. Spelling, structure etc. But no factual mistakes and all of the facts contained in the book are real - except of course what's corrected in Chapter 1 of V2. For someone to say anything in either of my books is "poorly researched" tells me they have no idea what they are talking about. One thing that I have noticed is that most of the criticisms come from people who have never laid eyes on my cited documentation. That's a neat trick isn't it? Like someone calling themselves an "Expert" yet they've never been to the NJSP Archives. Ask anyone who's actually been there if that's even possible. Regardless - I still stand by what I wrote earlier. I'm sure there has to be somebody over there that's discussing the case in good faith. If there is anything specific they say is "poor research" and you'd like me to prove they are incorrect simply ask.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Dec 1, 2018 15:17:06 GMT -5
On the other hand, what did the NJSP ever solve besides traffic issues?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 1, 2018 15:28:05 GMT -5
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Dec 1, 2018 15:39:23 GMT -5
Well, I was really sure there were many things, just that they'd never been brought out before - now I know.
|
|
luf12
Trooper II
Posts: 70
|
Post by luf12 on Dec 1, 2018 18:17:19 GMT -5
It haven't been shut down. It is still active. One member of that group claimed your Dark Corners Volume 1 was poorly written and poorly researched. I will say that I am painfully aware that my final edited proof for V1 wasn't what was published. Spelling, structure etc. But no factual mistakes and all of the facts contained in the book are real - except of course what's corrected in Chapter 1 of V2. For someone to say anything in either of my books is "poorly researched" tells me they have no idea what they are talking about. One thing that I have noticed is that most of the criticisms come from people who have never laid eyes on my cited documentation. That's a neat trick isn't it? Like someone calling themselves an "Expert" yet they've never been to the NJSP Archives. Ask anyone who's actually been there if that's even possible. Regardless - I still stand by what I wrote earlier. I'm sure there has to be somebody over there that's discussing the case in good faith. If there is anything specific they say is "poor research" and you'd like me to prove they are incorrect simply ask. What kind of questions should I ask that group?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 1, 2018 18:54:11 GMT -5
What kind of questions should I ask that group? I'm certainly not sending you on a mission there Luf. There's no need for "me" to test anyone. I suggested that for your peace of mind - in case anyone says something against me that you might actually believe that you could just ask me about it here. Your best bet is to (literally) call the NJSP Archives and speak with the Archivist (609-882-2000). Ask him two questions. First, tell him you've read both of my books and wanted to know if I really did the research I claim. Next, ask him whether or not he thinks either book was "poorly researched." In the meantime - check over my footnotes. Are they invented? If not, if someone hasn't ever read the actual documents - how in the hell can they tell you what's true and what's not? Furthermore, isn't that indicative that they themselves are guilty of the same "poor" research they accuse me of? I am well aware that some people don't "like" what's written. But I think the responsible thing to do would be to formulate a reasonable rebuttal (like we do here) with legitimate sources to counter my position and/or compliment theirs. But its easier to simply smear me with some general and ridiculous accusation. Look, back when I first started this thing years ago my initial steps (rightfully or wrongfully) was to find certain sources in the various books to see what they said. Even now, if I find that I don't have a specific document I don't go out on a limb, take a leap of faith, or invent a conversation - I go to the Archives to find it so I actually know what it says. Heck my last trip there was to look over S-226 for about the 100th time to make sure I actually saw what I remembered from the last time. With this in mind, I thought for sure those who did not "like" what I wrote would go to the Archives to look up my sources. But what I am seeing is that's the last thing they will do because they know whatever they find ... they ain't gonna "like." I am from New Jersey so my first reaction was to come out swinging. But in this case I've reflected on it and it really doesn't matter to me what anyone on that Board says. Here I care about our Board. I care about what we can teach and learn from each other. But on that Board if they want to mislead people that's their issue. If someone wants to malign my research because it makes them feel better about themselves then so be it.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 2, 2018 8:29:47 GMT -5
Hopefully this can turn into the discussion I was hoping for when I wrote (and write) the books....
Let's look at what I discovered about Whited (V1 p.15-6). Before I do I think its important to outline the three very different "camps" which exist... There are those who consider Lindbergh's involvement, those that damn near worship him, and others on the fence about the possibility. So when it comes to what I wrote in V1 as it concerned Whited its pretty much a bombshell that blows everything up. The first question would be "why" no one before me ever found this report. Well, I'd submit that no one before me ever looked. Again, people who write books aren't looking to spend years and years of Archival research on the project. It's a very big reason why original mistakes morphed into "facts" over the years because it was quicker to cut corners and simply repeat certain things rather to look into the reports.
So how would we expect those who do not "want" anyone to view Lindbergh in a negative light to react to my Whited find?
How about say I did "poor" research. Get that? No one before me locates this but because I am the guy who wanted to know, and wanted to find out what the Troopers were referring to, I rolled up my sleeves and searched until I did. And for that I qualify as being a "poor" researcher. Are you beginning to see what's going on?
Let's move over to the NYU Dinner (V1 p. 20). The historical version is that there was a scheduling error. Since the whole matter raises a red flag this is a great answer for those who don't "like" anyone to suspect Lindbergh. But what I wanted to know was what Lindbergh said so I pursued that line. What I found was there's multiple sources that say Lindbergh "forgot" and/or had never been aware of any scheduling error. A Special Agent interviewed Lindbergh and this was addressed in his report. What's written there? That Lindbergh forgot. ALL FOOTNOTED. So here we have a situation where a group of people are now in a Catch-22. They either dismiss what Lindbergh said somehow, or embrace what he said. Both harm the historical narrative that let him off the hook all of these years. So what's their reaction? To simply continue to say it was a scheduling error and if anyone dare bring my book up they say I "am wrong" and did "poor research."
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Dec 2, 2018 22:45:35 GMT -5
It haven't been shut down. It is still active. One member of that group claimed your Dark Corners Volume 1 was poorly written and poorly researched. Hi Luf12, This is not aimed at you, but definitely aimed at the Yahoo group member who claimed Volume 1 was poorly researched. Really??? Michael is the ONLY person to have read ALL of the NJSP documents relating to the kidnapping. And I'm sure he's read some hundreds of times. No one has done the research that Michael has, so the claim that his book is poorly researched is as ludicrous as saying animal testing is a bad thing because we all know that animals are bad at taking tests.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 3, 2018 17:18:44 GMT -5
Michael is the ONLY person to have read ALL of the NJSP documents relating to the kidnapping. And I'm sure he's read some hundreds of times. Thanks Wayne. I've seen it "worked" from the other side of it too.... That is where other people will say they " have a life" so they can't get down to the Archives to research. That's something I completely understand, however, that's what IS being used to neutralize my research if you can believe it. The insinuation is that I am crazy or something for spending so much time down there so whatever I find isn't worth anything. LOL Another good one is that sources are only good if they are "properly" evaluated... Meaning even with all of my years in LE I still don't know how to read a report, or understand it - yet - the "other" guy can. It doesn't matter that they've never actually seen the report! And there's another approach that has to do with being a Teacher, Professor, Lawyer, or whatever position they hold as if we're talking about the "Riddle of the Sphinx" and only someone doing that job has the ability to figure it out so we have to listen to them. As if there aren't both good and bad people working at any profession. Take Lawyers for example. Are there only good ones? Do all of them agree about everything? There's even good Lawyers on either side of a case and chances are one is going to win. I've seen one once say something I posted was "wrong" when it was Lloyd Fisher's position. So figure that one out. Anyway, there's always an open invitation for anyone to come here to reveal my "poor" researching skills or debate anything they like which concerns either of my books.
|
|