The news is that there is no news. Last week,there were no discussions, no news articles and no 11th anniversary articles about the anthrax attacks of 2001.
On Monday, I sent out a final batch of 14 query letter emails to literary agents to tell them about my new book. I received back 2 rejections the same day, 2 more the next day, and 1 on Friday. I also received a form-letter rejection slip from book publisher Farrar, Straus & Giroux on Monday.
So, it looks more and more like I'll be self-publishing.
I finished the first version of the Index for my book. I may go through the book again just to add more entries about Bruce Ivins. He's mentioned on nearly every page in about 70% of the book, so I tended to just pass over those mentions when I did the first version of the Index for everyone and everything else. Finishing the Index says that my book will be 391 pages long after I complete the 2-page "About the Author" section.
The next step is to get some quotes from printing companies on how much it will cost me to print 300 copies of the 391-page book. Once I have those quotes, I can do a Cost-Benefit analysis to see if I should go with a regular printing company or a print-on-demand company like iUniverse.
Meanwhile, there's still been no arrest or news in the Syracuse hoax letter case. "DXer" on Lew Weinstein's blog lives in Syracuse, and he's saying, "It appears that there’s going to be
an arrest shortly in the Syracuse anthrax hoax letters matter." I hope so. It's a very interesting case, and I'd like to see how all the various pieces of the puzzle actually fit together.
Ed
Sunday, September 30, 2012
Sunday, September 23, 2012
Sept. 23 - Sept. 29, 2012 Discussions
I sent out 5 more query letters to literary agents last week, but I received no responses - not even any rejections. When I sent out query letters in March and April, I received responses to 60% of them, and there's usually one agent who responds (with a rejection) the same day or the next day.
Nevertheless, I'll be sending out a bunch of new query letters this coming week. It should be the last of them. There aren't any more agents on the list I developed a couple months back.
Meanwhile, there's been no news about the Syracuse hoax anthrax letters. It's a subject I find to be of great interest. I hope that the FBI is still checking tips or the DOJ is presenting evidence to a grand jury. I wouldn't like the case to just vanish into oblivion.
Most of my Sunday comment on my web site this week was about the frustrations of building an index for my book. What should I include, what should I omit? It's apparently totally arbitrary. There are no fixed rules. So, I'll just do the best I can.
A representative at iUniverse told me that they like to build the indexes for the books they publish. I shudder to think what such an index would look like for my book which mentions Ivins on at least 60 percent of the pages. The WORD program for building indexes doesn't even seem to have the ability to combine strings of pages (e.g., combine 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 into 1-5).
I keep waiting for some news organization to publish a long article about the 11th anniversary of the anthrax attacks of 2001. No sign of anything so far. But, when is the anniversary? It's probably either October 5, when the first victim died or October 12 when the first letter was found. Or it could just be the month of October. Pulitzer Prize winning reporter Laurie Garrett gave a speech at Harvard a couple weeks ago where she said she thought Ivins didn't do it. On Monday, October 1, the Emmy Awards for News & Documentary shows will be presented. Will the error-filled PBS Frontline program "The Anthrax Files" win? We'll find out in 8 days.
Ed
Nevertheless, I'll be sending out a bunch of new query letters this coming week. It should be the last of them. There aren't any more agents on the list I developed a couple months back.
Meanwhile, there's been no news about the Syracuse hoax anthrax letters. It's a subject I find to be of great interest. I hope that the FBI is still checking tips or the DOJ is presenting evidence to a grand jury. I wouldn't like the case to just vanish into oblivion.
Most of my Sunday comment on my web site this week was about the frustrations of building an index for my book. What should I include, what should I omit? It's apparently totally arbitrary. There are no fixed rules. So, I'll just do the best I can.
A representative at iUniverse told me that they like to build the indexes for the books they publish. I shudder to think what such an index would look like for my book which mentions Ivins on at least 60 percent of the pages. The WORD program for building indexes doesn't even seem to have the ability to combine strings of pages (e.g., combine 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 into 1-5).
I keep waiting for some news organization to publish a long article about the 11th anniversary of the anthrax attacks of 2001. No sign of anything so far. But, when is the anniversary? It's probably either October 5, when the first victim died or October 12 when the first letter was found. Or it could just be the month of October. Pulitzer Prize winning reporter Laurie Garrett gave a speech at Harvard a couple weeks ago where she said she thought Ivins didn't do it. On Monday, October 1, the Emmy Awards for News & Documentary shows will be presented. Will the error-filled PBS Frontline program "The Anthrax Files" win? We'll find out in 8 days.
Ed
Sunday, September 16, 2012
Sept. 16 - Sept. 22, 2012 Discussions
The Syracuse hoax anthrax letters were the major subject for discussion last week. Now things have gone quiet on that subject.
Presumably, the FBI is still sorting through the tips they received. Or, they may be in the process of making a case. I'm not sure what is needed to make an arrest in such a situation. It's a federal crime. Does that mean that the evidence has to be presented to a grand jury? Or, if they have solid evidence, can a judge simply sign an arrest warrant?
I would think that if an arrest warrant had been signed, we would hear about it almost immediately. So, it's more likely that the FBI is either still sorting through the tips (most likely), or they are presenting a case to a grand jury (less likely).
I keep thinking about the Dallas hoax letters, where the FBI announced a $150,000 reward back in May. There's been no news about that. I haven't heard about any arrest. And, I don't recall ever hearing of someone collecting such a reward posted by the FBI. But, that's probably because the recipient wants to keep it secret out of fear of some kind of retaliation from the culprit's family.
On this blog, there were some interesting discussions last week. I keep thinking I should build a list of Richard Rowley's beliefs and my responses to those beliefs. It would save a lot of time if I could just copy and paste a response each time he repeats the same argument.
Lastly, I sent out 3 more query letters to literary agents last week, but I received no responses. So, I'm planning to send out 5 more letters tomorrow. My Oct. 8 deadline is approaching. I could be done with the index for my book in a week or so. And, I need to either have something in the works with an agent, or I'm going to have to make a decision on how to self-publish.
Ed
Presumably, the FBI is still sorting through the tips they received. Or, they may be in the process of making a case. I'm not sure what is needed to make an arrest in such a situation. It's a federal crime. Does that mean that the evidence has to be presented to a grand jury? Or, if they have solid evidence, can a judge simply sign an arrest warrant?
I would think that if an arrest warrant had been signed, we would hear about it almost immediately. So, it's more likely that the FBI is either still sorting through the tips (most likely), or they are presenting a case to a grand jury (less likely).
I keep thinking about the Dallas hoax letters, where the FBI announced a $150,000 reward back in May. There's been no news about that. I haven't heard about any arrest. And, I don't recall ever hearing of someone collecting such a reward posted by the FBI. But, that's probably because the recipient wants to keep it secret out of fear of some kind of retaliation from the culprit's family.
On this blog, there were some interesting discussions last week. I keep thinking I should build a list of Richard Rowley's beliefs and my responses to those beliefs. It would save a lot of time if I could just copy and paste a response each time he repeats the same argument.
Lastly, I sent out 3 more query letters to literary agents last week, but I received no responses. So, I'm planning to send out 5 more letters tomorrow. My Oct. 8 deadline is approaching. I could be done with the index for my book in a week or so. And, I need to either have something in the works with an agent, or I'm going to have to make a decision on how to self-publish.
Ed
Sunday, September 9, 2012
Sept. 9 - Sept. 15, 2012 Discussions
My first comment on Sunday, Sept. 9, was mostly an update on the progress with my book. I've finished creating the pdf files for the text part of the 6x9 book version, and I'm now about to start working on the Index. I'll send out more queries to agents, starting tomorrow.
In my comment, I also wrote about how "Anonymous" (a.k.a. "DXer") is complaining because I'm deleting his posts to this blog. He wants to argue about the rabbits Ivins was working with in early October 2001. It appears that, to "DXer," if Ivins had any work of any kind to do during that period, he MUST have done it at night and on weekends, thus explaining his unexplained long hours working nights and weekends.
But, records show that there were animal handlers who took care of the menial work involving animals and even checked on the animals. Autoclaving dead animals would almost certainly be done by animal handlers. Plus, people don't usually stand around twiddling their thumbs while the autoclave goes through a sterilization cycle. The machine turns off by itself, so it's more common to put things into the autoclave, turn it on, then go back to your own work, and then to come back to the autoclave later to empty one load and put in another.
There's NOTHING of substance in anything DXer posted to Lew Weinstein's web site. He just asks questions instead of providing answers. He posts documents, but the documents don't answer any questions. They only cause DXer to ask more questions.
The facts say that Bruce Ivins was the anthrax mailer. Asking meaningless questions that no one else has the time or interest to answer won't change the facts. And, besides, when answers are provided to DXer's questions, the answers usually show that asking the question was just a big waste of everyone's time.
My second Sunday comment on my web site was about anthrax hoax letters that someone has been mailing from Syracuse, NY, since 1997. The letters are very interesting. Click HERE to go the the Syracuse Post-Standard article about the letters.
Ed
In my comment, I also wrote about how "Anonymous" (a.k.a. "DXer") is complaining because I'm deleting his posts to this blog. He wants to argue about the rabbits Ivins was working with in early October 2001. It appears that, to "DXer," if Ivins had any work of any kind to do during that period, he MUST have done it at night and on weekends, thus explaining his unexplained long hours working nights and weekends.
But, records show that there were animal handlers who took care of the menial work involving animals and even checked on the animals. Autoclaving dead animals would almost certainly be done by animal handlers. Plus, people don't usually stand around twiddling their thumbs while the autoclave goes through a sterilization cycle. The machine turns off by itself, so it's more common to put things into the autoclave, turn it on, then go back to your own work, and then to come back to the autoclave later to empty one load and put in another.
There's NOTHING of substance in anything DXer posted to Lew Weinstein's web site. He just asks questions instead of providing answers. He posts documents, but the documents don't answer any questions. They only cause DXer to ask more questions.
The facts say that Bruce Ivins was the anthrax mailer. Asking meaningless questions that no one else has the time or interest to answer won't change the facts. And, besides, when answers are provided to DXer's questions, the answers usually show that asking the question was just a big waste of everyone's time.
My second Sunday comment on my web site was about anthrax hoax letters that someone has been mailing from Syracuse, NY, since 1997. The letters are very interesting. Click HERE to go the the Syracuse Post-Standard article about the letters.
Ed
Sunday, September 2, 2012
Sept. 2 - Sept. 8, 2012 Discussions
I received a response from an agent I queried on August 20. It was a rejection. She couldn't see why anyone would buy a book where the information was already available on a web site. And, why would anyone buy a book about the anthrax attacks of 2001 if they weren't already fascinated by the case?
I would think that the first people to buy the book would be people who read my web site. And the rest of the world should be totally fascinated by the facts of the case, since it was one of the most complex cases in the history of law enforcement and helped start a war with Iraq.
But, the agent wasn't interested. So, now I'm waiting for responses from some other agents I queried earlier, and from two BOOK PUBLISHERS I queried on Monday.
Meanwhile, I've been arguing with Richard Rowley on this blog. He seems to believe it's okay to allow mentally ill people to work with deadly pathogens in high-security government laboratories. I believe that is just plain NUTS. So, we don't seem to have any way to find any common ground.
Mr. Rowley also argued endlessly that there must be PROOF of motive in a criminal case. I showed him sources which said they don't even have to mention motive to prove a person guilty. So, he changed the argument to be that if motive is mentioned in a criminal case, then PROOF of motive must be provided. And, he provided a link to a site that says he is wrong and I am right. Why he didn't first read what is on that site, I don't know. He didn't cite anything from it, he just posted the link - as if that was enough to win the argument.
I find it difficult to believe that anyone can argue that "PROOF OF MOTIVE" is necessary to convict someone when all the facts say that idea is just plain preposterous. But, as everyone knows, Anthrax Truthers don't care about facts. They believe their beliefs override all facts.
Ed
I would think that the first people to buy the book would be people who read my web site. And the rest of the world should be totally fascinated by the facts of the case, since it was one of the most complex cases in the history of law enforcement and helped start a war with Iraq.
But, the agent wasn't interested. So, now I'm waiting for responses from some other agents I queried earlier, and from two BOOK PUBLISHERS I queried on Monday.
Meanwhile, I've been arguing with Richard Rowley on this blog. He seems to believe it's okay to allow mentally ill people to work with deadly pathogens in high-security government laboratories. I believe that is just plain NUTS. So, we don't seem to have any way to find any common ground.
Mr. Rowley also argued endlessly that there must be PROOF of motive in a criminal case. I showed him sources which said they don't even have to mention motive to prove a person guilty. So, he changed the argument to be that if motive is mentioned in a criminal case, then PROOF of motive must be provided. And, he provided a link to a site that says he is wrong and I am right. Why he didn't first read what is on that site, I don't know. He didn't cite anything from it, he just posted the link - as if that was enough to win the argument.
I find it difficult to believe that anyone can argue that "PROOF OF MOTIVE" is necessary to convict someone when all the facts say that idea is just plain preposterous. But, as everyone knows, Anthrax Truthers don't care about facts. They believe their beliefs override all facts.
Ed
Sunday, August 26, 2012
Aug. 26 - Sept.. 1, 2012 Discussions
My comment for Sunday, Aug. 26 was mostly about the progress with my book. I received no responses to any queries to agents during the past week, and I've decided to try querying a publisher this week. Some research I did uncovered a major book publisher that seems perfectly suited to my book.
I'm also preparing the "final" version of the book, creating the pdf files that printing companies need to print books. I'm currently on Chapter 7. I added about a page to Chapter 4 where I evaluate Bruce Ivins' September 17, 1993 letter to the editors of the Frederick News-Post defending pedophilia. The facts seem to indicate that Ivins was thinking of a teenage girl when he wrote that letter at age 47. A year later, he hired the girl to work for him as an assistant in his lab.
I was amused last week to see the reaction "Anonymous" had to my pointing out to him in my August 22 post, that his interpretations of what Tom Walker wrote in his book were totally wrong. "Anonymous" stopped posting to this blog, but he posted a bunch of messages to Lew Weinstein's blog where he admits that he didn't understand what he was reading in Walker's book, and he then demonstrated that he also didn't understand what he was reading in the Expert Behavioral Analysis Panel report. In one post, "Anonymous" wrote:
"The consulting psychiatrist, for example, points to the fact that Bruce’s mom went to Monmouth College."
Bruce's mom did NOT go to Monmouth College. She went to Florida Women's State College where she got a degree in home economics. The EBAP report (and the "consulting psychiatrist") did NOT say that Bruce's mom went to Monmouth college. The EBAP report says on page 130:
"By using the ZIP code of Monmouth Junction, Dr. Ivins may have been
portraying in code the connection between KKG and his own identity.
Monmouth Junction may have represented the union of father
(Monmouth, N.J.) and mother (Monmouth College, KKG), i.e., himself.
And it also represented his entanglement, his obsession with KKG."
It's a psychiatrist's way of saying that Ivins may have seen some mystical connection between his own ancestors from Monmouth, NJ, and the origins of the Kappa Kappa Gamma sorority in Monmouth, IL.
Ed
I'm also preparing the "final" version of the book, creating the pdf files that printing companies need to print books. I'm currently on Chapter 7. I added about a page to Chapter 4 where I evaluate Bruce Ivins' September 17, 1993 letter to the editors of the Frederick News-Post defending pedophilia. The facts seem to indicate that Ivins was thinking of a teenage girl when he wrote that letter at age 47. A year later, he hired the girl to work for him as an assistant in his lab.
I was amused last week to see the reaction "Anonymous" had to my pointing out to him in my August 22 post, that his interpretations of what Tom Walker wrote in his book were totally wrong. "Anonymous" stopped posting to this blog, but he posted a bunch of messages to Lew Weinstein's blog where he admits that he didn't understand what he was reading in Walker's book, and he then demonstrated that he also didn't understand what he was reading in the Expert Behavioral Analysis Panel report. In one post, "Anonymous" wrote:
"The consulting psychiatrist, for example, points to the fact that Bruce’s mom went to Monmouth College."
Bruce's mom did NOT go to Monmouth College. She went to Florida Women's State College where she got a degree in home economics. The EBAP report (and the "consulting psychiatrist") did NOT say that Bruce's mom went to Monmouth college. The EBAP report says on page 130:
"By using the ZIP code of Monmouth Junction, Dr. Ivins may have been
portraying in code the connection between KKG and his own identity.
Monmouth Junction may have represented the union of father
(Monmouth, N.J.) and mother (Monmouth College, KKG), i.e., himself.
And it also represented his entanglement, his obsession with KKG."
It's a psychiatrist's way of saying that Ivins may have seen some mystical connection between his own ancestors from Monmouth, NJ, and the origins of the Kappa Kappa Gamma sorority in Monmouth, IL.
Ed
Sunday, August 19, 2012
Aug. 19 - Aug. 25, 2012 Discussions
My Sunday comment for August 19 began with information about the progress (or lack of progress) with my new book: I didn't receive any responses to query letters during the week, and I was setting October 8 as the "deadline" for my attempts to find an agent. If I don't have a literary agent seriously looking at the book by October 8, I plan to be ready for the final steps in self-publishing - getting the ISBN code, signing the contract with the printing company, and sending out the CD with all the pdf files, fonts and the cover art.
I also mentioned some of the problems I'm having in creating the pdf files. Formatting the Table of Contents and the List of Exhibits has been particularly frustrating. But, I'm making progress.
Then I mentioned the latest attempt by "Anonymous" a.k.a. "Dxer" to try to show that he is right about something related to the Amerithrax investigation and I am wrong about everything.
On Saturday, it appears that he posted some questions to the previous thread on this blog that were just a devious and pathological attempt to get me to post something that was scientifically incorrect. But, all he did was show his ignorance of science and how sneaky he can be. I was being polite to some unknown person posting seemingly innocent questions as "Anonymous," and he was being devious by framing the questions in a way that he believed would cause me to write things that conflicted with a new scientific report he'd found. It didn't work. All he showed was that he didn't understand the scientific report he was trying to use against me.
I had previously stated that I'd delete all further posts from him, but I let those posts stay, since they clearly show how sick and devious he can be.
Ed
I also mentioned some of the problems I'm having in creating the pdf files. Formatting the Table of Contents and the List of Exhibits has been particularly frustrating. But, I'm making progress.
Then I mentioned the latest attempt by "Anonymous" a.k.a. "Dxer" to try to show that he is right about something related to the Amerithrax investigation and I am wrong about everything.
On Saturday, it appears that he posted some questions to the previous thread on this blog that were just a devious and pathological attempt to get me to post something that was scientifically incorrect. But, all he did was show his ignorance of science and how sneaky he can be. I was being polite to some unknown person posting seemingly innocent questions as "Anonymous," and he was being devious by framing the questions in a way that he believed would cause me to write things that conflicted with a new scientific report he'd found. It didn't work. All he showed was that he didn't understand the scientific report he was trying to use against me.
I had previously stated that I'd delete all further posts from him, but I let those posts stay, since they clearly show how sick and devious he can be.
Ed
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)