Re:Response to Deep Politics Quarterly article---latest


Re:
Response to Deep Politics Quarterly article -- Jim Fetzer
Posted by jim fetzer ® , Jan 24,1999,15:50 Post Reply  Forum

For any who may be interested in my dialog with Walt Brown,
here is the latest installment.

Jim

------------------------------------------------------------

For the record, here is his original response to my submission
of a rebuttal to his review of ASSASSINATION SCIENCE with some
additional comments intended to relate this to current events.


___________________________________________________________________

And here is Walt Brown's response to my submission, which those
on this list may also want to see to have the complete record.
I was rather surprised by this turn of events, especially since
he had actually ANNOUNCED in DEEP POLITICS QUARTERLY that a re-
ply from me would be published in the following issue. My read-
ing of this post suggests that he did not want to print it be-
cause it is mildly critical of certain positions advanced in his
review. This is most unfortunate since an editor should want to
publish well-founded criticisms, and these are all well-founded.

The report that he had received "a huge volume of mail, most of
it far more critical of ASSASSINATION SCIENCE that (he) was", is
most intriguing. The book includes contributions by eleven (11)
different authors, including Charles Crenshaw, M.D., Brad Kizzia,
J.D., David Mantik, M.D., Ph.D., Robert B. Livingston, M.D., Jack
White, Mike Pincher, J.D., and Roy Schaeffer, Ron Hepler, Chuck
Marler, and Ron White, Ph.D., as well as myself, and it is rather
difficult to imagine that all of these constributions are so un-
worthy of praise. Indeed, in my estimation, they include some of
the most important research ever published on the assassination.

My problems with the editor of DEEP POLITICS QUARTERLY, however,
go beyond his failure to publish a response to correct some mis-
impressions created by his review of ASSASSINATION SCIENCE, which
was, on the whole, favorable to the book, if not to me personally.
The objections I would raise concern a pattern of conduct, namely:

(1) If DEEP POLITICS QUARTERLY cannot properly cover an event that
took place on 20 November 1998, which took place in public and was
even recorded on videotape (editing or altering of which is not to
be suspected), how can it possibly be expected to cover an event
that took place on 22 November 1963--especially when the more re-
cent event has even been extensively discussed by internet groups?

(2) What does it say about the standards of research of this jour-
nal that it should publish an obviously biased report that trashes
several serious students of the crime--David Lifton, David Mantik,
and me--without making any effort to contact any of them for their
perception of events that were described in ways that were highly
subjective, seriously inaccurate, and extremely misleading? And,

(3) What inferences ought to be drawn concerning the commitment
to truth of an editor who selectively publishes accounts (of the
presentation by Madeleine Brown, for example) that omit basic in-
formation, other accounts (about the performance by Tink Thompson,
for example) that distort fundamental facts, and who publishes a
flawed review of a book (ASSASSINATION SCIENCE, for example), and
yet, when these matters are called to his attention, replies with
a dismissive "shrug" and then does nothing to correct the record?

My opinion is that research outlets for assassination studies are
too few and too precious to be abused and that those in positions
of trust, such as Walt Brown, have obligations to their subjects
and to their readers that require them to make an effort to trans-
cend personal attitudes and petty differences. I don't know what
I've done to offend this guy, but it is pretty obvious that he is
unwilling to give me the time of day. I would not object were it
not the case that this attitude leads to the publication of false,
baised, and inaccurate reports in a journal that should do better.

Jim

P.S. Our exchange has been posted at www.mtexchange.com/jfk/forum.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, 4 Aug 1998 10:05:48 EDT
From: KIASJFK@aol.com
To: jfetzer@d.umn.edu
Subject: Re: ASSASSINATION SCIENCE: A Response to Walt Brown (fwd)

Jim,

I will "save" your response and read it carefully; all that we had to
publish last time was our exchange, which dealt with the issues of
Assassination Science; we are too flooded with current news to sponsor on-
going commercial debates; beyond that, I can assure you that any document,
such as the one I received in hard copy from you (after our deadline), that
suggests that you will teach me what syllogisms are, is going straight to the
can, don't pass "Go," and don't collect $200; I don't quite understand the
dynamic here, but I do know only too well what a syllogism is; I do not have
well over 300 academic credits in any subjects like basket weaving; my
comment in the review was that some of the syllogisms were either simplistic
or words to that effect, and I stand by that comment; to say that should at
least suggest that the person writing it knows the noun he is describing;

I also indicated once earlier I was not going to waste my time on an ongoing
semantic debate; I also told you that we received a huge volume of mail, most
of it far more critical of Assassination Science than I was, and ALL of it
critical of your commentaries on the net, which, kindly put, amount to
semantic debates; I have done all the writing I am going to do on this
subject (JFK), the journal excepted; I have two book projects and two cd roms
to do that take 20 hours a day;
I wish you well in your new edition of the work;

With all best wishes,
walt brown