Subject: Re: British Historian David Irving notices Salvador Astucia
From: salvadorwriter@cs.com (Salvadorwriter)
Date: 6/16/02 9:10 AM Pacific Daylight Time
Message-id: <20020616121034.18391.00001723@mb-mw.news.cs.com>
[newsgroup: alt.religion.islam]

Omnipitus:
>But what do you think you are?
>
>Historical revisionist?
>One man conspiracy solver?
>The only person to know the truth?

<snip>

>I asked you who reviewed your work. You told me who endorsed your webpage.
>Your answer did not address my question.
>
>So one more time - "What was your peer review process?"
>

Omnipitus,

I suddenly realized that you are correct about a few things. First of all, I
have never claimed to be an historian, so there is no need to subscribe to an
historian’s rigid protocols for peer review. I merely wrote a book that I
believe solves the mystery of the Kennedy assassination. I did incorporate an
informal type of peer review where I bounced ideas off of highly educated
people before writing various sections. Upon completion, those same individuals
read the entire manuscript and provided content feedback; however, they only
made minor suggestions regarding content because they felt that the book in
general made a lot of sense. None of them are historians, but one has a Ph.D.
In addition to content review, the reviewers proofread the book and provided
corrections in that regard (grammar, spelling, typos). The review process was
quite intense, but it was done informally. Again, I never claimed to be an
historian per se, but the content of my book (Opium Lords) is of a historical
nature.

The fact that I publicly announced that I will be giving a lecture at David
Irving’s Real History Conference should not be interpreted as a claim of
being an historian. But I expect that some of my information will eventually be
co-opted by bona fide historians one day. As I stated before, evidence is
evidence regardless of who provides it. For example, there is little doubt that
Lyndon Johnson and his wife were secretly Jewish. But because of the political
relationship between Israel and the United States today (a relationship which
began with LBJ), I expect this will be a sticky topic for historians for a
while. But eventually, I believe truth will prevail. Either the Johnsons were
Jewish or they were not. If I am correct, then historians will clearly be
interested in this new information. Opium Lords has the potential to provide a
roadmap from which historians can adjust their thinking and readjust future
research.

As I stated several times, people can read Opium Lords and decide for
themselves whether they believe it is accurate or not. I suppose a more formal
real peer review will be when I speak at the Conference on Labor Day weekend.
You are welcome to attend and ask questions, but a $410 fee is required----no
exceptions.

Secondly, your description of how historians normally review each other’s
work is probably correct in general. Basically you described that when an
historian authors a book, he/she must submit it to a group of scholars for
review. You further suggested that such things as endnotes and providing
evidence to support new conclusions is irrelevant. Sadly, I must concur that
your assertion is probably correct. What IS relevant, however, is that the
historian's book stick to a script of pre-defined history, particularly when
discussing the Holocaust. If an author’s work deviates too far from the
script, then the review board tells him/her in no uncertain terms something
like this: "You had better change this nonsense if you want to get published."
Sometimes the younger historians respond saying things like, "If you would
allow me to present the evidence to support my claims, I'm sure you will agree
with my conclusions."

The spokesman of the historical "peer" review board would then respond
something like this: "Look, you seem like a nice kid. Do yourself a favor and
make the damned changes and keep your evidence to yourself. Let me make
something perfectly clear. WE DON'T GIVE A DAMN ABOUT EVIDENCE !! WE ARE AN
HISTORICAL PEER REVIEW BOARD. YOU WILL DO AS WE SAY OR YOU WILL BE FLIPPING
BURGERS AT THE NEAREST FAST FOOD JOINT. DO I MAKE MYSELF CLEAR?"

"Yes, your honor, very clear."

Thank-you Mr. Omnipitus for painting such a clear picture of how historical
peer review processes work.

Best regards,

Salvador Astucia

PS. I would really like to send you a copy of my book for peer review. It’s
normally $29, but I will gladly send you a copy at wholesale price: $22
(includes shipping). Quite a bargain. Just send a check or money order to the
address listed on http://www.jfkmontreal.com.
 

Subject: Re: British Historian David Irving notices Salvador Astucia
[From: salvadorwriter@cs.com (Salvadorwriter)]
Date: 6/16/02 11:10 AM Pacific Daylight Time
Message-id: <20020616141001.00186.00000785@mb-fm.news.cs.com>
[newsgroup: alt.religion.islam]

Salvador:
>> I suddenly realized that you are correct about a few things. First of
>> all, I have never claimed to be an historian, so there is no need to
>> subscribe to an historian's rigid protocols for peer review.

Omnipitus:
>Nice try. Its an academic process to validate the strength of a conclusion
>based on the research. You didn't go through it because you are not an
>academic.

And I never made such a claim. Your point?

><snipped well written and maturely presented points>

Salvador:
>> The spokesman of the historical "peer" review board would then
>> respond something like this: "Look, you seem like a nice kid.
>> Do yourself a favor and make the damned changes and keep
>> your evidence to yourself. Let me make something perfectly
>> clear. WE DON'T GIVE A DAMN ABOUT EVIDENCE !!
>> WE ARE AN HISTORICAL PEER REVIEW BOARD. YOU
>> WILL DO AS WE SAY OR YOU WILL BE FLIPPING
>> BURGERS AT THE NEAREST FAST FOOD JOINT. DO I
>> MAKE MYSELF CLEAR?"

Omnipitus:
>Well - you certainly resort to type quickly enough, don't you?
>How many of these academic processes have you submitted
>yourself to? Do you speak of experience or are these just
>wild assumptions from a paranoid and delusional
>mind?

The mere fact that David Irving has been branded a Holocaust denier even though
Jewish leadership has admitted that no extermination camps were found in
Germany is a good example.

Simon Wiesenthal himself stated in 1975 and 1993 that no extermination camps
were found in Germany by the Allied forces. Here is an acknowledgment of that
fact from Nizkor.

http://www2.ca.nizkor.org/features/qar/qar03.html

This was a major concession by Wiesenthal. Yet historians are expected to write
about things that have never been proven. And why? Because of peer review among
historians as you so accurately described.

<snipped>

Salvador:
>> PS. I would really like to send you a copy of my book for peer review.

Omnipitus:
>Oh, I'm not qualified to review your 'research'. Really.....I'm not.

Salvador
>> It's normally $29, but I will gladly send you a copy at
>> wholesale price: $22 (includes shipping). Quite a bargain.
>> Just send a check or money order to the address listed
>> on http://www.jfkmontreal.com.
 

Subject: Re: British Historian David Irving notices Salvador Astucia
From: "Omnipitus V2.0" omnipitus2002@yahoo.com
Date: 6/16/02 1:58 PM Pacific Daylight Time
Message-id: <aeiu9b$7asnf$1@ID-130993.news.dfncis.de>
[newsgroup: alt.religion.islam]

> And I never made such a claim. Your point?

That your 'book' and its resulting conclusions are pure bunk.

That is why I have snipped the remainder of your post, there is no need to
repeat delusional conspiracies from paranoid NetKooks.