Response to Ken Rahn’s Critique of Cover-up
by Stewart Galanor, author of Cover-up

    I imagine any writer would find it difficult to learn that errors were discovered in his book, especially when the errors are used in an attempt to discredit his work. Kenneth Rahn has evidently gone over Cover-up thoroughly and claims to have found ten factual errors. Five of them, however, are not errors; three of them are frivolous errors; while the remaining two errors when corrected do not diminish the evidence for a conspiracy and a cover-up. The vast amount of evidence of a conspiracy and its cover-up has withstood his painstaking review. Thus, I wish to thank Rahn for verifying that the numerous misrepresentations of evidence by the Warren Commission, as reported in my book, did in fact occur.
    In the response that follows I will address the following issues raised by Rahn in his review of Cover-up:

                        Selective Use of Evidence
Biased Presentation of Evidence
Factual Errors Rahn Uncovered in Cover-up
Principles of Evaluating Evidence

Selective Use of Evidence
    Rahn claims that I selectively use the evidence to discredit the lone assassin theory. He uses the controversy surrounding the President’s back wound as an example. He claims, that in showing that the back wound was below the neck (a location inconsistent with a shot from the Book Depository), I ignored “3 critical and irrefutable pieces of clear, simple evidence.” He is wrong on this count, and amazingly, in his zeal to defend the Warren Commission’s Report, Rahn ignores or dismisses 12 relevant and credible pieces of evidence.
    The 3 pieces of evidence Rahn claims I ignored are “(1) the autopsy report’s road map to the entrance wound (14 cm from the tip of the right acromium process and 14 cm from the tip of the right mastoid process); (2) the fact that face [autopsy description] sheets…are schematic only; (3) the clear statement in the autopsy report that the “back” wound was “just above the upper border of the scapula.” Rahn then asks, “Can anything be clearer? In the face of this evidence, to pretend that the back wound is anything but high is completely untenable. The eyewitness reports, photographs, and locations of holes in jacket and shirt that Galanor (and others) use while ignoring this clearly superior evidence are clearly subservient to this ‘best evidence’ from the autopsy.” Here Rahn elevates the reliability of written descriptions in the autopsy report over an official government photograph taken during the autopsy.
1.  Pathologist’s Road Map.  I failed to criticize, rather than ignored, the autopsy report’s location of the neck (or back) wound presumably made at the autopsy. The HSCA medical panel discussion of these measurements locating the back wound implied the pathologists were incompetent. The HSCA reported that one of seven “measures essential to a thorough medicolegal autopsy that the pathologists failed to take was…recording precisely the locations of the wounds according to anatomical landmarks routinely used in forensic pathology. The medical panel of the committee stated that the reference points used to document the location of the wound in the upper back—the mastoid process and the acromium—are movable points and should not have been used.” (7HSCA17) And thus, the HSCA decided that what Rahn terms a “critical and irrefutable piece of clear, simple evidence” could not be relied on and placed the back wound below the level of the neck. (See Cover-up, page 24.)
2.  Autopsy Description Sheet.  The marks representing the back and throat wounds on the autopsy description sheet show the back wound lower than the throat wound. If the marks are accurate, then the path of the bullet entering the President’s back and existing his throat had to be rising, and thus, inconsistent with a shot from the Book Depository. Rahn’s claim that I ignored the autopsy description sheet, because it is meant to be schematic only, is muddled reasoning on his part. Obviously, I did not ignore it; it is one of 46 documents printed in Cover-up (Document 5). What Rahn is presumably claiming is that I exaggerated the importance of this “clear, simple evidence” that the back wound was lower than the throat wound.
3.  Autopsy Report.  Although I left out the statement in the autopsy report that the back wound was “just above the upper border of the scapula,” I point out that the three Warren Commission drawings of the President’s wounds, which were supposedly based on the findings of the autopsy pathologists, placed the back wound at the neck level. Placing the back wound at the neck level, however, is not supported by an autopsy photograph which clearly shows the wound below the level of the neck. (See Cover-up, Documents 9-12.) Again, this is an instance of failing to criticize the autopsy report rather than ignoring evidence and in the next edition the autopsy report will be severely criticized.
Rahn’s Dilemma.  Rahn contends that the measurements locating the back wound at the level of the neck (the measurements that the HSCA medical panel said “should not have been used” to locate the back wound) is “clearly superior evidence” over the photographs presumably made at the autopsy. Clearly, any reasonable person would accept an authentic autopsy photograph as better evidence than the word of the pathologist, especially in this case, where the pathologist admitted to burning his autopsy notes and the first draft of the autopsy report and then lied about why he did it. (ARRB Deposition of Dr. James Humes, February 13, 1996, pages 128-138). Rahn, however, ignores that he is confronted with a classic dilemma. If he accepts the autopsy photo as the better evidence, then it is authentic and the back wound is lower than the throat wound, hence conspiracy, cover-up. If he accepts the autopsy report as the best evidence, then the autopsy photo must not be authentic, hence conspiracy, cover-up.
Fibers.  Rahn also points out that the fibers in Kennedy’s jacket and shirt are pushed forward which is evidence of a shot from the back. This evidence is extremely weak since fibers can be easily pushed backward by a finger within a second. In fact, Douglas Horne examined the jacket and shirt when he was a senior analyst for the ARRB and noticed that the fibers were pushed both forward and backward. So much for fiber evidence.
Commission’s Hypothesis.  Rahn claims that I failed to mention “the Parkland doctors’ admissions that the anterior neck [throat] wound could have been either entrance or exit.” What I failed to do was criticize the Commission’s questioning of the Parkland doctors. In essence, the Parkland doctors were asked: if we assume that the shots came from behind, could the wound be an exit wound? The question is not designed to probe for the truth anymore than the question “If we assume the shot came from the front, could the wound be an entrance wound?” What is relevant is that the doctors held their ground when they testified that the wound they observed in the President’s throat was round and within 3 to 6 mm in diameter. Dr. Perry testified the wound was “between 3 and 5 mm.” (6H15) Dr. Baxter observed the wound was “4 to 5 mm in widest diameter.” (6H42) Dr. Carrico said it was “probably a 4 to 7 mm wound.” (6H3) Dr. Jones testified “The hole was very small and relatively clean cut as you would see in a bullet that is entering rather than exiting.” (6H55)
Speculation.  Rahn claims that I place myself “in the borderline-dishonest position of proposing an impossible scenario (bullet entering through the front of the neck, not exiting, but not being found in the body) without acknowledging any problems with it.” But this is not my position, nor is anything like it presented in Cover-up. Even the HSCA found the Warren Commission’s location of the back wound at the level of the neck inconsistent with the evidence and claimed, instead, the wound was in the back below the neck. Furthermore, in the process of covering up, evidence was destroyed, altered, misrepresented and ignored to such an extent (see Cover-up for over fifty instances) that it is impossible to explain exactly what happened without speculating, which I refuse to do.

Evidence that the Back Wound was Below an Entrance Wound in the Throat
    The evidence that follows (most of which is ignored by Rahn) far outweighs his deceptive and meager case that the back wound is at the level of the neck.
1.  Parkland doctors testified that they observed a wound in the President’s throat the shape and size of an entrance wound. (6H3, 6H15, 6H42, 6H54)
  The result of the Warren Commission’s goatskin test is consistent with the conclusion that the wound in the President’s throat was an entrance wound and inconsistent with the Commission’s conclusion it was an exit wound.  (See Cover-up, page 20, Document 3)
3.  An autopsy photograph clearly contradicts the autopsy report that the back wound was “just above the upper border of the scapula.” (See Cover-up, Document 12)
4.  The Autopsy Description [Face] Sheet depicts the back wound lower than the throat wound. (See Cover-up, Document 5)
5.  The Death Certificate made out by Dr. George Burkley, the White House physician, placed the back wound “at about the level of the third thoracic vertebra,” which is below the shoulder. (See Cover-up, Documents 8 and 13)
6.  Secret Service agent Clint Hill testified that after the autopsy he observed in the President’s back a wound “about 6 inches below the neck line.” (2H143)
7.  The President’s jacket and shirt each had a hole about six inches below the top of the collar. (2H365)
8.  At a top secret executive session of the Warren Commission on January 27, 1964, J. Lee Rankin told the Commission that “it seems quite apparent now since we have the picture of where the bullet entered in the back, that the bullet entered below the shoulder blade to the right of the backbone which is below the place where the picture shows the bullet came out in the neckband of the shirt in front.” (Transcript of January 27, 1964, Warren Commission’s Executive Session, page 193, National Archives) Rankin clearly understood the problem and told the Commission, “We will have to probably get help from the doctors about it, and find out. We have asked for the original notes of the autopsy on that question.” (page 194) Evidently, Rankin was unaware that the chief pathologist had already destroyed the original notes.
9.  The May, 1964 FBI reenactment placed the back wound below the shoulder. (See Cover-up, Document 4.)
10.  The HSCA publicly admitted that the back wound was below the throat wound. For the wounds to remain consistent with a shot from above, the HSCA falsely claimed the President was leaning forward when he was shot. (1HSCA231, 377)
11.  The size of the bullet holes in the President’s clothes and the size of the wounds in his neck are inconsistent with a bullet traveling from back to front. A bullet striking the President from behind would not produce bullet holes that decrease in size from 15 mm (jacket) to 10 mm (shirt) to 7 mm (back wound) to 5 mm (throat wound). (See Cover-up, pages 25, 26.)
12.  Dr. David Mantik, radiation oncologist at the Eisenhower Memorial Hospital and physicist, has shown that if the back wound is at the level of the neck, then the President’s spine would have been shattered. (See Cover-up, Document 45) The autopsy X-rays confirm that the President’s spine had suffered no major trauma. Thus, the back wound had to be below the neck. This means the back wound was below the throat wound, and thus, a bullet did not strike the President in the back and exit his throat.
    Serious challenges to the authenticity of the autopsy X-rays and photographs have been made. Dr. Mantik’s optical densitometry tests indicate the right lateral X-ray was altered. (See Cover-up, pages 108-109.) Saundra Kay Spenser, who worked at the Naval Photographic Center in Anacostia (called the “White House Lab”) testified before the ARRB (Assassination Records Review Board) that within two days of the assassination a Secret Service agent named Fox delivered film for her to develop. She was positive that the photographs she developed were not the ones in the National Archives. Even the photographic paper was different. (ARRB Deposition of Saundra Kay Spencer, June 5, 1997) The HSCA failed to match the autopsy photographs with the camera the Defense Department claimed was the camera used during the autopsy. (Doug Horne, Memorandum for ARRB, August 27, 1998, page 4) The questions on the authenticity of the autopsy X-rays and photographs are completely ignored by Rahn.
    So let’s imagine we are members of a jury called upon to weigh the evidence.
    What would determine our verdict: the “best evidence” autopsy report and the three Warren Commission drawings which place the back wound at the level of the neck, or the 12 pieces of “selective evidence” that the back wound was below the neck?

Biased Presentation of Evidence
Rahn claims “[Cover-up] is clearly biased. Given the book’s lack of rigor, lack of proof for its main tenets, and its selective use of evidence, I can reach no other conclusion than that its answer was assumed from the beginning. This is bias pure and simple.”
    While reading the Warren Report and the 26 Volumes of evidence in 1964 and 1965, I reached the conclusion that there was a cover-up of a conspiracy to assassinate President Kennedy. The purpose of Cover-up is to clearly and concisely present the evidence of a cover-up of a conspiracy. The title of the book after all is Cover-up. When Galileo wrote down the evidence that the sun is the center of the solar system (circumstantial evidence by the way) was he predisposed toward that view? By the time he wrote it all down he had long since made up his mind, even though his solution to the puzzle was partially wrong (he thought the orbits of the planets were circles).

Ten Factual Errors Found by Rahn
    Kenneth Rahn claims to have found ten factual errors in Cover-up. Five are not errors at all. Three are minor errors and when corrected do not change the substance of the argument. The remaining two errors are significant, but correcting them in no way lessens the evidence for a conspiracy and a cover-up. My comments and corrections of the ten errors follow:

1.  Marksmanship (Minor Error and Rahn Error)
Rahn’s Claim.  (Re: Cover-up, page 45) Oswald was not “classified as a ‘rather poor shot’ in the Marines.” That was Lt. Col. Folsom’s characterization of Oswald’s scores in one of his two marksmanship tests. The other score, Folsom said, indicated that he was “a fairly good shot.” (WR191) Different days, different scores, one of which Galanor omitted. And it was an officer’s opinion, not a “classification.”
Response.  I did not fail to mention Oswald’s first marksmanship test as Rahn claims. On page 47 of Cover-up I wrote, “When Oswald entered the Marines, he received training in the use of the M-1 rifle. After three weeks he scored low in the sharpshooter category, which was average for that amount of practice.”
Rahn is technically correct when he criticizes the phrase “Oswald was classified as a ‘rather poor shot’ in the Marines.” However, Oswald’s final qualification score was 191 which was one point above the minimum which means he was a rather poor shot when he left the Marines. The next edition of Cover-up will read as follows: “Oswald was characterized as a rather poor shot.” But whether it’s “classified” or “characterized,” the point remains that the Warren Commission did not conduct a legitimate marksmanship test when they used Master marksmen instead of using Marines with low qualifying scores in the 190s, a point that does not seem to concern Rahn whatsoever.

2.  Marksmanship Test (Rahn Error)
Rahn Claim.  (Re: Cover-up, page 46) “Here Galanor assumes that the WC claimed that Oswald fired three shots in six seconds or less. It didn’t. Instead, it said there were at most 5.6 seconds between the two shots that hit Kennedy, with another shot that missed occurring before, after, or between those two. The total time span mentioned was 4.8 to “in excess of 7 seconds.” (WR117) Galanor should reread his cited source, WR193. His claim that two of the WC’s riflemen couldn't fire ‘as quickly as Oswald allegedly did’ is based on a false premise.”
Response.  I made no such assumption or false premise. The Warren Commission concluded that their marksmanship test showed that “Oswald had the capability to fire three shots, with two hits, within 4.8 to 5.6 seconds.” (WR195) This conclusion is false. The test showed that 1 of the 3 master riflemen was capable of 2 hits out of 3 shots [at stationary targets] within 5.6 seconds. The other two marksmen took from 6.45 to 8.25 seconds. Rahn, evidently confused by the Commission’s razzle-dazzle, attributed their deceit to me.      On page 51 of Cover-up you will find the following passage that Rahn seems to have missed: “Does the extended firing time of 8.4 seconds allow enough time for an average shooter to aim and fire three shots accurately? Even expert marksmen struggle at this speed. One of the Master riflemen firing at three stationary targets in the Warren Commission’s rifle test took 8.25 seconds and hit only two of the three stationary targets. On his second attempt he took 7 seconds but hit only one of the three targets.” (3H446) What Rahn fails to understand is that shooting at a moving target (or at stationary targets the Commission used) with the Mannlicher-Carcano is a difficult task even for experts. To reach the top of any profession requires years of commitment. Oswald never came close to putting in the required time and was nowhere near as proficient with a rifle as a master marksman.

3.  FBI Recreation Photo (Rahn Error)
Rahn Claim.  (Re: Cover-up, pages 80-81) Galanor says that the FBI photographed an agent holding the rifle to try to duplicate the nose shadow in the backyard pictures, but then cut out the head in the demonstration photo. He says, “If the FBI had been able to duplicate the shadows of the backyard photograph, would it have removed the head?” He references WR pages 125 and 127, but there we find a different story. The purpose of the FBI’s photo was not to recreate the shadows but to determine whether the rifle in the photo was the same as the one found on the sixth floor. He misquotes the WC badly on this.
Response.  The FBI photo was also taken to resolve the lighting disparity indicated by the shadow of the body and the shadow of the nose. I did not “misquote the WC” as Rahn claims. On page 80 of Cover-up is the following sentence which appears on page 125 of the Warren Report: “A photography expert with the FBI photographed [an FBI agent with] the rifle used in the assassination attempting to duplicate the position of the rifle and the lighting in Exhibit No. 133-A.” (133-A is the backyard photograph.). Recreating the lighting recreates the shadows. Is it unreasonable to ask, “If the FBI had been able to duplicate the shadows of the backyard photograph, would it have removed the head?”

4.  White Silhouette Photo (Rahn Error):
Rahn Claim.  (Re: Cover-up, page 83)  The DPD photo with the white silhouette was obviously taken at a later date than the backyard photo, and so could not have been used to fake them. Notice the difference in the foliage of the bush in the background and the presence of a new bush to the right front of the silhouette.  (Compare his Documents 30 and 36.)
Response.  The photograph with the white silhouette matting was obviously not used to fake the backyard photograph. Who ever said it was?  It is obviously a poor cut out and does not even match Oswald’s pose.  But it is evidence of an attempt to make a composite photograph of Oswald. And to what end would that be? To frame him or to have a photograph of Oswald to hang in your living room?

5.  Post Office Application Forms (Factual Error)
Rahn Claim.  (Re: Cover-up, page 90) “Oswald had recently opened a P.O. Box and the "part of the application authorizing people to receive mail was mysteriously missing.” Incorrect. The FPCC and ACLU were listed, and the form survived. (WR312)
Response.  Rahn is right. The part of the application authorizing people to receive mail was not missing for the post office box Oswald opened on November 1, 1963. However, for the post office box that the Mannlicher-Carcano was allegedly sent to in March of 1963, that part of the application authorizing people to receive mail, as well as the receipt for the rifle, were both mysteriously missing. (See Cover-up, page 89.)

6.  Baker and Oswald Encounter. (Factual Error)
Rahn Claim.  (Re: Cover-up, page 97) “Officer Baker wrote, ‘I saw a man [Oswald] standing in the lunchroom drinking a Coke.’” Baker didn't write this statement. It was in the FBI agent’s handwriting.
Response.  Rahn has correctly observed that a FBI agent wrote Baker’s statement, not Baker as I claimed. This is significant since Baker’s cross-out of “drinking a coke” is a correction of an FBI statement and thus does not support the view that Baker once claimed he encountered Oswald drinking a coke. However, the question still remains, “Did Oswald have enough time to get to the lunchroom just before Baker?” For the time lines of Oswald and Officer Baker to intersect, Oswald would have had to walk the entire East side of the sixth floor, walk the entire North side of the building, hide the rifle between boxes, descend the stairs to the second floor, and enter the lunchroom within 90 seconds? Was this possible? Perhaps.

7.  Atsugi Naval Air Station (Minor Error)
Rahn Claim.  (Re: Cover-up, page 103) “Why was an avowed communist in the Marines sent to a secret air base where super-secret U-2 plans were launched?” To my knowledge, there is no record that anyone in the Marines knew LHO’s politics until he returned to the U.S. from Japan and was about to get out of the service. (Atsugi was not a secret base, although the U-2 program there was. The HSCA found that Oswald and fellow Marines had a very low security clearance.)
Response.  Rahn is right that Atsugi was not a secret base; it was a “closed” base. In his book Legend, Edward Jay Epstein relates that “about 400 yards from the Marine hangars, was a complex of about twenty buildings, identified innocuously on several signs as the ‘Joint Technical Advisory Group.’ It contained one of the CIA’s main operational bases in Asia. For these reasons, Atsugi remained a ‘closed’ base, which meant that personnel on the base had to have cards showing their security clearance.” (page 355) In the Marines there were only three levels of security clearance: Confidential, Secret, Top Secret. Oswald had Confidential security clearance, the lowest level.
Someone in the Marines professed to know Oswald’s politics before he went to Atsugi. Allen Felde, who shared a tent with Oswald at Camp Pendleton, California, “remembers that even while Oswald was learning combat techniques, he was attacking American foreign policy. He railed against the American intervention in Korea, which he said resulted in ‘one million’ useless deaths. (He blamed President Eisenhower.) He also persisted in depicting himself as champion of the ‘cause of the workingman.’” (page 353)
Nonetheless, there is no evidence that the Marine bureaucracy knew Oswald was professing he was a communist when he was sent to Atsugi. In the next edition of Cover-up the offending sentence will be replaced by “How was Oswald, who was professing communist doctrine, able to escape censure during his last year in the Marine Corps?” (WR686)

8.  Not in Our Lifetime (Minor Error)
Rahn Claim.  (Re: Cover-up, page 115) I believe that Galanor or his source is slightly misquoting Earl Warren, who said that all the testimony might not be released in our lifetime, not all the facts. (As quoted in Rush to Judgment and Best Evidence.)
Response.  “Testimony” will replace “facts” in the next edition of Cover-up so that the sentence will read as follows: Earl Warren disclosed that some of the testimony “may not be released in your lifetime.”

9.  Documents Ordered Suppressed (Rahn Error)
Rahn Claim.  (Re: Cover-up, page 177) The WC documents were not “ordered suppressed.” It was (and is) customary for records of such commissions to be sealed for a number of years after the commission expires. LBJ actually signed an order releasing some of the WC files early.
Response.  Many of the Warren Commission Documents were ordered suppressed. That Johnson ordered the release of some of the Warren Commission files early indicates that there was an order to suppress documents until a certain date. The files that were not released early by Johnson remained suppressed. Commission Document 347, a CIA memo about Oswald in Mexico City, was still suppressed in 1986.

10.  Anonymous Purchase of Rifle (Rahn Error)
Rahn Claim.  (Re: Cover-up, page 89) What is the source for the idea that Oswald could have bought a gun “anonymously” from “any number of gun shops in Dallas”? This idea has been repeated many times, but without a source. One gunshop owner testified to the WC that he kept records of whoever bought guns and ammo from him. The DPD often checked with him and had brought him to the police station to take a look at the M-C. (Testimony of Alfred Douglas Hodge, 15H494)
Response.  One source is the very gun shop owner cited by Rahn. The owner, Alfred Hodge, did not testify to the Warren Commission that he ever asked for or required identification from his customers. In 1963 you could purchase a rifle in gunshops in Texas and many other states throughout the country without having to supply identification.

Principles of Evaluating Evidence
    In his review of Cover-up, Rahn complains that the book lacks an explanation of the different types of evidence or the “principles of using evidence.” Presumably Rahn means “principles of evaluating evidence.”
    It is telling that Rahn, who touts the important of knowing the difference between direct and indirect evidence and between falsifiable and unfalsifiable evidence, never seems to use these concepts in evaluating evidence. Furthermore, he neglects the equally important concept of verifiable evidence.
    He accepts the Warren Commission claim that since a master rifleman could fire three shots and hit two out of three stationary targets within 5.6 seconds, it follows that Oswald could do the same. Putting aside for the moment the foolishness of this claim, the fact that it is neither verifiable nor falsifiable doesn’t seem to concern Rahn. He seems to lack the sense in answering two more important questions. Is the evidence relevant? Is it credible?
    Nor does knowing types of evidence enable Rahn to recognize contradictions or inconsistencies in the evidence. He ignores the fact that the HSCA placed the entrance wound to the President’s head four inches higher than where the autopsy pathologists placed it according to the Warren Commission. Both investigative bodies cannot be right. At least one of them engaged in misrepresenting evidence.
    Inexplicably, Rahn appears unconcerned that evidence has been concealed, misrepresented, ignored or destroyed. He frequently ignores and dismisses relevant, verifiable evidence of a conspiracy and a cover-up, such as
1.  The Warren Commission misrepresented the results of its own “goatskin” test when it claimed the test showed “entry and exit wounds are very similar in appearance.” (WR91)
2.  The Warren Commission did not enter into evidence the autopsy X-rays.
3.  The Warren Commission did not disclose that the fatal shot propelled President Kennedy backward to the left rear of the limousine.
4.  The Warren Commission had a scientist at the Aberdeen Proving Grounds shoot ten skulls with the Mannlicher-Carcano. All ten skulls moved away from the rifle and moved in the direction of the bullet. The results of this test were suppressed and were not revealed until fifteen years later during the HSCA investigation. (1HSCA404)
5.  The Warren Commission drawing of the President’s head wounds contradicts the Zapruder film. The drawing has Kennedy in the wrong position so the path of the bullet through the head wounds descends from back to front. When the drawing is turned so Kennedy is in the position seen in frame 312 of the Zapruder film, the path of the bullet rises from back to front, which is inconsistent with a shot fired from the Book Depository. (See Cover-up, Document 18)
6.  The Warren Commission suppressed evidence that Jack Ruby had ties to the Mafia and was an informant for the FBI as early as 1959. (See Cover-up, pages 106 and 107)
7.  At least seven witnesses claimed to have seen a puff of smoke on the grassy knoll during the assassination. The FBI interviews of 4 of these witnesses do not report that they saw smoke. (See Cover-up, pages 58-62, 70)
8.  Parkland doctors saw a large exit wound in the right rear of the President’s head, while the autopsy pathologists reported a small entrance wound.
9.  Two of the autopsy pathologists contradicted each other on the nature of the entrance wound to the President’s head in their testimony to the ARRB. Dr. Humes said the entrance wound was distinct. Dr. Boswell said there was no distinct hole; only when a fragment of the skull was joined to the back of the head was a small hole in the skull formed. (ARRB Depositions of Dr. Humes, February 13, 1996, page 110 and Dr. Boswell, February 26, 1996, page 85)
    I will address the Neutron Activation Analysis controversy at another time. Since 1996 I have on several occasions asked Rahn for his calculations which he claims supported Vincent Guinn’s NAA work for the HSCA. Rahn has yet to provide them. At the Providence Conference held last April, Rahn presented a paper which claimed he had performed calculations based on a certain hypothesis of his which showed that the probability that Kennedy was struck by two bullets fired from above and behind is .9999. Again I asked him for his calculations, and again he has yet to provide them. Must Rahn be reminded that the scientific method does not presume that experiments are always performed honestly or competently? Without his calculations, his work cannot be reproduced or tested, it is not falsifiable, that principle he claims is so critical in evaluating evidence.
    The search for truth requires an ability to analyze evidence and a willingness to evaluate its relevance and credibility objectively. That a scientist at a state university has chosen to ignore outrageous misrepresentations of evidence by our government is saddening and shameful and does a disservice to the pursuit of truth.

Back to Critique of Cover-up
Back to Essays