Joe
Backes's reply to alt.c.jfk
22 March 1999
The charade continues. Rahn now calls himself an "agnostic". He still can bring himself to tell the truth about who he is.
And lone nutter that he is he muddies the waters.
Hmm, "stacked" now who's word was that? Ah yes, Charles Drago wrote that. The co-Chairman. Now as I didn't say it was stacked, I have nothing to do with the conference but Mr. Drago did, doesn't that say something? I think it says a hell of a lot.
Learn how to read Rahn!
<< As best I can tell (because I haven't asked the speakers what they believe), the ten nonstudent speakers break down into 8 pro-conspiracy, 1 pro lone assassin, and one agnostic (me). >>
And how do we know this, if we didn't ask them what they believe Rahn?
<< Now there's the matter of what I believe about the assassination. No, that's the wrong question. I care not a whit about what anyone believes, because that's not important to the case. What is important is what we know, or what we can prove. My position is really quite simple for anyone who really wants to know. Gaeton Fonzi got it straight several years ago as a result of a single conversation, and he has referred to me ever since as the "JFK agnostic." Conspiracy, which in principle can be proven, has not been proven even after 35 years of intense trying. No hard evidence (falsifiable) has yet been found for it, otherwise the debate would have long since been over. Nonconspiracy, which in principle cannot be proven, obviously has not been proven, but is the simplest explanation consistent with all the hard evidence (which is not many pieces, by the way). So if you don't have to decide or choose not to decide, you declare that the assassination remains unresolved. If you have to choose, or choose to choose, you must go with the simplest explanation consistent with all the hard evidence, which is nonconspiracy. (Sorry, Charlie, I know it sounds harsh and autocratic, but that's the way it is. I didn't make up the rules.) >>
This convoluted bullshit verifies everything I've been saying about Rahn and this conference.
<< A few minor details: (1) It is very interesting that the list of essays that Joe got so incensed about did not come from the part of the web page dedicated to the course. >>
No, of course, it came from the recipe web page of the Food TV network.
What a schmuck!
Shying away from you're own work?
I'm "Incensed" am I? You posted that stuff on your website. I merely told people about it. Why are you afraid of people learning about you?
Someone's lying about Drago and Evica appearing in Rahn's class and giving several presentations throughout the tenure of the course. Rahn misstates this to being some reference to the conference. It was to the course as a whole and he knows it. So that should give you a clue as to who's lying.
Rahn's #3 is the whole reason for this charade, the old bullshit game of if you believe in a conspiracy in the death of JFK one has to prove everything about how it was done to the satisfaction of a lone nutter. We don't play that game anymore. We have proven that LHO did not kill JFK, we have proven that the WC version of events is not true, that's all the proof required. Something else happened. We don't have to explain anything anymore. The government does. We have a law the JFK Act, public law 102-526. Rahn is way behind the times.
All his chicanery, all his lies, and baiting, don't change who he is, or why he's doing what he's doing. The truth is out now about him. And I got it out.
Joe Backes