Charles
Drago's "open letter"
22 March 1999
AN OPEN LETTER TO JOE BACKES, KEN RAHN AND THE RESEARCH COMMUNITY
To All:
I am honor-bound to address the comments of Messrs. Backes and Rahn, as
contained in communications dated March 21.
While Joe's reading of my earlier emails was, for the most part, on the
money, he did manage to misinterpret a few important points. Allow me to clarify
the record, and then to speak to a few of Rahn's assertions:
1. Ken Rahn did not "(try) to ensnare" Professor Evica or me in the
conference. Yes, the Providence event in its current form is a far different
animal from that originally envisioned. However, I had as much to do with
enlarging the concept as did Ken Rahn, and none of it comes as a surprise. And
Providence is as much MY conference as it is Rahn's.
2. I do indeed "have nothing but contempt" for Rahn's JFK beliefs
and what may be his darker motives. But IF Rahn is but a well-meaning dupe in a
larger plan—and right now I'm less inclined to believe in his innocence than I
was even a short week ago—then he is as much a victim as any of us. I confront
the "garbage" that is Rahn's assassination belief system, but I refuse
to use the word "garbage" to describe any human being.
3. When Joe is right, he's right. I in fact "feel a moral obligation to
confront such evil when it's in (my) own backyard." There you have my
motive in a (lone) nutshell.
4. Joe again hits paydirt when he concludes that Ken Rahn "is too much
of a charlatan to come forward and actually say (that he advocates the WC/lone
nut view)." When Rahn plays the role of "neutral scientist" (an
oxymoron), he does so as part of a timetable in support of the Holocaust
Deniers' agenda. How well I remember, on the night of our first conference
planning session, Rahn leaning over the table and asking (conspiratorially),
"Can I convince YOU, Charlie?". Convince me of what, Ken? Your
"neutrality"?
5. From our first discussion, I made it clear to Rahn that I would not
respect his views or otherwise think of the conference as a debate of honest
positions worthy of the benefit of the doubt. I stressed that I operate under
wartime conditions, that conspiracy is historical fact, that he serves the
agenda of an active, brutal and merciless enemy. I told him that the conference
would not be conducted along the lines of an academic, collegial presentation of
opposing views. For Rahn now to profess ignorance of this stance boggles the
mind.
He talks of "the lengths to which a fraction (of the research community)
will go to assure that views contrary to their own are not disseminated, debated
or legitimized." As I expressed to him repeatedly, his "views"
must not be dignified by being awarded implicitly the respect that a formal
debate structure would afford. I would never dream of trying to keep Rahn from
disseminating his untruths. But he's right: I shall fight to the death any
efforts by the Holocaust Deniers to legitimize them.
6. It is not my intention to damage Rahn personally. Never has been, never
will be. It remains my mission to expose the goals and weaknesses of his course,
especially to the young men and women being victimized by it, and to the
academic department(s) that have so foolishly and unprofessionally allowed him
to proffer his Holocaust denials in the bosom of their university.
7. Rahn says that "the JFK community remains marginal because of acts
(like the Backes/Evica/Drago 'attacks'). This statement beautifully illustrates
Rahn's intellectual failings, even as it reveals his darker agenda. Our
community has been marginalized by A) a corporate-controlled media under orders
to equate our best work with that of National Enquirer three-headed baby-chasers
(Rahn's crone, C. Eugene Emery, the "science" writer of the
reactionary Republican rag The Providence Journal, aids and abets this strategy,
and no doubt will be on hand to rubber-stamp the sophistries of Rahn and his ilk
during the conference); B) a ruling class consisting of
accessories-after-the-fact, for whom the truth is equated with extinction.
Have members of our extended community shot themselves, and others, in the
foot and other appendages? Absolutely! But let's assign blame proportionately
and where it truly belongs.
8. Rahn speaks of the "openness and free inquiry expected of any free
society" even as, in the same breath, he represents the interests of those
who would stifle exactly those qualities.
9. And Rahn hopes that "the future of viable JFK research may be
starting in Providence." Allow me to tell you what Rahn and his ilk are up
to with the Providence conference:
THE ONLY STRATEGY OPEN TO THE ENEMY IN THE WAKE OF ARRB RELEASES THAT DRIVE
THE FINAL, GOLDEN NAILS INTO THE LONE NUT COFFIN IS TO TAKE REFUGE IN
PSEUDO-SCIENCE AND PSEUDO-PHILOSOPHY. THEY CONSTRUCT COMPLEX, INTELLECTUALLY
INTIMIDATING SOPHISTRIES THAT, IN THE AGGREGATE, ASK THE SAME QUESTION:
WHO ARE YOU GONNA BELIEVE, US OR YOU LYING EYES?
"IF YOU DISAGREE WITH MY REASONING, YOU'RE DENYING 700 YEARS OF WESTERN
THOUGHT," RAHN SAID TO ME. SOUNDS LIKE AN ACT OF INTIMIDATION TO ME,
FRIENDS. IN OTHER WORDS, CALL ME A FOOL AND YOU SLANDER PLATO. RIGHT.
AN EXAMPLE OF THE METHOD: THEY DEFEND THE SINGLE BULLET THEORY (SBT) BY
STATING THAT THE ONLY EVIDENCE WE CAN TRUST IS FOUND IN NUMBERS—IN THIS
INSTANCE THE MEASUREMENT OF THE LOCATION OF THE BACK WOUND AS PERFORMED BY
AUTOPSY PHYSICIANS. NEVER MIND THAT 100 PERCENT OF EYEWITNESSES PLACE THE BACK
WOUND AT T3-T4. NEVER MIND THAT THE SHIRT AND JACKET HOLES SUPPORT THIS
PLACEMENT. NEVER MIND THAT 100 PERCENT OF THOSE REPORTING AT THE AUTOPSY SAY
THAT THE BACK WOUND WAS NON-TRANSITING.
THE "SCIENTISTS" AND "LOGICIANS" TELL US THAT THESE
RECOLLECTIONS ARE FLAWED. THEY TROT OUT STUDIES INDICATING THAT EYEWITNESS
TESTIMONY IS WEAK. THEY SELECTIVELY PRESENT "EVIDENCE" IN SUPPORT OF
THEIR INSUPPORTABLE "CONCLUSIONS," THEN TRY TO DAZZLE US WITH
STATISTICS. THEY DENY THE VIABILITY OF CONTEXTUAL ANALYSIS. THIS METHOD IS
FRAUDULENT. IT IS DESIGNED TO DECEIVE.
ANOTHER EXAMPLE: THE AUTOPSY PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING AN INTACT POSTERIOR SKULL.
NEVER MIND, SAYS RAHN, THAT 100 PERCENT OF PARKLAND WITNESSES—TRAINED MEDICAL
PERSONNEL WHO, CONTRARY TO THE ENEMY'S PROPAGANDA, HAD ALL THE TIME NECESSARY TO
EXAMINE THE WOUNDS—DESCRIBE AN EXIT WOUND IN THE AREA THAT, IN THE PHOTO, IS
COVERED WITH CLEAN, DRY HAIR. THEIR RECOLLECTIONS ARE FAULTY. BASED UPON TENETS
OF WESTERN THOUGHT DEVELOPED OVER 700 YEARS, THE ONLY EVIDENCE WE CAN TRUST IS
THE PHOTO.
AND I ASKED RAHN, "SUPPOSE WE ALL POSE FOR A PHOTO AT THE END OF THE
CONFERENCE, AND THAT YOU ARE IN THE GROUP. TEN YEARS FROM NOW, THE PHOTO IS
PUBLISHED, AND YOU ARE MISSING. THE ONLY OTHER EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE NOTION OF
YOUR PRESENCE ARE THE EYEWITNESS ACCOUNTS OF OTHER PHOTO SUBJECTS. COULD NOT A
KEN RAHN DEVOTEE COME ALONG AND ACCUSE ALL OF US OF HAVING FAULTY MEMORIES?
WOULD THE PHOTO THEN BE THE BEST EVIDENCE?
HIS ANSWER: A LAUGH AND A QUICK CHANGE OF SUBJECT.
The Providence conference is a stacked deck. I've been around too many blocks
to be fooled. What I'm hoping to do is expose the sophistry strategy for what it
is, and to alert members of our community to the latest attack methodology of
the enemy.
Joe Backes has indicated that that strategy is garnering some success:
According to Joe, a few members of the ARRB we swayed by the "force"
of the Holocaust Deniers' new approach. And given the acceptance of Rahn's
prejudiced assassination "course" by University of Rhode Island
administrators, the strategy is working in academia.
My post-conference report will expose the nature of this new offensive, and
offer suggestions as to how to defeat it.
Ignoring the Holocaust Deniers serves no purpose but their own. So I urge one
and all to come to Providence, and witness the enemy in its latest incarnation.
Respectfully,
Charles Drago