Comments received by E-mail
From John Dowd
John & Heidi Dowd <jhcpdowd@worldnet.att.net>
18 April 1999
Subject: Just thought I'd say thanks for the very interesting conference.
I learned a lot, and got to meet some interesting people. Your students did a
fine job btw, and their poise and maturity were impressive.
I hope you decide to do it again next year.
I'd enjoy hearing comments of your students about the conference.
John Dowd.
********************************
From John McLoughlin
John McLoughlin <cyberdude@efortress.com>
18 April 1999
Hello to everyone from John McLoughlin. Hope you all enjoyed the conference,
I certainly did but could not make it back for the Sunday sessions. Have you
seen that Michael Collins Piper is now calling me a genius for having fingered
Robert Morris as Maurice ("More-ees") Bishop? Takes all kinds. He is
pointing the finger at many of The Manchurian Candidate crowd like: Angleton,
Morris, George Sokolosky, Wm. F. Buckley, Jr., Roy Cohn and some others...like
Marvin Leibmann of Young Americans for Freedom and the WACCFL E. Howard Hunt
conference in Mexico City in 1958... which was the forerunner of the WACL
crowds...
Andy Winiarczyk is now carrying my manuscript and selling it for only $14.00
plus S&H as an intro offer until the last 100 printed sell out completely.
If any of you have questions about the anagrams, Manchurian Candidate or any
of my reaserch please contact me. Both Carl Oglesby and Bill Turner really think
that Richard Condon solved the whole deal in 1958 but could do nothing about
it...
I think you will all reach the same conclusions after reading the whole
manuscript.
Robert Morris' family had a winter home in Miami and they were my nearby
neighbors. If anyone has Terry Knight's email or phone let me know.
Martin, if you would like to pursue our discussions further, let me know, I
think there is some room for development of mutual concepts.
Thanks to all.
I hope you enjoy my manuscript more that my presentation. I really am not a
polished writer or presenter, but feel that my research is pretty unique and
right on the money. Hope you do to.
Best Regards,
John
*****************************************8
From Melanie Morris
"Morris, Melanie" <MMorris@MFS.com>
19 April 1999
Just wanted to say thank you for organizing the conference. I am glad I got
to attend! :o)
Please keep me on your correspondence list in the future.
Thanks again,
Melanie
********************************************
From Gary Loudenslager
"Gary Loudenslager" <Loudenslager.G@deptford.k12.nj.us>
20 April 1999
Ken,
I want to express my thanks to you for the wonderful job you did with the
conference. For me, the highlight of the entire weekend was the presentations
that your students made. The enthusiasm and positive approach taken by each of
them was a breath of fresh air. They all did an excellent job on research, and I
am sure that they have made you proud.
I have prepared a few comments about each presentation. Please feel free to
share them with your students.
Dave Sullivan's presentation on the sabot was quite informative. I have never
fired a gun in my entire lifetime and learning more about this subject has
inspired me to investigate further. I got the opportunity to speak with Dave at
length later that evening, and I must say that he is an interesting and
intelligent young man.
I didn't get to see the entire presentation made by Nancy, Dawn, and Sara on
the relevance and purpose of the class, but did get a chance to talk with them
informally (I ran into them at dinner at Blake's Bar.) Many people think that
the JFK subject should be a 24/7 commitment. It was great to talk to these young
ladies in a social setting, because things quickly are placed in their proper
perspective. College students have jobs and other responsibilities (like maybe
four other classes to prepare for), not to mention maintaining an active social
life. I was impressed at their dedication to this class and their teacher. I
feel they went above and beyond the requirements for this course.
Kim Darigan's presentation on the polling of the URI community was quite
intriguing. It gave a fascinating insight on the viewpoints and understandings
of the second generation on the assassination. The program she used was precise
and effective. (Could you please E-Mail me the name of it? I didn't write it
down.) I was also impressed that Kim emphasized that she wasn't selling this
program. I am really turned off by those who use this forum as a way to make a
buck. But, enough negativism. Kim, great job!
The young man who did the presentation on the case against Lee Harvey Oswald
was outstanding. Please forgive me for not remembering his name. It was either
John Young or Steve Thibodeau. One was under the weather and couldn't present.
At any rate, I would like to comment on the deliverance. He spoke eloquently and
his arguments were convincing. It was evident that he did his homework. Again, I
am amazed at how well he did considering that he wasn't born when all this was
taking place. Excellent research!
Jennifer Carusone's look at Lee Harvey Oswald's psychological background was
great. Considering the audience, she deserves a medal for bravery. Jen handled
all the questions superbly. I was also impressed at how she used the outline
format on the PC. This helped her to present and also helped the viewer in
organizing their thoughts as they listened.
Jonathan Gruca's psychology of conspiracy and conspiracy theory was quite
thought provoking. I really think that this hit home with many of the people in
the room. This is a subject that could have been debated for hours, but most
people just listened. I think there is some psychology we can derive from that
in itself.
Jean-Paul Dujardin took possibly the most controversial subject in this case
- the single bullet theory - and made a potent presentation. I have to admire
the way he stood up to all the detractors. I even observed him at the end of the
conference confronting and making his point with two of the opponents of this
theory. His enthusiasm and positive approach are to be applauded.
Matt Frank's presentation, although not intended, appeared to me to show the
respect and affection that the class has towards you, Ken. I must reiterate that
Matt and his peers are adults. They do have minds of their own. I feel that Matt
wanted to emphasize this, and the fact that in no way did you influence the
students to take one particular stance on the assassination. It was unfortunate
that he really didn't get to complete his talk, since the subject matter evoked
such lively debate.
When I first saw Oliver Stone's JFK, I was concerned about the confusion that
it would caused to the younger generation. After seeing Colin Mulcahey and David
Perrotta's presentation, my mind was eased. It was great hearing young people's
perspectives about this movie and even greater to hear that after seeing it as
youngsters, they researched on their own to pick out all of the fallacies.
The folklore presentation by Scott Lord and Paul J. Kippenhan was another
first rate presentation. It was innovative and different. I many times wonder
how the act will be looked upon when all the people who live through it are
gone. The references to Billy Joel, Michael Jackson, and Pearl Jam were
creative.
Finally, Elizabeth Gamble's talk about JFK possibly having a premonition was
interesting. Elizabeth made it quite clear that she wasn't an assassination
scholar, but her questions showed that she had developed quite an interest in
the subject during this semester. Again I must point out that this subject is
not and does not have to be everyone's passion.
In conclusion, I would like to thank you once again for a mind-opening
weekend. For me the best part of the conference was listening to the viewpoints
from a young person's perspective. These people are our future and after
spending time with them this weekend, I must say I feel confident.
Gary Loudenslager
*********************************************
From Bill Cheslock
"bill cheslock" <bilches@hotmail.com>
20 April 1999
Ken:
I want to thank you for permitting me to be a part of, what might well
become, the format for future JFK conferences. For me, it was interesting to
listen to both sides of the issue.
I thought the format for the conference you envisioned was courageous, merely
due to the fact that it is most difficult to get members from each side of the
issue into the same room without insults being thrown at each other. However,
you succeeded in putting together such a conference, without the animosity.
Great Job.
I will talk to you soon, and best wishes with your class for the remainder of
the semester.
Best Wishes,
Bill
*********************************************
From John Dowd
John & Heidi Dowd <jhcpdowd@worldnet.att.net>
20 April 1999
Hi Ken,
I'm wondering if you have had your students read any portion of Sylvia
Meagher's book, "Accessories After the Fact". I know you can't go out
and buy it in a bookstore, but I'm sure it can be found through
inter-library-loan, and you could make xerox copies of a few chapters available
to them. You could do this, and I think you owe it to your students. I happen to
have Rex's copy, if you'd like me to copy the first chapter, for example, and
send it to you, I'd be happy to. I think it is essential reading. And she didn't
go on to write a book about alien abductions. I think that to be fair to the
many people who are dissatisfied with the notion that Oswald did it all by
himself, you have to confront the most serious, credible criticisms of the
Warren Commission report. Meagher's is it, in my opinion.
BTW: I know you're busy, but I'm curious as to what books and documents on
the JFK assassination you yourself have read? You have said I think, that we may
never know for sure who killed Kennedy, but I think that is true largely because
there was not a proper investigation done by the government, so I am very
dissatisfied. I find your position of not wanting to consider anything but the
hardest evidence to be infuriating, because the Government, in my opinion, did
such a poor job of turning up evidence to begin with. The case deserved a
"special prosecutor", who was really a criminal prosecutor in his day
job. But perhaps you disagree and think that the Warren Report really was a
thorough, careful investigation of every possible lead. Is that your position?
Well perhaps not, but where do you come out exactly? I'm curious because I'm
troubled by your position and approach to the case. I think your first null
hypothesis should be the government has done a thorough and complete, exhaustive
job of chasing down leads, and that you should first decide if you should reject
that null hypothesis. We should be asking, "Does it appear that there were
leads that were not followed?" "Was questionable evidence taken at
face value?" "Are there frequent occasions on which the evidence
strains our credulity" and so on. I think if you pose for yourself this
null hypothesis that you will end up having to reject it and then you may not
want to call yourself a conpiracist, but you'll be somewhere among those
dissatisfied citizens in search of justice in this case, who get called "conspiracists"
by those who would dismiss and marginalize them.
John
Ken Rahn replies
21 April 1999
John:
Thanks for your long, thoughtful note. I really appreciate the time that you
and others have taken to send comments about the conference. This is exactly
what I had hoped would happen.
People keep urging me to read Sylvia Meagher's Accessories After The Fact.
In response, I have tried in good faith to do it several times. My reaction is
always the same as when I bought it three or four years ago—ugh! It's highly
biased, unreasonably critical, whiny throughout, and, in the places where I can
judge independently, far from the mark. For example, her section on JFK's
movements after the head shot are seriously in error, as is her treatment of
spectroscopy and NAA. She suffers from the typical critic's syndrome of
complaining about everything but not offering any solution herself. I'm sorry,
but this stance is too "convenient" for me. I know that this opinion
will win me few friends, but I really don't care any more.
For the record, I own well over 100 books on the assassination and have read
not every word in each, but the majority of many of them. In fact, it was this
extensive comparative reading some years ago that made me aware of the inbred
nature of many of the critical claims and of most of the conspiracy writers. I
saw the same few arguments being continually recycled and rehashed by good folks
who never stepped out of the critical environment and read more widely.
The next set of comments will be the hardest of this message, and I probably
will not be able to finish it this evening. If not, I will return to it later.
First, concerning my "position of not wanting to consider anything but the
hardest evidence," as you put it. This is not quite right. Let me clarify.
There are at least three levels of considering evidence. The first is to exclude
all but the hardest evidence. This is equivalent to beginning with only those
pieces of evidence that bear directly on the question (of conspiracy) and that
one is sure about. I consider this starting point to be self-evident. Who among
us wants to begin with evidence that is either indirect or unsure? That is a
terribly flawed way to start. Restricting the initial pass to strong, direct
evidence is a great way to begin because it gives a view of the assassination
whose conclusions are guaranteed to be correct, period. Do you really want to
begin with indirect or uncertain evidence when direct and certain evidence is
available? I can't for the life of me see why.
But for questions where no strong, direct evidence is available, it may be
useful to step down to strong, indirect evidence, provided that we understand
that any conclusions will be probabilistic rather than conclusive. A good
example is the SBT. By using evidence in this way, we see immediately that the
SBT can never be proven. After completing the evidence sheet, we also see that
there is no solid evidence against it, either. On balance, it looks a whole lot
better than any of the alternatives proposed for it. It is a good example of a
powerful circumstantial web being woven. This kind of "proof" is
perfectly acceptable in the legal system even though I prefer to call it what it
is—high probability with no reasonable alternative.
What do we do when no strong evidence is available for some aspect of the
assassination? If you choose to include any weak evidence, you will put every
deduction past that point at risk. You are free to do that as long as you accept
the consequences of never knowing whether you are right, but I see no point and
will not. I must know at least something about my probabilities.
As for you finding this position "infuriating," so be it. You have
my reasons for reasoning as I do. I will continue to propound this method and
let the chips fall where they may.
I thank you for raising the question of the thoroughness and accuracy of the
Warren Report. I agree that it is flawed, as is any human endeavor. But
considering the pressures they were under, I consider their job remarkable. This
may seem strange, but I think far less about its flaws or its strengths than I
do about how much we can understand about the assassination from it and from the
evidence produced subsequently. I don't think the "blame game" is very
helpful. I take the same attitude about leads that were not followed, etc.
Rather than the null hypothesis being something like "the government has
thoroughly and objectively followed up leads," which after all is not
obviously related to the correctness of their answer, I would prefer something
like "the government got the appropriate legal answer to the question of
who killed JFK." Note that the appropriate legal answer may not be
the one I would consider appropriate, since our legal system does not allow for
the true agnostic answer of neither proven nor disproven to a certainty.
I have a feeling that we are not done with this topic, and that is fine with
me.
Ken
***************************************
From John Hunt, Roger Williams University, Bristol, RI
"John Hunt" jmhjr@efortress.com
21 April 1999
Hello Ken,
I have included the post at the end.
Great job on the conference. I can imagine the hard work it took. How did
Stewart Galanor do in class on Monday? I'll be on-line most of the night, so I
will watch for your message.
Take care.
John
**************************************
From Andy Winiarczyk of The Last Hurrah Bookshop
lroller@sunlink.net
22 April 1999
Dear Ken,
Are you still interested in Gus Russo? Live by is $29.00 ($26 & $3
post) Let me know if you want & I'll ship (either plastic or check are
welcome).
By the way, for all the times we had seen each other, I failed to ask a
crucial question. Have you ever heard from Bill Ambrosino? If he ever surfaces,
ask him to e-mail or preferably call (evenings are best for personal stuff) at
570-321-1150.
Finally, you should be proud of your students. By Sunday, I fully expected to
see them wearing the target pins that most Serbs are sporting.
All the best,
Andy
************************************
From Clint Bradford
clintbrad4d@earthlink.net
22 April 1999
Thank you ("Professor" Rahn? "Doctor" Rahn???) for your
Report.
Reading some of the work submitted by your students makes me believe that the
future of such research is in good hands. Your students are articulate,
literate, and have "open eyes" that are of the upmost importance in
solving not only the JFK assassination case, but also other societal problems.
- Clint Bradford, ATTENTION to Details
***********************************
Ken Rahn replies
23 April 1999
Dear Clint:
Thank you for the kind words about my students. I am proud of them, too. I
will pass them on to them this Monday, when we meet next. (I have given them
Friday off in recognition of the extra time they spent preparing for the
conference.)
My official titles are unimportant. For the record, I have a B.S. in
chemistry and a Ph.D. in meteorology, and work as an atmospheric chemist. I am a
full professor at URI. I am also the consultant in scientific writing to the
regional EPA lab across the street, where I spend two afternoons a week
rewriting scientific papers and reports and teaching them the fine points of
scientific writing. My friends call me "Ken," though, and so should
you.
Sincerely, Ken
****************************************
Clint Bradford replies
23 April 1999
I sent "Sara" a personal note...let me know if she mentions it.
I felt real "old" writing it...but I also felt a bit relieved
knowing there ARE students out there who aren't jaded...nor wearing black
trenchcoats to school every day...nor building bombs in their parents' garages.
Thanks for the reply.
- Clint
*****************************************
Bradford again
23 April 1999
An afterthought...
>>Kenneth A. Rahn wrote:
>>...My official titles are unimportant...
Exactly my sentiments to "Sara" earlier this evening:
================================================
Hello, Sara—we don't know each other, but I read your Comments on Dr.
Rahn's site regarding your JFK conference.
You wrote, in part:
>>I think that overall, the conference went very well, yet many people were very defensive the minute a comment or question arose that contradicted their views. It seems that people took the comments as if this were all they were; their whole lives revolved around JFK and if you challenge their views, you challenge who they are.<<
Yes—this is a "newer" sentiment among many who are involved in
the assassination of President Kennedy: If you pose a well-intentioned
"contrary" view, some really take it personally!I would like to offer
you a tidbit from Dr. Josiah Thompson's talk last November in Dallas. Thompson
who wrote one the of finest of the "second-generation" books showing
flaws in the Warren Commission, "Six Seconds in Dallas."
"You may wonder why I've taken the time to attack Professor [deleted -
not important] here. It is because he expresses a trend in assassination
research which I find odious.
"His emphasis on credentials and the cult of expertise (or alleged
expertise) is demeaning to the tradition of inquiry we all share as a community.
When the final history of this case is written it will be based on the canons of
acute historical research. These canons have nothing to do with how many
initials you can hang after your name or how often you're called
"distinguished."
"They have to do with the evidence you put forward for your view and the
reasonableness of the interpretations you hang on that evidence. That's what
Sylvia Meagher and I believed when we started working together in the 60s. It
was a long time ago in virtually another country. It was 1965... 66... 67, and
here and there people were beginning to distrust what they'd been told.
"There was Mary Ferrell in Dallas, Penn Jones just outside Dallas,
Sylvia Meagher in New York City, Paul Hoch in Berkeley, Cyril Wecht in
Pittsburgh, Vince Salandria in Philadelphia, Harold Weisberg in Maryland, Ray
Marcus and David Lifton in Los Angeles... and many, many more. A housewife, a
lawyer for the school board, the editor of a small paper, a graduate student, a
young professor, a WHO official. We were little people. People who had only a
few things in common—inquiring minds, an unwillingness to be intimidated by
public attitudes, more than a little tenacity, a bit of modesty and a
willingness to laugh at oneself. None of us had any money or hoped to make any
money out of this. We were doing it for its own sake. We formed a community...
the closest thing to a true community of inquiry that I've ever known.
"We shared information on a transcontinental basis. I still remember the
excitement with which Vince Salandria and I received our copy of the Sibert-O'Neill
Report from Paul Hoch! None of us gave a damn for credentials because - as we
put it—"There are no Ph.Ds in assassination research."
"Back then—with the might and majesty of the federal government
aligned with the news media in defense of the Warren Report—performing
assassination research was somewhat like doing research on UFOs. It was not
respectable. And so we formed our own community and helped with each others'
research and critiqued each others' drafts. It's that community which still
stands in my mind's eye as the ideal—and it's that community to which I owe my
loyalty..."
I do not know where your studies will take you, Sara. But I believe Dr.
Thompson when he states that if this case it be solved, it will be solved by
"reasonable" people based on the canons of acute historical research.
As will other problems that society face.
Best of luck to you. You are articulate and genuine. Keep reading—and keep
your eyes open. You will succeed.
—Clint Bradford, ATTENTION to Details
====================================================
—Clint Bradford
**********************************************************
From Stuart Wexler
Stugrad98@aol.com
24 April 1999
Hi Ken,
If Lancer doesn't let you speak, I think COPA might, at least as a debate,
perhaps, between you and Art.
I have to say I'm a bit skeptical about your recent claims, though I'd love
to hear them. For instance, can your new theory explain why one can be
conclusive about a chemical match between CE399 and the wrist fragment, but then
not be conclusive about a similar match between the unfired bullet and the
Walker bullet? The similarities with the latter pair was significant enough for
Guinn to mention it.
But what I'm really writing you about is an idea I've entertained for a
totally different kind of conference. Yes, there'd be room for some
presentations and even debate. But I think when you look at the collective
expertise and resources of the people who attend the conferences, it's almost a
waste to just talk. I've even written Gary on this. Any conference in Dallas, I
think, should pool resources, talent and knowledge, for instance, in an actual
trajectory study in Dealey Plaza. There are limo replicas. People who know guns.
People who know the medical evidence frontwards and backwards. I think one can
easily do a trajectory study with the actual participants, using a laser or a
surveyor's equipment, something that really hasn't even been done (without a
computer). Moreover, other things, like ballistic experiments, could probably be
done. Let's try and duplicate Lattimer, and maybe even go further, and see what
happens-- let's actually get a probability, for once, on how many times a bullet
will emerge like CE399 in a 100 tries.
This is all wishful thinking, but I was wondering what you thought, now that
you've run a conference yourself, about the possibility of something like being
possible.
-Stu
************************************
From Theresa Seay
tmseay@worldnet.att.net
25 April 1999
Dear Ken,
You still haven't gotten it. Do you have an emotional problem accepting the
truth? Conspiracy has been proven time and time again. You are in the stone
age—still.
I see partly why. You have in your course the Warren Report as a source - the
work of fiction. You DON'T have the Hearings and Exhibits which totally disprove
the Report. The Warren Commission's OWN evidence disproved their findings. It's
pathetic to use the Report as a source on anything. I presume you've heard that
President Ford "moved" the back wound up by rewriting a sentence or
two despite the fact that all the evidence proved that the wound was in the
BACK. You deny reality and that is the nadir of intellectual honesty. One must
follow the facts wherever they lead—these lead straight to conspiracy and you
either don't want to accept that conclusion OR you are a government lackey.
Either way, it's too bad for this country and for integrity.
I met you at Providence when Gaeton Fonzi delivered his tremendous speech on
the lying of Congress. I believe I also saw you in Dallas in '93. It's
unfortunately quite credible to me that a university would hire a person who
deals in fantasy rather than fact to teach a course on the JFK case. It's all
too common because propaganda passes for history. I've seen it all too often. If
I'd known about the conference in time, I might have presented something myself.
At least it would have been factual because I am intellectually honest and
research the data well. Too bad others don't. It's all there and obvious to
those who look with an open mind. Too many people do not want to believe that
the government could lie and so they deny reality. That doesn't change the
facts; it just makes it easier for the government to become tyrannical and make
slaves of citizens. You aid that effort by your refusal to follow the facts
logically and face the truth squarely. Shame on you for that.
Theresa M. Seay
*************************************
Ken Rahn responds
26 April 1999
Dear Theresa:
Thanks for your long message and its heartfelt sentiments. It's a pity that
you didn't hear about the conference in time to attend and present something. I
do indeed remember meeting you in Providence in 1993.
I must ask you to provide one or two examples of what you consider definitive
proofs of conspiracy. My class and I have looked very hard without being able to
find any (in my opinion, at least). When you propose something, please be sure
to consider whether it is amenable to any interpretations other than conspiracy.
Thanks in advance.
Somehow, I feel that the University of Rhode Island doesn't really want to
hire people who teach fantasy rather than fact in the JFK case. So we will all
be waiting to hear your ultimate proofs of conspiracy. And rest assured that
this exchange of messages is exactly what we do in class every day.
Ken
****************************************
From Martin Shackelford
mshack@concentric.net
26 April 1999
Ken:
I read the material. It sounds like the conference went very well. Sorry I missed it.
Martin
***********************************
Ken Rahn replies
26 April 1999
Martin:
I'm also sorry that you couldn't attend. As a moderate and a reasonable person, you would have felt right at home and would have added a great deal to the conference.
Ken