The
original four messages
18 March 1999
Message #1: From Joe Backes to his mailing list
From: JoeBackes@aol.com
Thu, 18 Mar 1999 13:04:24 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Why is anyone interested in a JFK conference like this?
I don't understand the appeal of this Providence Conference, sponsored by Lone Nut advocate Ken Rahn. Here's what he's teaching college kids:
Here is the current list of available essays:
Essay #1: The central fallacy of JFK research
Essay #2: Trust is not enough
Essay #3: What do many pieces of weak evidence add up to?
Essay #4: The trouble with speculating
Essay #5 NAA and the JFK assassination
(To see a critique of this essay by Arthur Snyder of SLAC, click here.)
Essay #6 Using important words precisely
Essay #7 Probability, belief, and proof
Essay #8 Alien Agenda?
Essay #9 Types of evidence useful to the JFK assassination
Essay #10 The scientific method and the JFK assassination
Essay #11 The two cultures of JFK research
Essay #12 Why "Who did it?" is the wrong question to ask first and
maybe ever
Essay #13 Why is it so important to begin with only the strongest evidence?
Essay #14 Which types of evidence are strong?
Essay #15 Shadings of eyewitness testimony
Essay #16 Why most of the evidence in the JFK case is useless
Essay #17 The fatal error of moving to Step 2 before settling Step 1
Essay #18 Predisposition in JFK research
Essay #19 Hidden assumptions of JFK researchers of all persuasions
Essay #20 The fatal consequences to JFK research of neglecting classical
reasoning
Essay #21 Why not all approaches to the JFK assassination are created equal
Essay #22 Why there is only one truth to the JFK assassination
Essay #23 The "tough love" approach to JFK research and evidence
Essay #24 What's wrong with this argument? 1. James Fetzer, "Assassination
Science"
Essay #25 What's wrong with this argument? 2. David Lifton, "Best
Evidence"
Essay #26 What's wrong with this argument? 3. Gerald Posner, "Case
Closed"
Essay #27 What's wrong with this argument? 4. Jim Moore, "Conspiracy of
One"
Why go to this? There's important work to be done. And wasting time with a lone nut is not helpful.
Joe Backes
************************************************************************
Message #2: From Joe Backes to his mailing list
From: JoeBackes@aol.com
Thu, 18 Mar 1999 16:02:15 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Fwd: RE: Why is anyone interested in a JFK conference like this?
This is a reply from Charles Drago. I was expecting him to flame me, but he didn't. I think you will be pleased with his reply. - Joe
覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧-
From: Charles Drago cdrago@rilin.state.ri.us
To: "'JoeBackes@aol.com'" JoeBackes@aol.com
Subject: RE: Why is anyone interested in a JFK conference like this?
Date: Thu, 18 Mar 1999 16:16:35 -0500
Dear Joe,
As a co-host of the Providence Conference預nd someone who harbors not a
scintilla of respect for Ken Rahn's positions on the case悠 feel obliged to
answer your central question.
Long ago I LED THE PACK in calling for an end to the conspiracy/no
conspiracy. I quote from my "In the Blossom of Our Sins" essay in
"The Fourth Decade":
"Anyone with sufficient access to the evidence in the case of the JFK
assassination who does not conclude that that crime was the result of a
conspiracy is intellectually deficient, morally bankrupt and/or complicit in the
crime."
I stand by these words.
Further, I had vowed never to dignify the Flat Earthers熔r, if you prefer,
latter-day Holocaust Deniers謡ho would attempt to do the enemy's work by
continuing the false debate.
And yet ...
Ken Rahn has the unmitigated gall to "teach" a JFK assassination
"course" at the university level. His "reasoning" is
laughable, his agenda deplorable and in full service to the enemy. His stated
goal is to influence an entire generation.
Silence, my friend, is never a morally defensible response to an immoral act.
Such was my conundrum.
Those of us who know the truth are carriers of a form of noblesse oblige. The
nobility of our knowledge obliges us to use it to bring about justice.
So I chose to deal with Ken Rahn and his ilk. Not without mixed emotions. Not
without knowing that I will come away from the experience soiled.
One of my dearest friends, George Michael Evica, has declined to participate
in the Providence Conference after first offering TENTATIVE agreement to be an
"honorary host." I applaud and support his decision, and I understand
it. Professor Evica has spent a lifetime studying the assassination and related
phenomena; he could not and should not dignify the Rahns of the world by dealing
at their level.
I, on the other hand, in whose backyard the conference will be held, was
forced to make a very hard choice.
I can assure you and all of my friends and colleagues in the research
community that I will not, either implicitly or explicitly, grant to the
"opinions" of Rahn and his minions the slightest degree of respect.
The accessories after the fact will be identified as such, and forced to face
the consequences of their crimes.
Thank you for being concerned enough a champion of the truth to send this
email.
May I request, Joe, that you forward this response to all who received your
original message?
Sincerely,
Charles Drago
***********************************************************************
Message #3: Joe Backes to his mailing list and C. Drago
Date: Thu, 18 Mar 1999 18:49:23 EST
To: cdrago@rilin.state.ri.us
Subject: Re: RE: Why is anyone interested in a JFK conference like this?
Charles,
Wow, I was expecting to get flamed on this. I'm surprised and pleased with
your reply. There are several key points I wish to address. First and foremost,
word has not gotten out anywhere that you OPPOSE Ken Rahn, whether personally,
professionally, or the ideas he is advocating through this course or this
conference. The same applies to Evica. I think both of you should do this
immediately. As far as I know, and I'm pretty well tuned in on what's current
with the JFK research community, no one knows Evica is no longer associated with
this conference. I will distribute such news via my email group, the
alt.conspiracy.newsgroup, and the Ft. Worth newsgroup.
I think I can speak for many, though I haven't personally confirmed this one
on one with any large number of folk, that most people are surprised that you
and Evica were associated with this man in sponsoring such a conference. It gave
him a level of respectability. And damaged yours.
Yes, I can understand the idea of wanting to confront people like him and
fight the lone nut crowd. However, we don't HAVE to. It's not like that's the
only way to get the message out about a conspiracy in this case. If it was, then
I'd be there and so would many others fighting for the truth.
However, I feel such tactics, noble though they may seem, are in reality
nothing but wastes of time, especially in a situation created by the other side,
financed well by the other side, with a university behind it, probably other
academicians as well, and in a setting where the whole thing is stacked against
you.
Rahn has an agenda, and inviting pro-conspiracy people to a debate, if it
will even be that, only serves to legitimize him. He's had weeks, and months
setting the stage and the mindset of these college kids that you, and others
like you, (like me) are inferior specimens of humanity, incapable of
comprehending let alone actually doing honest research, or using the methodology
he uses, and by no small inference other academicians who agree with him. There
is a mindset in many universities and colleges, throughout academia, that if you
use the "correct" methodology you will see the Warren Commission is
right. Several, and I mean a clear majority of the ARRB members share this
viewpoint. As did a preponderance of those they dealt with, their own colleagues
from the professional organizations they came from, and many, again a majority,
of the people they invited to their two "experts conferences", David
Garrow, who was at both, comes to mind.
We can have conferences and have without Rahn and his "ilk". We
have a clear majority of the American people believing a conspiracy. And we have
millions of pages to go through.
The documents in the Archives MUST be where our primary energies are
devoted to. The lingering problems due to the ARRB's demise need to be
addressed. Tax records need to be opened, and that means the IRS law, Section
6103 must be amended.
I have written on the above topics, almost exclusively, if not unparalleled
in the depth and detail of such articles. I have had to battle a fellow
researcher whose ideas would be more disastrous than if Posner were to replace
Tilley at the Archives in regard to creating a body to carry on the Board's work
and on tax amendments.
While I find fighting Rahn and others like him commendable, I feel the best
approach in doing so lie in the above three areas, namely, getting copies of
documents the ARRB and the JFK Act have, and in the case of the Act, still are
releasing. We need bodies in the Archives. We need JFK researchers to get in the
Archives, everyday! We need people to support the creation of an oversight board
as the ARRB recommended in their final report. This body must have enabling
legislation, and be independent of all other agencies, especially the Archives.
Section 6103 of the IRS code must be amended to open up tax records that have
already been collected and placed in the JFK Records Collection.
I wish to Christ I had people supporting the above, by either the willingness
to donate money, give their own personal time and energy, or to show up and be
physically present to lobby for an oversight board, and to amend the IRS Code.
Debra Conway has expressed a strong interest in the above, and there are
discussions to do exactly this, but they appear to be stalled. Not to blame her,
as these fights are lonely and expensive work. I just wish there was more
activism in the research community, maybe there is, for a body to do what I
always felt COPA was supposed to have been. I long to be the leader and crusader
for such an effort.
We need to do a lot more than produce the semi-regular newsletter, and yearly
conference.
Sorry for the rant.
Joe
*****************************************************************************
Message #4: George Michael Evica to Joe Backes and then to Joe's mailing list
"My non-attendance at the Providence Conference is based on my
evaluation of Ken Rahn's grasp of the case, including: 1) his ignorance of the
fundamental evidence; 2) his use of 'cooked' statistics; 3) the multiple errors
in his NAA study; 4) his specious 'logic'. My original appreciation of the
Providence event was that it would be comprised of a series of visits to Rahn's
class, and that it would not balloon into something larger and quite unsavory.
"I might add that I respect Charles Drago's reluctant decision to
participate. Given that the conference is taking place in his back yard, he had
no moral choice other than to be present to exert his influence on events."
*****************************************************************************
Closing word from Joe Backes
So, if you REALLY want to go to this you now know what you're in for.