Some
of my impressions about the
1999 Providence Conference
Kenneth A. Rahn, Co-chairman
20 April 1999
My strongest overall impression of this conference was that it succeeded
against great odds. In the weeks before the conference, we had been subjected to
such a strong bombardment of negative publicity by a small number of vocal
detractors (to put it mildly!) that I and others began to wonder whether it
would blow up in our faces when the day came, or whether no one would show up
and it would just be a big dud. Fortunately, neither of these things happened. A
substantial number of people attended (about 45), and the critics decided to
moderate themselves.
I owe a debt of gratitude to those who decided to attend in spite of
exceedingly strong pressures to the contrary. You special people know who you
are. As the conference was closing, three of the attendees publicly told the
conference that they would pay a political price for attending! Can you imagine
such a thing in this day and age? When will the JFK community get the message
that these kinds of closed attitudes will only backfire in the long run? Running
closed conferences and requiring presenters to meet certain litmus tests is the
fastest way to guarantee that the movement will forever remain cultlike and on
the fringe.
This conference was a big experiment—a test of my hypothesis that the JFK
assassination community needs a new kind of conference, one that is open to all,
that respects the views of all provided only that they can back up what they
state, that debates anything and everything, that provides ample time for
questions and answers, that sometimes lets the audience interrupt the speakers
if the comments are urgent enough, that breaks down barriers between speakers
and listeners (like one of our presenters who pulled an easy chair into the
middle of the audience and gave a modern-day "fireside chat"), that
actively involves students, and that highlights the teaching of JFK courses. I
even dubbed us all "hypothesites" (those who participate in
hypotheses). At the end, there seemed to be general agreement that the
hypothesis should be retained and that more conferences like this were
warranted. I have already received several requests to do it again next year.
One well-known conference figure essentially ordered me to repeat it annually,
telling me bluntly that if I don't do it, nobody will. One of the presenters
stated that it seemed to represent the new kind of JFK conference (see E-mail
comments).
The attendees thrived under the system where the Q&A was as long as the
presentation itself. Everyone seemed gratified to have the chance to offer
comments freely. I think it is fair to say that the full discussion time was
used after nearly every speaker, and in most cases people wanted even more. To
deny extended discussion time to folks who have given up a weekend and parted
with a significant sum of money has always seemed unconscionable to me. Now it
is clear that our audiences agree, and that their comments greatly add to the
value of the conference. We taped everything and will transcribe the tapes as
time permits.
By general agreement, the bright spot of the conference was the participation
of the students. Of course I, as their instructor, felt a special sense of pride
as student after student came to the front and exceeded my expectations. The
audience was similarly impressed. Imagine the feeling of seeing these young
adults, who until this weekend had been receivers sitting in front of me three
times a week, now turn the tables and become the givers! Almost to a person,
they brought originality and creativity to their presentations that I did not
know they were capable of. In a way, it was like seeing one's children grow up
in front of your eyes. (I suspect that they would maintain that they had been
grown up the whole semester and that I had just failed to notice it. But that's
another story!) For an independent evaluation of each of their presentations,
see Gary Loudenslager's E-mail comments.
Of course, there was intellectual ferment, but that was good. In tribute to
those who attended, all remained friends and most became closer during the
weekend. It was a particular pleasure for me to see the little knots of people
that would form after each of the sessions and in each of the breaks. They were
inevitably thrashing out some aspect of the assassination or its effects. While
I saw a great deal of passion, I saw little or no real anger. It helped to be
meeting in a classroom, where blackboards were always near. Believe me, they
were used! I particularly recall Stewart Galanor and his energetic discussion of
concentrations of antimony in the bullets and fragments (the NAA). Tony Marsh
was mixed up in not a few discussions as well. Best of all, so were the
students.
I had wondered how our low-budget format would go over. After all, we were
meeting in an ordinary classroom at URI's Providence Campus. We had student-type
chairs with those writing arms that aren't particularly comfortable. We had
blackboards that got covered in chalk sooner than I had hoped. We were our own
AV people. When we needed the lights turned off, I just gave the high sign and
whoever was nearest the switches took care of it. After the lunch break on
Saturday, we turned the slide projector around and displayed the Croft photo on
the back wall so that all could see JFK's suit jacket being bunched up in near
life-size. Everybody crowded around in the dark and chattered away as it was
being described. We needn't have worried about our modest facilities, though.
From the moment things got underway, our common interest in the assassination
took over, and all else was forgotten. Everybody was close to the action and
relished it. My goal of re-creating a Greek-like symposium came as close to
reality as I had dared hope. Even though we had no big keynote speaker and no
fancy banquet, we had the most important ingredient of all—dedicated people
who relished being in each other's presence for a few short hours.
Will I do it again? You bet! It was too much fun to do only once!