My post to alt.conspiracy.jfk Monday 22 March 1999
Well, folks, the working day is just about done, and now it's time to say
something to those who seem so taken one way or the other by our Providence
conference. Maybe I'm just hopelessly old-fashioned, but when I see a title like
"The Truth About That Providence Conference," I really expect to see
TRUTH. What I saw instead was the opposite—a hopeless mishmash of factoids so
tangled that I almost didn't recognize the conference. Let's go through a few of
them and set the record straight.
First is the matter of how it all started. Sometime last fall, I saw a brief
notice on Lancer's web page about a regional conference in southern New England.
I believe it had the names of Charlie Drago and George Michael Evica attached,
but I can't be sure any more. When I spoke with Debra Conway about it, she said
that it was moribund and that I should speak with Charlie and GM directly. At
the end of the Lancer conference, Charlie and I spoke briefly. He was warm and
enthusiastic. I told him that it would be great to revive the conference and tie
it with my JFK course during the spring semester, so as to enhance the learning
experience of the students. (In plain English, there is nothing like seeing CTs
and LNs up close and personal!) He vowed to do whatever he could to make the
conference happen. We became co-chairmen and have remained that way. Charlie is
right when he says that the conference is as much his as it is mine. In fact, it
is OURS. Virtually every detail has been agreed to by both of us. On the other
hand, it is true that I have tended to initiate the ideas and he to refine them,
mostly because it was my idea to revive it and it was my class that was going to
benefit from it. No big deal for either of us. So anyone who trashes the
conference trashes Charlie as much as me.
Is the conference stacked? It certainly is, but in the opposite direction
that Joe Backes fumes about. 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). With all Joe's
screaming, I take it that 8-1-1 isn't good enough for him. I guess he is
demanding 10-0-0! But that wouldn't make a balanced conference, and where my
class is involved, it must be at least not totally unbalanced. 8-1-1 is good
enough for me--it probably reflects the proportions in the American population
as a whole.
We stated in the Third Announcement that we would begin the conference with
presentations by Charlie and me, with him going first. These would set the stage
for the rest of the conference by showing the full range of ideas that we would
deal with. How anyone can complain about this or consider this arrangement
unacceptable is beyond me. We each get 45 minutes to give it our best shot,
followed by 30 minutes of questions for each.
How else have I "stacked" the conference. Well, I have taken the
unconscionable step of inviting four people who are actively offering JFK
courses to sit together in a round-table discussion of their experiences and
approaches. Shocking! How did I get this idea? By observing one day that within
the speakers we already had four teachers of JFK courses. It was too good an
opportunity to let pass by. I proposed it to Charlie and he agreed. Shame on me!
Wait until you hear how the group breaks down by belief—2 pro-conspiracy (I
think), 1 lone assassin, and one agnostic. Terrible!
Then there's the part where the students will give papers. But is this
stacking the deck? Ask them. David Sullivan has just posted a message
(unsolicited and unknown to me until I checked in a few minutes ago) where he
states correctly that I don't tell anyone what to believe. At the conference, I
suspect you will hear how their views have evolved during the course and, more
importantly, why they have evolved. One of the strongest speakers will be our
staunchest pro-conspiracy advocate, Matt Frank, who can't wait to set the record
straight and use all those words I said I wouldn't. (Again completely
unsolicited and unexpected.) These students and others will make the other
attendees proud.
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.)
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. They came from the general JFK area instead. In his haste, Joe
got mixed up. We have used only a few of them in the course. Nearly half are
titles without links because I haven't written them yet. I put the titles down
to offer guidelines to readers about the direction I intended to go and to put
pressure on me to finish them. People who only read titles may miss the subtle
point that many of the essays aren't there. Now what are those subjects that are
so useless and maybe even dangerous to the students? How about "Using
important words precisely." Or "Probability, belief, and proof."
Then there is "Types of evidence useful to the JFK assassination." For
people who feel that the essay "NAA and the JFK assassination" is full
of errors, they can read a critique by Art Snyder that I have posted. (Unfair!
Two points of view on the same web site!) People who object to "The
scientific method and the JFK assassination" will note, if they read it,
that I am proposing a modified version that can be used in many matters of daily
life as well. But as George Michael commented publicly at the Fredonia meeting a
couple years ago, "If you used the scientific method for the JFK
assassination, you would never prove anything!" That is precisely the
point--you would prove very little, but what you did prove would be pricelessly
valuable. Each of my JFK classes learns what these few conclusive points are,
and sees how drastically they change their understanding of the actual
assassination. They are usually shocked. On and on it goes. You get the drift.
(2) George Michael's memory of the "original" conference. I have no
idea where GM got his idea that the conference would consist of a few visits to
my class. I certainly didn't suggest it, not do I recall discussing it with
Charlie. I didn't discuss it with George Michael because I never discussed the
conference with him--he let Charlie speak for him. I suppose the two of them
then communicated, but I have no idea how frequently or in how much detail.
Anyhow, it's hard to visit a college class that meets MWF mornings when the
conference runs from Friday evening to Sunday noon!
(3) Note the basic nature of the charges by Joe, Charlie,and George Michael.
They are just empty words, used for effect but devoid of substance. Note that
Charlie Drago continually states how conspiracy is historical fact but never
tells you WHY it is fact. George Michael writes that I am "ignorant of the
fundamental evidence." Easy to say, indeed. But what is that fundamental
evidence of which I am ignorant? GM is silent. He says I used "cooked
statistics." Same comment by me. When he wrote me a brief note that he
would not appear at the conference because he disapproved of every way in which
it was developing except Charlie Drago's appearance, I wrote back and asked for
a specific or two. No answer. I have laid out my position in detail already (on
the web and elsewhere), and will do so in excruciating detail in Providence.
Let's see if Charlie and others reciprocate. If they don't, you can draw your
own conclusions. Doesn't the community have a right to know why their vocal
spokesmen believe as they do?
Now in the spirit of the past weekend, let me whimsically offer the kind of
speech that all of us at one time or another have dreamed of giving. "I
want to thank Greg Jaynes, whom I have not yet met, for stepping up and stating
the obvious about our conference. I want to thank Tony Marsh, a good friend, for
explaining our congenial relationship perfectly and for telling Joe to cool it.
(Maybe he should have said "Bottle the acid!") I want to thank David
Sullivan for the unsolicited remarks of support, which are all a teacher could
ever wish for. And most of all, I want to thank Joe Backes for the continuing
string of invective—he has revealed himself and his mentality far better to
our class than I ever could have."
I hope to see you all in Providence, where all ideas will be on the table and
all people will be treated with respect and dignity. Come and talk with our
students, our educators, and our conspiracists, nonconspiracists, and agnostics.
Help us make this a first-class experience for all.
Ken Rahn