Two recent communications from outside
From:
Alan Rogers <zarkov@worldnet.att.net>
To: "'Kenneth A. Rahn'" <krahn@uri.edu>
Subject: RE: Invitation to a JFK course
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2000 11:16:10 -0600
Kenneth,
I looked at you site when it did not have much on it. I will look again, but what I found impressed me. I have been investigating this case, off and on, since 1964 and more seriously after 1989. I have published compendiums centering on LHO in Mexico. I have helped Peter Dale Scott publish a sequel to his magnum opus, Deep Politics. I took part in the researcher conference in Nassau with the Cubans.
It looks like an excellent exposure to the enigma that is the JFK assassination. My stance to this day has been that it is an enigma, not a foregone conclusion. I can entertain scenarios which pose LHO as the lone shooter, surrounded a maelstrom of intrigue and agency confusion, causing great turmoil on the part of the government which pushed them into the safe harbor of a lone shooter explanation. OTOH, scenarios of various conspiracy constructs do seem to have more explanatory power to them and tend to leave the lone shooter construct looking a bit anemic.
Your class structure appears to be robust enough to get this across to those who are newly exposed to this case.
I take care of my two small children, so I don't have a lot of extra time to give your course the devotion it requires. However, I will look in as often as possible and if I see a chance to add to the material in a meaningful way. I will offer these suggestions to you and let you decide if they add to your conduct of the class.
My best wishes to you.
Alan Rogers
My reply, same day
Alan:
Thanks for your note. I don't know when you first looked at the web site for my JFK course, but I have been adding stuff daily for the last weeks. I am trying to provide all possible raw information for students and researchers. I am about to post a pile of stuff from James Olmstead, and Tony Marsh is about to ship me some 200 MB of documents and articles. By the time I'm done, I will need a new hard drive! I am trying to make the site a neutral resource in addition to presenting my own point of view. We'll see how well it succeeds.
With regard to explanatory power, Sir Karl Popper reminds us that this may be the opposite of what we are looking for. (See his essay on falsifiability, under "Critical Thinking.") A far-better property of an explanation is its ability to make difficult or unlikely predictions that can be clearly tested. Relative to this standard, the lone-gunman hypothesis is far superior to most conspiracy theories.
I look forward to receiving more comments from you. In particular, I would like to see how you respond to Popper's essay.
Ken
**************
From:
jamiethistle@webtv.net (w.j. thistlethwaite)
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2000 14:03:44 -0500 (EST)
To: krahn@uri.edu
Subject: shades of gray
Dear Mr Krahn,
Your course was the subject of a recent Tom Blackwell newsletter. I went to your website with eagerness and read much of your material. I read the short stories and the critical thinking pieces and my heart began to sink. If I am not mistaken (and please inform me if I am) your attitude is one of condescension and detachment towards the idea that there's much more than meets the eye in political affairs. For someone who's as well read as yourself on the subject of JFK, I find your whole enterprise bitterly disappointing. What I had hoped to find was an academic grounding for the spirit of iconoclasm implicit in a valiant populist quest for political truth in recent times. Instead I seem to sniff out another intellectual apologist for the status quo. Dont you ever get tired of painting over your ivory tower in the latest shades of gray?
Jamie
My reply, same day
Dear Jamie:
I'm not quite sure how to answer your message because you appears to have closed the door to real discussion. Highly charged words and phrases like "condescension" "detachment," and "intellectual apologist for the status quo" are not the best way to begin a fruitful dialogue. Your closing sentence, "Don't you ever get tired of painting over your ivory tower in the latest shades of gray?", builds your answer into it in the same way as does "When did you stop beating you wife?" In a word, you are totally wrong in your characterization of me and of my class. If you wish to discuss things further, I am willing, provided only that you stop hurling and start listening.
Perhaps we could begin by your giving me the URL for Tom Blackwell's newsletter, which I haven't yet seen. I would be interested in seeing what he had to say about our class.
Sincerely, Ken Rahn