Quote:This first essay considers what I will call, for lack of a better name, "The Central Fallacy of JFK Research." In effect, this fallacy is a misuse of the Argument ad Ignorantiam - the Argument from Ignorance - by many JFK researchers of all persuasions. The Argument ad Ignorantiam is the fallacy of reasoning that a proposition is true simply because it has not been proven false, or the converse, that a proposition is false simply because it has not been proven true. A simple example might be the deduction that extraterrestrials have not landed on earth because we have no hard proof of it. The proposition is that extraterrestrials have landed on earth; the deduction is that it is false because no physical evidence has been found for any such landings; the fallacy is that lack of physical evidence does not mean that it does not exist or that they could not have landed without leaving physical traces...

Thus the continuing lack of strong evidence specific to conspiracy makes it an increasingly untenable proposition. Slowly but surely, the probability of nonconspiracy is climbing ever-higher. Every tick of the clock raises it inexorably, as does every national meeting where reams of inconclusive and irrelevant "evidence" are presented at great length and their significance greatly exaggerated.

Let us be clear one critical point. Nothing in this argument prohibits conspiracy. Perhaps tomorrow the smoking gun will be found and conspiracy will be proven. But for 36 years nothing like this has happened - that history of nonaccomplishment must count for a tremendous lot.

Again, this is less an argument against conspiracy per se than an argument against demonstrated conspiracy. All of us devoted to this case must learn to operate on two mental tracks simultaneously - keeping our minds open to all future possibilities while properly recognizing the meaning of the current probabilities.

Charles Drago Wrote:In a DPF threat titled John McAdams, Propagandist, to Publish "Critical Thinking" Disinformation and available at

https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/showthread.php?3331-John-McAdams-Propagandist-to-Publish-quot-Critical-Thinking-quot-Disinformation&highlight=rahn

I wrote the following:


John McAdams, one of the key power structure propagandists within the weaponized "academic community," is about to publish JFK Assassination Logic, the latest book-length assault-on-truth disguised as a scholarly treatise.

McAdams, like retired University of Rhode Island professor Ken Rahn, offers "critical thinking" methodologies that are alleged to encourage open-minded evaluations of conspiracy theories.

I know for a fact that, in the case of Rahn, his underegraduate courses at URI were designed to support the anti-conspiracy viewpoint in general and the Lone Nut JFK lie in particular. Rahn claimed to have an open mind regarding the JFK assassination. When he did so, I believe that he was not telling the truth.

How do I support this claim?

1. I foolishly agreed to co-sponsor with Rahn a JFK symposium in my home city of Providence, Rhode Island. During a planning session for that event, over dinner, Rahn conspiratorially whispered this question to me: "Can I convince you, Charlie, that Oswald did it alone?" He brazenly and directly spoke to his real, hidden position -- the Lone Nut position.

The Lone Nut lie.

He was as serious as a heart attack. In so asking, he revealed his true agenda: Use the "critical thinking" ruse to lend academic gravitas to the Lone Nut lie. He was targeting young Americans -- which is to say, the future; which is to say, history -- in a subtle brainwashing operation.

Here's a perfect example of Rahn's "critical thinking." During the conference one of his students received an "A" for a paper in which he argued that the observations of Parkland Hospital physicians regarding JFK's wounds are not to be trusted because, based on a national sampling, ER physicians are not sufficiently experienced in the treatment of gunshot wounds to offer meaningful judgements on their characteristics.

At the aforementioned conference, I asked Rahn and the student if they could speak to JFK's Parkland physicians' expertise in gunshot wound treatment. I asked them to explain the relevance of nationally averaged data to the analysis of known, JFK-attending Parkland doctors' skills and experience.

The student was dumbstruck. His "A"-rated critical thinking skills were nowhere to be found.

Rahn slinked away.

2. At that conference, Rahn presented what he billed in advance as the definitive defense of the Single Bullet Theory. His tout (and I paraphrase closely) "After my presentation, anyone who challenges the SBT will not be taken seriously."

Rahn proceeded to trot out his groundbreaking NAA data. He went into excruciating detail regarding the composition of Mannlicher-Carcano ammunition batches and compared them to JFK evidence.

We listened for an hour.

Then, in roughly ten minutes, noted JFK researcher Stuart Galanor and a mathametician whose name escapes me so thoroughly and with the utmost academic rigor destroyed Rahn's presentation that the good doctor was forced to respond -- meekly -- "Well, this is just a work in progress."

"A 'work in progress,' Professor Rahn?" said Galanor, his voice redolent with justifiable scorn. "Didn't you just tell us that yours was the 'definitive' word on the SBT?"

Galanor then asked to see Rahn's scientific work notes.

"I left them in my other briefcase," said Rahn.

"Professor Rahn, I asked you for your notes the last time I heard you try to defend the SBT. And on that occasion, you used the same 'other briefcase' excuse."

Rahn slinked away.

Please know that I am recreating the above dialogue from memory -- and that my memory is very, very good. I believe that researcher John Hunt may have audio recordings of the conference. If so, and if he is reading this post, I ask him respectfully to produce them so as to compare my recollections to the audio record.

Charles Drago Wrote:Welcome, David.

I take not the slightest satisfaction from the comparison I make in the title of this thread.

But in terms of their destructive impacts on our struggles for truth and justice in the matter of JFK's assassination, Professors Fetzer and Rahn are joined at the hip.

The JFK research community now must make a terrible choice: publicly repudiate the work of a man who once stood as a giant among us, or allow him to demean us and all we stand for every time he makes company with liars, fools, and the enemy's agents.

Jim Fetzer once chose to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with Peter Dale Scott, George Michael Evica, and Mary Ferrell -- among other steadfast titans.

No more.

Now he chooses to slouch toward Bethlehem in the company of "Ralph Cinque," "Robert Morrow," Phillip Nelson, and only God knows what other rough beasts that have been set loose upon us.


How said it is. And how clear.

The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

Dawn Meredith Wrote:

Charles Drago Wrote:Welcome, David.

I take not the slightest satisfaction from the comparison I make in the title of this thread.

But in terms of their destructive impacts on our struggles for truth and justice in the matter of JFK's assassination, Professors Fetzer and Rahn are joined at the hip.

The JFK research community now must make a terrible choice: publicly repudiate the work of a man who once stood as a giant among us, or allow him to demean us and all we stand for every time he makes company with liars, fools, and the enemy's agents.

Jim Fetzer once chose to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with Peter Dale Scott, George Michael Evica, and Mary Ferrell -- among other steadfast titans.

No more.

Now he chooses to slouch toward Bethlehem in the company of "Ralph Cinque," "Robert Morrow," Phillip Nelson, and only God knows what other rough beasts that have been set loose upon us.


How said it is. And how clear.

The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

For whatever reasons he's made his choice and this will be his legacy. He's clearly obsessed with this very old settled issue, well settled for most of us, but yet he keeps on hammering away on it. I began questioning his sanity long ago. Now that Cinque is on moderation Fetzer's crying censorship. But fear not, the good dr. will find another to latch onto and all will begin again, circles of insanity.
Interesting to hear that he trashed Lisa. She must have disagreed with him on something. Can't have that. People who can never admit to an error are people I try to avoid.
I never bought or bought into his work so I have nothing to repudiate. I had an instinct about him a very long time ago. Mainly back then due to his supreme arrogance. I had a similar instinct abut Jay Epstein decades ago.
Dawn

Albert Doyle Wrote:Fetzer is mad. After his partner Cinque just had his ship shot-out from under him he is standing in the burning wreckage claiming victory over on EF.


This is madness.