Jim Fetzer is the New Ken Rahn

[Jan Klimkowski]

Well, I know some of the back story, so I won't participate much.....

However, this lil' beauty is from Kenny Boy:


Kenneth A. Rahn, The Central Fallacy of JFK Research (June, 2000)

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.

So perhaps the Anti-Matter Twin of Fetzer.

My post #370 here, is also pertinent.

Particularly the refusal to engage or accept hard evidence which proves your logical edifice to be a house of cards....