Jim Fetzer is the New Ken Rahn

[David Healy]

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

https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/sho...light=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.

Excellent post Charles, thanks....