Perfect Cover Security stripping of the president

[Bernice Moore]

http://karws.gso.uri.edu/jfk/the_critics...cover.html

Perfect Cover

A Theory of the JFK Assassination:
What Happened on November 22, 1963

By George Michael Evica
Based upon a work in progress:
The Iron Sights: New Evidence and Analysis in the Assassination of J.F.K.
(From The Assassination Chronicles Volume 1, Issue 4, December 1995)


Security stripping of the president

[Charles Drago]

Thanks for posting this.

Those who follow the link should know that Evica's article appears on the website of Ken Rahn, a facilitator of the Lone Nut cover-up.

[Jan Klimkowski]

Thanks for posting this.

Those who follow the link should know that Evica's article appears on the website of Ken Rahn, a facilitator of the Lone Nut cover-up.

Charles - any thoughts as to why Rahn would have Evica's article on his website?

[Albert Doyle]

Evica's theory is somewhat brilliant. It suggests the conspiracy acted like some narcotics or venoms act on the receptors by overwhelming them with an overload of messages. That way the real poison is not detectable within the flood of potential causes.

I don't want to draw laughter by comparing myself to Evica, but I did notice we both came to the same conclusion about Oswald feeling he would be freed by the evidence, once it was known, and that Oswald was maintaining his role in the police station. Evica picked-up exactly what I picked-up, that the Dallas police were cooperating in making the case collapse against Oswald. This all ended with Oswald's murder.

What bothers me about the Evica model is that the model itself could be used to undervalue the real role of some sponsors, facilitators, or operators. In that case the model itself might be a 'false sponsor' of sorts.


.

[Charles Drago]

Thanks for posting this.

Those who follow the link should know that Evica's article appears on the website of Ken Rahn, a facilitator of the Lone Nut cover-up.

Charles - any thoughts as to why Rahn would have Evica's article on his website?

Jan,

Ken Rahn is one of the bad guys. On his website he offers bios of and essays by the best of the good guys so he can make subtle misrepresentations in the former and claim that he is an impartial observer of the JFK assassination phenomenon who uses it as the basis for undergraduate classes in "Critical Thinking."

Or at least he used to.

I may have presented the material below elsewhere, and some time ago, on DPF. If so, it bears repeating.

Rahn's JFK assassination/critical thinking class was offered at the University of Rhode Island (URI) in the early '90s. We met in that period, and he invited me to A) co-host a JFK assassination conference in Providence, and B) speak to his class about my take on the case.

Through it all, Rahn swore the he was a wholly objective reader of the evidence who had no dog in the conspiracy/LN "debate."

It was not long before he revealed himself to be other than truthful on both counts.

On a cold, late winter night during a working dinner at the late-though-hardly-lamented G. Goff's restaurant on the Providence waterfront, Rahn conspiratorially -- there's no other word to describe it -- leaned over the table and asked, "Can I convince you, Charlie [that Oswald acted alone]?"

Everything about his posture and expression screamed "come-on." I was being asked by a representative of the enemy to switch sides. Rahn wasn't fooling around or in any way making light of anything. He was deadly serious.

My one word answer: "No."

Soon thereafter I had occasion to speak to Rahn's URI class and evaluate the impact of his "objective" instruction. Immediately I realized that Rahn had stacked the deck to convince his charges that the WC was right and the conspiracy "theorists" wrong. One obnoxious little Poindexter actually held up his dog-eared copy of the WCR, stroked it, stared at it, and said, "This is the Bible."

More about Poindexter in a moment.

At the conference, Rahn was hoisted on his own filthy petard. He opened his presentation on the SBT by noting that, after that night and because of his research, all JFK conspiracy theories would crumble and the LN position would be proven beyond all doubt.

He then offered a math-based defense of NAA, and concluded that two -- and only two -- bullets accounted for all wounds inflicted upon JFK and JBC. Game, set, match, end of story.

In a flash the wonderful researcher and accomplished mathematician Stewart Galanor, without asking permission, walked to the blackboard (we were in a URI Providence classroom) and in less than five minutes demolished Rahn's work.

"Well," said Rahn, attempting to bluff his way out of Dodge, "what I presented is just a work in progress."

"'Work in progress,' professor?" exclaimed the incredulous Galanor. "I'm sorry, professor, but didn't you open your remarks by saying that your work was definitive? May we see your notes?"

"I don't have my notes with me," Rahn responded. "They're in my other briefcase."

Apparently Rahn chose not to go with the "my guard dogs ate my homework" excuse.

Then Galanor hit with another KO punch. He reminded Rahn that Rahn had used the same pathetic evasion tactic at a recent conference when his disreputable NAA work was challenged.

Rahn slinked back to his chair.

Back to Poindexter, who was in the audience that night. As part of the proceedings, selected Rahn students presented JFK papers. Poindexter, who Rahn proudly proclaimed had earned an "A" in the Critical Thinking course for the work at hand, read his: a statistical analysis of U.S. hospital emergency room physicians who are experienced in treating gunshot wounds.

Apparently, the chances of finding ER doctors with such experience at any American hospital are quite slim. Therefore, argued Poindexter to his teacher's broad smile of approval, we cannot trust the observations of Parkland Hospital doctors who treated JFK's gunshot wounds -- and who reported damage to the head that contradicts the WCR conclusion.

The problem is, Poindexter's critical thinking was fatally flawed: The only sample appropriate for his research was the readily available sample he assiduously ignored -- the Parkland Hospital doctors who treated JFK's gunshot wounds.

Had that sample been measured, the doctors' shared and significant experience treating gunshot wounds would have been revealed.

Ken Rahn is one of the bad guys.

His motives? I cannot say for certain, but in my Constitutionally-protected opinion I believe they included protection of government-originating grants for his work (Rahn is an atmospheric chemist who has traveled far and wide on the taxpayers' dime) and resolution of a family matter involving the illegal crossing of state lines and the FBI.

We might also note that it is reported that Rahn owns a large collection of recordings of Nazi marching songs.

I could tell you more, but the bottom line is that the now-retired Professor Ken Rahn is one of the bad guys. An enemy agent. Such is my informed opinion.

[Bernice Moore]

he has bought up the work on his site, such as michael griffith articles, that came out some years back when he michael gave us permission over the top of rahn's head to post his articles, information as long as they are verbatim, i recall when he, Rahn, first came on the other f, and was litterally chased off, david healey would recall he was right there, i was a real goodie to watch, i have seen him there once in the years that have followed ,but he did not stay, chris dolmar, destroyed him some years back, on the web......hopefully it will attach, it is a prize.....imo stewart galanor's book is at the top of the list, the best for newbies,and some oldies for review, like perhaps moi many times.. it is all there, explains everthing so fully, and is such a small book and an easy read..call it .only ..brilliant..:cheer:

[Phil Dragoo]

Thank you for the 18-page pdf of Chris Dolmar's unreturnable serves to Ken Rahn as Monty Python's Black Knight.

Have saved to jump, a countercourse to Professor Flubber's How to Stop Thinking and Love The Frame.

[Charles Drago]

Ken Rahn's mission is two-fold:

1. Prolong the suffocating uncertainty upon which the JFK assassination cover-up is predicated. Remember: The primary mission of post-assassination cover-up Facilitators is not to bring the world to overwhelming concensus on this matter, even if said concensus were to be that the conclusions presented in the WCR are correct; rather, it is to defeat at all costs the spread of the notion that absolute knowledge in this and thousands of related matters is attainable under any circumstances.

One of the most important methods utilized to prolong uncertainty is to create the illusion of equal merit for irreconcilable hypotheses by bestowing upon each the imprimatur of scientific respectability. Stalemate is the name of the game, and it matters not to the resolution of the JFK matter that Chris Dolmar and Steward Galanor have demonstrated beyond all doubt and to degree of metaphysical certitude that Ken Rahn's JFK-related work is fatally flawed.

Cover-up Facilitators -- witting and otherwise -- simply present to current and future generations a "he said-he said" scenario designed to prolong debate on long-settled issues. Thus, in the example at hand, each time we agree to "debate" the likes of Ken Rahn on the SBT -- a wholly discredited hypothesis -- we implicitly support the cover-up and join the ranks of its unwitting Facilitators.

The alternative is not to ignore Rahn and his ilk. Instead, we must respond by treating them and, by extension, their disreputable methods and unsupportable conclusions with the contempt and derision they so richly deserve.

In so doing, however, we also must understand that presentation of scientific proofs for conspiracy and falsifying hypotheses to the contrary absent deep political context does nothing but support the "he said-he said" cover-up. Accordingly we are duty-bound to include deep political science (how's that for a course title?) as a critical element in our responses.

In other words, and if you'll pardon the technical jargon, while tearing Rahn and his ilk new anuses, we also must include discussion of the deep political subjects touched upon in this post -- and related subjects, of course -- each and every time we are confronted with the lies and errors.

Begin by embracing this truth:

Anyone with reasonable access to the evidence in the JFK assassination case who does not conclude that the crime was conspiratorial in nature is cognitively impaired and/or complicit in the crime.

2. The University of Rhode Island undergraduate critical thinking/JFK assassination course as taught by Rahn was created as a weapon of mass indoctrination. It and similar weaponized pedagogy are targeted on young people -- representatives of new generations to be misinformed, disinformed, and thus controlled by the heirs of the Sponsors of the Kennedy murder and their renewable Facilitator class.

The sheer affrontery of Rahn and his comrades and their controllers evident in the labeling of the spread of propaganda as an effort to develop "critical thinking" skills is all but unbearable -- as is, I might add, the ignorance of the chair of the URI Political Science Department who at the time abrogated her in loco parentis responsibilities when she abused and neglected her undergraduate charges by turning them over to the not-so-tender mercies of a merciless cover-up Facilitator.

Do not forget: During the period when the aforementioned Providence conference was being planned, Rahn was telling all who would listen that he was presenting to his students a level playing field for pro- and anti-conspiracy points of view.

Do not forget: The aforementioned Poindexter was awarded an "A" for blatantly and fatally flawed critical thinking only because it reflected his loving professor's blatantly and fatally flawed point of view.

I'll close with an anecdote relating to the Providence conference. On the evening before the formal proceedings were scheduled to begin, Rahn assembled a small group of presenters in the board room of URI's Providence facility (in the former Shepherd's Department Store; the main campus is in Kingston). Among us was Martin J. Kelly, Jr., a self-described former stand-up comedian who early in his life was a liberal and conspiracy theorist, but who now had "matured" into an entirely different animal.

From Kelly's self-generated conference bio: "[He is] a professor of psychology in the Psychology Department of Hobart & William Smith Colleges in Geneva, New York. He is interested in visual perception, Freud and psychoanalysis, intellectual history, and how unfounded ideas can prevail for long periods in the popular culture. His recent work has focused on the psychology of believing in conspiracy in the JFK, RFK, and MLK assassinations and on the popular belief in UFOs, alien abductions, and the recovery of repressed memories of systematic abuse. His paper, entitled 'To Bury JFK,' critiques the JFK critical movement.

I know that Kelly was present to take me on directly. Here is a relevant portion of the Abstract he wrote for his presentation:

"This paper is a critique of the JFK conspiracy movement. It discusses the incoherence of most major objections [leaving how many coherent and thus probative major objections?] to the Oswald-as-assassin position. The discussion draws informally on clear understanding of the implications of everyday scientific statements, on simple logic in formulating theories, on the historical record, and on notions of cognitive impairment vivified by contemporary psychology." [emphases and comment added by Drago]

At the time, my "Anyone with reasonable access" line had been widely distributed and discussed among JFK researchers. My use of the term "cognitively impaired" within it was lifted and targeted by Kelly.

Fair enough.

At the table that night, Kelly made a point of sitting directly across from me. Conversation became reasonably heated. Kelly touted the virtues of urologist John Lattimer's defense of the LN position -- in particular the SBT. I begged to differ. The following exchange (if not verbatim, then damn close) took place immediately after my spirited attack on Lattimer's methods and possible motives:

KELLY: "For God's sake, the man's a war hero. Use your head!"

DRAGO: "I'd be more impressed if he had been a conscientious objector."

KELLY: "What the hell does that have to do with the value of his work?"

DRAGO: "About as much as the fact that Lattimer was a war hero."

Subject changed. Not by me.

(Tape recordings of all this and of Stewart Galanor's destruction of Rahn and his SBT defense are said to exist. Any leads out there?)

Appreciate Kelly's gambit as a stunning example of the calibre of critical thinking of which Rahn approves and which earned Poindexter his "A" in Rahn's critical thinking class.

Think of Ken Rahn as what I have concluded he truly is: one of the bad guys.

[Albert Doyle]

Rahn and Kelly are proud Orwellian orchard tenders bountifully harvesting forbidden fruit from the trees of knowledge.

[Bernice Moore]

i will only show his feet showing the thickness now of the asphalt in the parking lot, we do not really to see any further up......and applause from an elf for his performance..