Kenneth A. Rahn obtained
a B.S. in Chemistry at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in
1962. He also has a
Ph.D. in Meteorology from the University of Michigan (1971). Rahn
is currently Professor
Emeritus of Oceanography Center for Atmospheric Chemistry Studies
at the University of Rhode Island.
Rahn is also interested
in the assassination of John
F. Kennedy
and is the author of the
The Academic JFK Assassination
Website. As Rahn points out: "takes its "academic"
name from the fact that it attempts to approach the assassination
in a way that is as scholarly, dignified, and rigorous as possible."
The website presents a
great deal of material on all sides of the JFK assassination. However,
according to Rahn: " This site shows that the proper investigative
techniques lead inevitably to the strong conclusions that JFK was
almost certainly killed by a lone gunman firing from the Texas School
Book Depository, that he was almost certainly acting alone, and that
he was almost certainly Lee Harvey Oswald."
The
Academic JFK Assassination Website
Forum Debate on the Kennedy Assassination
(1)
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.
(2)
Kenneth
A. Rahn,
Sylvia
Meagher (2003)
Meagher’s leftist
leanings can be seen in quotes from her. For example, the dedication
to her book reads: “This book is dedicated to the innocent victims
of a society which often inflicts indignity, imprisonment, and even
death on the obscure and helpless.” She wanted an “end to
the cold war and a beginning of genuine peace, for equality and mutual
respect among men, for the rule of law and an end to brute violence.”
A passage on page xxiii of her Foreword also shows her leanings: “On
the day of the assassination the national climate of arrogance and
passivity in the face of relentless violence - beatings, burnings,
bombings, and shootings - yielded in some quarters to a sudden hour
of humility and self-criticism. The painful moment passed quickly,
for the official thesis of the lone, random assassin destroyed the
impulse for national self-scrutiny and repentance. Thus, the climate
of cruelty and barbaric hatred was restored after what was scarcely
an interruption, and it was possible for Cuban émigrés
- virtually with impunity and without regard for the hundreds of people
who might be killed or injured - to fire a bazooka at the United Nations
Headquarters building to express displeasure at the presence there
of Che Guevara. Thus it was possible for American Nazi thugs to assault
peaceful citizens assembled at a public meeting in Dallas at Christmas
1965. This it is possible for Americans to look upon the napalmed
children of Vietnam and listen to their terror nightly over the television
tubes, and to go about their daily business as usual.”
From the minute the assassination
was announced, it seemed improbable to her, and she became “instantaneously
skeptical” of the official explanation. She was convinced that
the government’s story was false and that they (including the
Dallas authorities) would try to pin it on a Communist. This suspicion
was reinforced when Oswald’s name, background, and guilt was
announced. She felt that the Dallas authorities piled evidence on
Oswald too fast. In response, she started to read on the assassination
and save every article she could find on it. She attended several
of Mark Lane’s lectures in NYC but reserved judgment until the
Warren Report appeared. Feeling that she could not possibly understand
the Report as is, she created her own index, a work that took several
months and 152 pages. The results convinced her that the Warren Commission’s
detailed evidence contradicted its general conclusions. Three years
of study convinced her that she had been right.
Available from Amazon Books
(order below)
