Ken Rahn

[Peter McGuire]

Does anyone know about this. A certain Ken Rahn. I couldnt get anything on a search.

Here is a website on the matter. It deals with the physics of the head shot.

http://www.kenrahn.com/JFK/Scientific_topi..._head_shot.html

[John Simkin]

Does anyone know about this. A certain Ken Rahn. I couldnt get anything on a search.

Here is a website on the matter. It deals with the physics of the head shot.

http://www.kenrahn.com/JFK/Scientific_topi..._head_shot.html

See my page on Rahn here:

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKrahn.htm

Also see the thread on avatars:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=11199

[Charles Drago]

I know him -- all too well.

I co-produced and co-hosted a JFK Research Conference with Rahn in Providence, April 16-18, 1999.

Previously on this Forum I've described, in some detail, his ludicrous conference presentation in defense of the NAA test conclusions used by the WC to "prove" the LN position, and the manner in which, within a matter of minutes, they were deconstructed and thoroughly demolished by Steward Galanor.

In response, all Rahn could offer was a defensive and, as it turns out, disingenuous claim that his research as presented was merely a "work in progress."

To which Galanor responded, "Now just a minute, Dr. Rahn. At the beginning of your presentation, you stated that, in the wake of your definitive paper, the argument that more than three bullets were fired in Dealey Plaza would be finished forever. That doesn't sound like a 'work in progress' to me. May we see your research notes?"

(I'm paraphrasing -- closely. But don't take my word for any of this; audio recordings were made of the entire conference, so ask Rahn for copies. And check with Stewart.)

Rahn was reduced to a grade school ploy. "I left my notes in my other briefcase," he stammered. "I'll produce them for you in the next few days."

To which Galanor responded, "I seem to recall that you used the same excuse at a previous conference. And nothing was ever delivered."

There's more. Much more. But I'll step back until others check in. For now, I suggest that, among many questions begging to be asked, one or more of our correspondents get to possible motivations for Rahn's actions.

Charles Drago

[John Simkin]

I know him -- all too well.

I co-produced and co-hosted a JFK Research Conference with Rahn in Providence, April 16-18, 1999.

Previously on this Forum I've described, in some detail, his ludicrous conference presentation in defense of the NAA test conclusions used by the WC to "prove" the LN position, and the manner in which, within a matter of minutes, they were deconstructed and thoroughly demolished by Steward Galanor.

In response, all Rahn could offer was a defensive and, as it turns out, disingenuous claim that his research as presented was merely a "work in progress."

To which Galanor responded, "Now just a minute, Dr. Rahn. At the beginning of your presentation, you stated that, in the wake of your definitive paper, the argument that more than three bullets were fired in Dealey Plaza would be finished forever. That doesn't sound like a 'work in progress' to me. May we see your research notes?"

(I'm paraphrasing -- closely. But don't take my word for any of this; audio recordings were made of the entire conference, so ask Rahn for copies. And check with Stewart.)

Rahn was reduced to a grade school ploy. "I left my notes in my other briefcase," he stammered. "I'll produce them for you in the next few days."

To which Galanor responded, "I seem to recall that you used the same excuse at a previous conference. And nothing was ever delivered."

I have invited Dr. Rahn to particpate in our forum debates. He declined with the comment that he did not consider it "academic" enough. Maybe he meant it was too academic.

[Charles Drago]

Indeed, John.

One of the more distressing memories of a rather distressing weekend is that of the wizened lady who then served as chair of the University of Rhode Island's Political Science Department, which sponsored Rahn's JFK assassination and "critical" thinking course.

She evinced not the slightest level of discomfort as Rahn's -- how shall I put it -- inadequacies were revealed.

In another post I noted how Rahn's students were the first to rush to their captor's defense in a classic manifestation of the Helsinki Syndrome. For truly they were held hostage to his deeper, darker agendas.

Another story for your consideration: At the time I met Rahn, he was steadfastly maintaining his intellectual neutrality on the conspiracy issue. His course, he assured me, was most directly concerned with promoting critical thinking and the scientific method.

It wasn't long before he tipped his hand to the contrary. Over a conference-planning dinner, Rahn leaned over the table and in a tone and posture that can only be described as conspiratorial asked, "Can I convince you that Oswald acted alone, Charlie?"

I interpreted his question then as an offer of employment. Nothing has happened since to change my mind.

As for the sort of critical thinking he instills in his hostages/students, I offer the following: One of the undergraduate Rahnoids who presented at the conference argued that, since a national study of ER physicians indicated a low level of expertise in the diagnosis and treatment of gunshot wounds, the observations of the Parkland ER doctors who noted an entrance wound in JFK's throat and an exit would on the president's posterior skull should not be trusted.

The failure of critical thinking here could not be more obvious. The ONLY data base of physician expertise in gunshot wounds that would apply in this case is that of the doctors whose observations are under evaluation.

Rahn awarded an "A" to the little thinker for his powerfully reasoned argument.

And by the way, the taxpayers of Rhode Island paid for all of this excellence in education.

Charles

[John Bevilaqua]

Indeed, John.

One of the more distressing memories of a rather distressing weekend is that of the wizened lady who then served as chair of the University of Rhode Island's Political Science Department, which sponsored Rahn's JFK assassination and "critical" thinking course.

She evinced not the slightest level of discomfort as Rahn's -- how shall I put it -- inadequacies were revealed.

In another post I noted how Rahn's students were the first to rush to their captor's defense in a classic manifestation of the Helsinki Syndrome. For truly they were held hostage to his deeper, darker agendas.

Another story for your consideration: At the time I met Rahn, he was steadfastly maintaining his intellectual neutrality on the conspiracy issue. His course, he assured me, was most directly concerned with promoting critical thinking and the scientific method.

It wasn't long before he tipped his hand to the contrary. Over a conference-planning dinner, Rahn leaned over the table and in a tone and posture that can only be described as conspiratorial asked, "Can I convince you that Oswald acted alone, Charlie?"

I interpreted his question then as an offer of employment. Nothing has happened since to change my mind.

As for the sort of critical thinking he instills in his hostages/students, I offer the following: One of the undergraduate Rahnoids who presented at the conference argued that, since a national study of ER physicians indicated a low level of expertise in the diagnosis and treatment of gunshot wounds, the observations of the Parkland ER doctors who noted an entrance wound in JFK's throat and an exit would on the president's posterior skull should not be trusted.

The failure of critical thinking here could not be more obvious. The ONLY data base of physician expertise in gunshot wounds that would apply in this case is that of the doctors whose observations are under evaluation.

Rahn awarded an "A" to the little thinker for his powerfully reasoned argument.

And by the way, the taxpayers of Rhode Island paid for all of this excellence in education.

Charles

Charlie,

I also presented at that conference and witnessed firsthand the successful efforts at "mind control" exerted

upon his students by Ken Rahn. Only a single student on the first day attempted to present the "conspiracy"

arguments and he was universally poo-poohed and attacked by the rest of the members of the class. In order

to grub a good grade there was no option left but to concur with Herr Professor. No dissent was permitted.

I have nothing but utter contempt and disgust when the thought of Rahn the Con Man comes into my mind.

I even watched him coach and coerce the reporter from The Providence Journal at the Third Decade Conference

during several presentations, always attempting to exert spin control and to influence the outcome of the article

written by that reporter. He was successful in that effort, but the reporter also came into the conference predisposed

to the anti-conspiracy arguments. Rahn must have undergone some sort of training to be able to exert this type

of influence over ostensibly bright College students and apparently intelligent reporters for a major daily paper.

The publisher of that paper, The Providence Journal, later commissioned a series of expose articles about

a local Supreme Court Justice who had gaveled himself into the position on a controversial voice vote when he

was Speaker of the House of Representatives. Admittedly the voice vote did not go in his favor and he had a

reputation as an attorney for having unsavory clients who were allegedly members of the local Mafia. But the

Editor or the Publisher decided to have reporters follow this guy on his off hours to see who he did business with

and caught him taking his Secretary to a local Motel for an in-depth conference and then he published these

covert undercover photos. A few months later, when the new Rotogravure Press was scheduled for a grand

opening ceremony the Publisher was late for the ribbon cutting. Turns out someone had flattened his tires

that morning and stolen his copy of the first Sunday Edition printed on the new press so he hopped on his

bicycle to go to the local store to get a copy but he never reached the store. This was all described to me

by a Providence Detective who talked to the EMT respondents who were called to the scene when he suffered

a bicycle accident and a fractured skull and died on the spot with a very suspicious injury which could not have

been caused by any object found at the scene. The Detective told me that the EMT crew thought that someone

had hit him with a pipe or a bat while he road his bicycle to the store and left him by the side of the road. This

is the type of politics of revenge and hate found in RI and the type of politics exhibited all over the country.

JFK was basically killed by the same type of people.

To quote Rev Gerald L K Smith on the Kennedys:

"The Kennedy brothers are nothing but whisky-swigging, whore-mongering fake Catholics who want to take

away the Country from the White Christian Patriots like you and me and give it over to the Niggers, the Kikes

and the Spics on a Silver Platter. And we are not going to sit by idly and let him do it, are we?"

And Reverend Smith had been identified as the person who arranged for the murder of Senator Huey Long

way back in the 1930's when he found out that Long was going to dump Smith from his Share the Wealth

programs. The Assassination of Huey Long fit the SAME paradigm as the murders of JFK and Benito Aquino.

Snuff the leader. then snuff/catch the patsy before he can utter a word of protest. Pat Robertson's father was

the OTHER Senator from Louisiana when this all happened: Willis Robertson I believe it was, so he knew

how to put together a solid plot. Pat Robertson was also a former President of the Council For National

Policy along with Nelson Bunker Hunt, Edward Meese, III, Timothy LaHaye and Thomas F. Ellis.

[David G. Healy]

I know him -- all too well.

I co-produced and co-hosted a JFK Research Conference with Rahn in Providence, April 16-18, 1999.

Previously on this Forum I've described, in some detail, his ludicrous conference presentation in defense of the NAA test conclusions used by the WC to "prove" the LN position, and the manner in which, within a matter of minutes, they were deconstructed and thoroughly demolished by Steward Galanor.

In response, all Rahn could offer was a defensive and, as it turns out, disingenuous claim that his research as presented was merely a "work in progress."

To which Galanor responded, "Now just a minute, Dr. Rahn. At the beginning of your presentation, you stated that, in the wake of your definitive paper, the argument that more than three bullets were fired in Dealey Plaza would be finished forever. That doesn't sound like a 'work in progress' to me. May we see your research notes?"

(I'm paraphrasing -- closely. But don't take my word for any of this; audio recordings were made of the entire conference, so ask Rahn for copies. And check with Stewart.)

Rahn was reduced to a grade school ploy. "I left my notes in my other briefcase," he stammered. "I'll produce them for you in the next few days."

To which Galanor responded, "I seem to recall that you used the same excuse at a previous conference. And nothing was ever delivered."

I have invited Dr. Rahn to particpate in our forum debates. He declined with the comment that he did not consider it "academic" enough. Maybe he meant it was too academic.

by that rule of thumb one wonders why he (Rahn) posts to alt.conspiracy.jfk

[Pat Speer]

Come on, Dave, you know the code. To men like McAdams, Rahn, and Holland "Academic" = pre-disposed to trust the WC and HSCA, "non-Academic" means open-minded. If some of the good ole boys from alt.assassination.jfk joined this forum, I suspect Rahn would suddenly find it "Academic".

Outside of DVP, there are few single-assassin theorists who will go into a lion's den such as this forum. It's too risky. While I suspect they'd score a few points here and there, they can't discuss the single-bullet theory, for example, without coming across like religious fanatics, and they know it.

P.S. I'm assuming that Rahn's posts at alt.conspiracy.JFK are posts to alt.assassination.JFK that have been moved over. If he actually posts to alt.conspiracy.JFK he certainly has no reason to avoid this forum.

Edited October 14, 2007 by Pat Speer

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Come on, Dave, you know the code. To men like McAdams, Rahn, and Holland "Academic" = pre-disposed to trust the WC and HSCA, "non-Academic" means open-minded. If some of the good ole boys from ajk joined this forum, I suspect Rahn would suddenly find it "Academic".

Outside of DVP, there are few single-assassin theorists who will go into a lion's den such as this forum. It's too risky. While I suspect they'd score a few points here and there, they can't discuss the single-bullet theory, for example, without coming across like religious fanatics, and they know it.

Outside of DVP, there are few single-assassin theorists who will go into a lion's den such as this forum.

Lions Den!

I was under the impression that it was more like a "squirrel cage" in which most of the squirrels were either blind and/or toothless!

[John Bevilaqua]

I know him -- all too well.

I co-produced and co-hosted a JFK Research Conference with Rahn in Providence, April 16-18, 1999.

Previously on this Forum I've described, in some detail, his ludicrous conference presentation in defense of the NAA test conclusions used by the WC to "prove" the LN position, and the manner in which, within a matter of minutes, they were deconstructed and thoroughly demolished by Steward Galanor.

In response, all Rahn could offer was a defensive and, as it turns out, disingenuous claim that his research as presented was merely a "work in progress."

To which Galanor responded, "Now just a minute, Dr. Rahn. At the beginning of your presentation, you stated that, in the wake of your definitive paper, the argument that more than three bullets were fired in Dealey Plaza would be finished forever. That doesn't sound like a 'work in progress' to me. May we see your research notes?"

(I'm paraphrasing -- closely. But don't take my word for any of this; audio recordings were made of the entire conference, so ask Rahn for copies. And check with Stewart.)

Rahn was reduced to a grade school ploy. "I left my notes in my other briefcase," he stammered. "I'll produce them for you in the next few days."

To which Galanor responded, "I seem to recall that you used the same excuse at a previous conference. And nothing was ever delivered."

I have invited Dr. Rahn to particpate in our forum debates. He declined with the comment that he did not consider it "academic" enough. Maybe he meant it was too academic.

by that rule of thumb one wonders why he (Rahn) posts to alt.conspiracy.jfk

True, but he mostly trolls that site to "defend" himself from any attacks on his spurious theories. He hates it when

I expose the ludicrousness of his "jet-effect" backwards head-snap thesis by comparing it to someone attempting to levitate

from a chair using only self produced "jet-propulsion" on a Sphincter Scale of 8.5 or higher. He declines to execute

the experiment. Needless to say he relishes in trying to debunk every "conspiracy theory" in existence and that keeps

him very busy to say the least. I also witnessed the lock-step arguments of his little minions as they grubbed for a grade

in his class. Just "follow orders" and you will get a good grade. If you don't "get it" you will get a C or a D. No dissent allowed.

[Charles Drago]

I was under the impression that it was more like a "squirrel cage" in which most of the squirrels were either blind and/or toothless!

Don't be so hard on yourself.

Under many social circumstances, hallucinating senior citizens can be quite amusing.

[Peter McGuire]

I was under the impression that it was more like a "squirrel cage" in which most of the squirrels were either blind and/or toothless!

Don't be so hard on yourself.

Under many social circumstances, hallucinating senior citizens can be quite amusing.

I miss you , Charles!

[Bernice Moore]

:lol:THE JFK ASSASSINATION DEBATE BETWEEN KEN RAHN AND CHRIS DOLMAR,,,YOU WILL ENJOY THIS I DO BELIEVE ...b

http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v3n2/v3n2dolmar.pdf

below ken with his favourite book....

Edited September 18, 2010 by Bernice Moore

[Bernice Moore]

20 questions for the Warren Report 1964 by curtis crawford.http://karws.gso.uri.edu/jfk/history/wc_period/reactions_to_warren_report/Support_from_center/Crawford--20_Questions.html