ASSASSINATION EDUCATION / Debating Ken Rahn
 
ASSASSINATION RESEARCH / Vol. 3 No. 2 © Copyright 2005 Chris Dolmar
 
 
 
 
Debating Assassination Educator Ken Rahn
 
 
 
 
 
 
Chris Dolmar
 
 
 
[Editor’s note: There are some members of the assassination research
 
 
 
 
community who choose to educate those too young to have lived through
 
the events of 22 November 1963 and its aftermath. These educators carry
 
a great responsibility to present the events in as objective a fashion as is
 
possible; this is particularly important when the material is being presented
 
in a college unit for which students need to obtain credit. Professor
 
Ken Rahn offered such a course at the University of Rhode Island. In 2001
 
Chris Dolmar came across Rahn’s website describing his college course,
 
and believed that it misrepresented the facts of the JFK assassination.
 
Dolmar’s email exchange with Rahn, reproduced below in the form posted
 
by Dolmar in 2001, is highly enlightening. One must only wonder: would
 
Rahn’s college students have received the same treatment if they dared to
 
ask questions during his course? (Note: acronyms used in the original email
 
correspondence, commonly used by assassination researchers but
 
 
 
possibly confusing to the general reader, have been expanded out in full.)]
 
 
 
Hi everybody,
 
I’ve been busy this summer [2001], but have still had time to participate in
 
various arenas of the JFK case, and thought I would share my correspondences
 
with a Dr. Ken Rahn, a professor teaching a course on the JFK Assassination at
 
the University of Rhode Island. He teaches this course as part of a “critical
 
thinking” model in which his students are funneled toward a “Lee-Harvey-
 
Oswald-could-have-easily-done-it-alone” conclusion. He has a website supporting
 
his course at karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/JFK.html. Instead of an in-depth review,
 
it appeared to me that Dr. Rahn and his alleged critical thinking review
 
was as biased as anyone’s, based on what was shown in the “further thoughts”
 
section of his course outline:
 
1. There is overwhelming physical evidence that Lee Harvey Oswald killed
 
JFK.
 
2. There is an overwhelming absence of evidence that anyone else was involved.
 
3. No other credible suspects, general or named, have emerged after 37
 
years [in 2001] of intensive investigation.
 
4. Thus, the exceedingly strong working hypothesis must be that Lee Harvey
 
Oswald did it alone.
 
5. The logical and procedural errors of the critics and conspiracists are so
 
clear and obvious that further discussion of conspiracy is no longer justified
 
without solid new evidence.
 
6. Given that no conspiracy has emerged in 37 years, there is no reason to
 
expect the present situation to change (although it could at any time).
 
 
 
 
Chris Dolmar 2 Debating Ken Rahn
 
 
 
ASSASSINATION RESEARCH / Vol. 3 No. 2 © Copyright 2005 Chris Dolmar
 
 
 
7. Therefore, the era of national soul-searching and angst that followed the
 
JFK assassination, and the accompanying distrust in the government
 
that it fostered, were unnecessary and hurtful.
 
8. The spotlight should have been turned inward on the critics, rather than
 
outward on the government. Recognizing these things, we are now ready
 
to write the simple, clear, and true history of the assassination.
 
Obviously, when the “teacher” puts statements like that into a course outline,
 
the direction of that course has already been pre-determined. As such, the students
 
in the class already know what is necessary—though not necessarily correct—
 
to obtain a good grade. Challenging a tenured professor’s stated opinion
 
would hardly help achieve a good mark, and most students understand that.
 
Others attempting to debate aspects of the assassination might also feel intimidated,
 
confronted by the prestige of his professional standing.
 
I believe we should hold our educators to higher standards in their methodology.
 
They influence many potential leaders and are looked up to by the masses
 
of the populace. As such, they must be totally objective, something apparently
 
lost in this case. Anything less than complete integrity risks creating and perpetuating
 
a false history. And so I decided to engage our esteemed Dr. Rahn in
 
an evidence debate to see just how strongly he could hold up to a lowly Alaskan
 
wilderness guide, in support of his university course objectives.
 
Following is our email debate. My initial email, 6 June 2001, 9:25 pm:
 
 
 
 
Hi Mr. Rahn,
 
My name is Chris Dolmar and I’m writing to you from the far south coast of
 
Alaska. After studying the JFK event since about the age of 15, when I saw a
 
bootlegged copy of the Zapruder film shown on an early Geraldo Rivera TV show,
 
I have personally come to the conclusion that the evidence surrounding CE-139
 
[(Warren) Commission Exhibit 139, a rifle allegedly found in the Texas School
 
 
Book Depository] indicates that nobody, much less Lee Harvey Oswald, could
 
 
 
have performed the shooting skills required to accomplish the assassination as
 
presented by the Warren Commission to the American people.
 
 
 
 
 
What the evidence and testimony actually showed
 
 
 
 
 
 
The two Sheriff’s Deputies who found a rifle on the sixth floor of the Texas
 
School Book Depository, and a highly decorated deputy who saw it before it was
 
 
taken from the floor, all identified it as a “7.65 mm Mauser”. Subsequent documents
 
 
 
and affidavits filed by these deputies continued to identify it in that same
 
manner (Commission Exhibit Decker 5323). CIA documents still identified it as a
 
“Mauser”, four days later. One of the officers, decorated Deputy Sheriff, Roger
 
Craig, continued to insist that this identification was correct, even after his testimony
 
before the Warren Commission. He maintained that the gun he saw had
 
the word “MAUSER” stamped on the barrel. Craig also told researchers that his
 
Warren Commission testimony had been altered in fourteen different places by
 
Warren Commission counsel David Belin, so that it appears to be “bland” in the
 
26 volumes [of Warren Commission Hearings and Exhibits].
 
Chris Dolmar 3 Debating Ken Rahn
 
 
ASSASSINATION RESEARCH / Vol. 3 No. 2 © Copyright 2005 Chris Dolmar
 
 
 
Another of the deputies in question, Constable Seymour Weitzman, had also
 
sold rifles while working for many years in a sporting goods store, and therefore
 
had a vast amount of experience in both handling and identifying them. Police
 
officers are trained to properly observe and notate evidence. In fact, their observations
 
are more readily accepted in a court of law than those of most other witnesses.
 
The Warren Commission Report attempts to slide past this “problem”
 
with the weapon by saying that the deputies only had a “glance” at the weapon.
 
The tape recording of a news broadcast of 22 November 1963 on Dallas radio
 
station K-BOX said (CE-304):
 
 
 
 
Sheriff’s Deputies identify the rifle as a seven point sixty-five Mauser, a Germanmade
 
Army rifle with a telescopic sight. It had one shell in the chamber. Three
 
spent shells were found nearby.
 
 
Additionally, in his book On the Trail of the Assassins, Jim Garrison claims to
 
 
 
have viewed a Dallas TV newsreel from that day, which he stated shows a police
 
officer bringing another rifle down the fire escape from the roof. Five separate
 
documents with descriptions of the rifle originally found on the sixth floor of the
 
Texas School Book Depository were missing from the FBI files on the President’s
 
assassination when presented to the Warren Commission. Those documents
 
were:
 
1. Dallas Police Department Lt. Carl Day’s dictated memorandum on the
 
weapon;
 
2. Day’s description to the FBI’s Special Agent Bardwell Odum;
 
3. Odum’s subsequent description, which was broadcast over FBI radio;
 
4. Constable Weitzman’s original report to the FBI; and
 
5. Dallas Police Department Detective C. N. Dhority’s written report.
 
The legal “chain of possession” of CE-139 was never properly established. The
 
officers who found a gun should have either marked it for identification purposes
 
immediately, or watched as the detective who removed it did so. Neither
 
identification procedure took place at the scene. It appears that this was finally
 
done some six hours later, at Dallas Police Department Headquarters, after the
 
found weapon had passed through countless other hands, and had allegedly lain
 
in the evidence room for several hours.
 
What chain of possession that existed after that was again broken when the rifle
 
was taken to FBI Headquarters in Washington, DC, by FBI Special Agent Vincent
 
Drain on the night of 22 November 1963, unaccompanied by any officer of
 
the Dallas Police Department. In 1963, even though threatening the President
 
was a federal crime, the assassination of a President was not. It was merely considered
 
an all-too-common, local murder. This meant that the FBI had no jurisdiction
 
whatsoever in the case. If the weapon needed to be sent to an FBI lab for
 
analysis, it needed to be accompanied by a Dallas officer to maintain the legal
 
“chain of possession”. The reasons behind this continuous improper handling of
 
such vital evidence, in such a high profile case, by highly trained local and federal
 
officers, are very suspicious. This type of handling would have been questionable
 
enough for the weapon to have been excluded from the evidence in any
 
trial of Lee Harvey Oswald. Therefore, how fortunate for them that there was no
 
trial.
 
Chris Dolmar 4 Debating Ken Rahn
 
 
ASSASSINATION RESEARCH / Vol. 3 No. 2 © Copyright 2005 Chris Dolmar
 
 
 
Despite all the controversy over the initial “misidentification” of the rifle, at no
 
time did the Warren Commission show CE-139 to any of the Dallas law enforcement
 
officers who found it, nor ask them, point blank, if CE-139 was indeed
 
the weapon that they had found. What they showed them were photographs,
 
not the weapon itself. Not one of those Dallas witnesses could positively
 
state that the weapon in the photos was the weapon that they had found. Even
 
today, you and I can only see photographs of this infamous weapon at the National
 
Archives. We cannot see, nor measure, the weapon itself.
 
The paper bag found on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository
 
showed no signs of any gunpowder residue, nor any gun oil, and contained no
 
verifiable fingerprints (a partial palm print that had some characteristics similar
 
to Oswald’s palm print was found; however, there were too few similarities for a
 
legal match), according to the examination the FBI conducted of it. The package’s
 
size was also too small to have contained CE-139, unless the rifle had been
 
broken down (CE-1304). Next, when broken down, the weapon contained a
 
number of sharp-edged parts which, logically, should have made some scratches
 
or tears in the paper, had it been in there. Not only were there no scratches or
 
tears, there wasn’t a single crease which the FBI could match to any part of CE-
 
139. Basically, we find that there was no physical evidence that any gun had
 
ever been inside the bag found on the sixth floor and alleged by the Warren
 
Commission to have carried CE-139 from Irving, Texas to the Texas School Book
 
Depository that day. If the rifle had been broken down for transport, its accuracy
 
would have been compromised even further, by not having the ability to be
 
sighted-in after re-assembly.
 
Military experts stated that a minimum of ten shots would have been required,
 
adjusting the scope after each, to re-sight any rifle for accurate shooting. Both
 
Buell Frazier and Linnie Randle, the only people to have seen it, testified that
 
the package Lee Harvey Oswald had in Frazier’s car was no more than 26 inches
 
in length, yet the longest part of CE-139, even when broken down, was
 
34.8 inches (CE-1303). Frazier further testified that when Oswald laid the package
 
in the back seat of the car, it took up less than half of the length of the seat.
 
The back seat’s total length was 62 inches. Frazier also testified that when they
 
arrived at work, Oswald took the package out of the back seat and, holding one
 
end in the palm of his hand, tucked the other end under his arm. For the package
 
Frazier saw to have contained CE-139, even broken down, would have required
 
Oswald to have an arm length of over 36 inches. Rather amazing for a
 
man of 5'9" (2 WCH [Volume 2, Warren Commission Hearings] 210–245).
 
We see, therefore, that there was also absolutely no testimony with which to corroborate
 
the Warren Commission Report conclusion about how Oswald allegedly
 
got the rifle into the Depository, either. How and why, then, was this conclusion
 
drawn? While the Warren Commission Report used, as evidence, an FBI document
 
(Dallas 89-43), which states that the FBI laboratory found that the materials
 
used to construct the paper bag, entered into evidence, to be consistent with
 
materials found at the Texas School Book Depository, and could have also been
 
 
constructed from them, researcher Livingstone in his book High Treason shows
 
 
 
another copy of that same document which says that the materials were not
 
similar. While there is no way to categorically determine which is the correct
 
copy, there would appear to be no logical reason for the FBI to have revised the
 
report to deny the similarities, then enter the incorrect one into evidence. However,
 
if my belief that they altered evidence is correct, then changing the report
 
from “not similar” to “similar” fits in quite nicely with that scenario.
 
Chris Dolmar 5 Debating Ken Rahn
 
 
ASSASSINATION RESEARCH / Vol. 3 No. 2 © Copyright 2005 Chris Dolmar
 
 
 
FBI tests of CE-139’s accuracy showed that the rifle was:
 
1. inaccurate from 15 yards (CE-549);
 
2. carrying a scope that was mounted for a left-handed shooter (CE-2560)
 
(Lee Harvey Oswald was right-handed); and was
 
3. unable to be sighted in, using the scope, without the installation of two
 
metal shims, which were not present when the rifle arrived for testing,
 
nor notated in any previous description of CE-139 (3 WCH 440–5).
 
Nothing resembling a shim was found at the Texas School Book Depository,
 
Oswald’s room in Oak Cliff, or on his person when arrested. During efforts, supervised
 
by the FBI, to duplicate the shooting accuracy allegedly achieved, no
 
FBI, military, civilian, or National Rifle Association expert was ever able to match
 
the concluded performance, while using CE-139 in the condition it was found,
 
nor within the time frame established, let alone under conditions similar to
 
those faced by a shooter crouched in the sixth floor window of the Texas School
 
Book Depository on 22 November 1963. These re-creations took place on 27 November
 
1963, 16 March 1964, and 27 March 1964. None of these attempts were
 
made under circumstances that came remotely close to the difficulties and pressures
 
that would have been encountered by a gunman in that sixth floor window,
 
and yet they still all failed to duplicate the feats attributed to Oswald. Later
 
efforts, sponsored by the House Select Committee on Assassinations Firearms
 
Panel, were successful in hitting three stationary targets within the time frames.
 
However, they used a different rifle, albeit a similar Mannlicher-Carcano, and
 
fired using open-sights, instead of the scope, and, again, from a different position,
 
angle, and under different circumstances than would have been encountered
 
by Lee Harvey Oswald, or anyone else, crouched in the sixth floor window
 
of the Texas School Book Depository (3 WCH 390–430).
 
In addition, the House Select Committee on Assassinations testimony of Firearms
 
Panel member Monty Lutz shows his opinion of the scope (HSCA 1 449):
 
 
 
 
Mr. LUTZ: This is a four-power Ordinance Optics telescopic sight with a crosshair
 
reticle.
 
Mr. MCDONALD: Would you, in your opinion, classify it as an accurate scope?
 
Mr. LUTZ: The accuracy is fairly undependable, as far as once getting the rifle
 
sighted in, and it is very cheaply made, the scope itself has a crosshair reticle
 
that is subject to movement, or being capable of being dislodged from dropping,
 
from impact, or a very sharp recoil. So, the accuracy would be somewhat questionable
 
for this particular type of a scope.
 
 
 
 
Why the House Select Committee on Assassinations experts did not use the real
 
exhibit is another valid question that has never been answered. Perhaps it was
 
because the original examination by the FBI in 1963–1964 showed that CE-139
 
was inaccurate at fifteen yards—or someone involved knew that the shooting
 
could not be duplicated using that weapon.
 
Former House Select Committee on Assassinations Firearms Panel member
 
Lutz, an expert rifleman himself, later confirmed these failures. He stated, in a
 
1986 mock Oswald trial sponsored by the BBC, that, to his knowledge, no one
 
had ever duplicated Lee Harvey Oswald’s alleged shooting feats using CE-139 in
 
the condition it was found. Also, in this regard, Craig Roberts, a Marine Corps
 
sniper with combat experience in Vietnam, professional law enforcement officer,
 
Chris Dolmar 6 Debating Ken Rahn
 
 
ASSASSINATION RESEARCH / Vol. 3 No. 2 © Copyright 2005 Chris Dolmar
 
and world-class rifleman, states in his book Kill Zone that even using his precise
 
 
 
equipment loaded with matched rounds, he could not have equaled the shooting
 
process assumed by the Warren Commission to have taken place. It is very hard
 
to disregard such statements by an expert who has actually looked out on Elm
 
Street from the “sniper’s window”.
 
Mr. Roberts is not the only expert to feel this way. In fact, efforts to duplicate the
 
shooting expertise were attempted by agencies within the governments of Cuba,
 
Israel, and the USSR. All reached the same conclusion: The shooting, as outlined
 
by the Warren Commission, was virtually impossible!
 
The time frames required were established by the FBI after the review and calculation
 
of time between shots shown on the Zapruder film, also taking into consideration
 
the time required to operate CE-139, and the view from the sixth
 
floor 
 

Edited by Bernice Moore, 06 May 2014 - 12:30 PM. 
Quote misattributed to JFK

Part 2...Chris Dolmar debates Ken Rahn

The House Select Committee on Assassinations findings concluded that

only if Oswald had fired using open sights could he have fired three shots accurately

within the Warren Commission Report time frames. No possible scenario

that included any additional gunmen was ever considered, meaning all shots

must have come from that rifle and during the designated time frames.

Dallas Police Department searches of Oswald’s room in Oak Cliff, and his family’s

residence in Irving, failed to unearth any additional ammunition, or any

cleaning supplies normally associated with the operation of a rifle. In fact, additional

checks by agents of the Treasury Department’s Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,

and Firearms failed to find any evidence that either Lee Harvey Oswald or

Alec Hidell [his alleged alias] had ever purchased any ammunition for the rifle,

either. Yet an FBI memorandum described the rifle, when presented to them, as

being in “… a well-oiled condition …”.

Additional ammunition would have been needed to practice, and that same FBI

memorandum, signed by Director J. Edgar Hoover himself, noted that an examination

of the firing pin showed that “numerous” shots had been fired

through CE-139 (CE-2974). Also, the three experts who first test-fired the rifle

showed concern that the firing pin might break because it was rusted (3 WCH

444).

Ammunition isn’t purchased one bullet at a time. The minimum would be a box

of twenty. It would be inconsistent with the way Lee Harvey Oswald allegedly

purchased the weapon for him to hide the purchase of the ammunition. And

rusted firing pins are not what one would consider suitable for a rifle being used

in such a high-profile political assassination … what if it broke on the first shot?

FBI searches of every gun range in the greater Dallas–Fort Worth area failed to

come up with even a single shell casing that could be matched to CE-139. In all,

literally millions of used casings were reviewed, and 13,000 possible Mannlicher-

Carcano casings were recovered and compared. None ballistically matched CE-

139. This lack of physical evidence came despite the testimony of several witnesses

who told stories of a man, allegedly Lee Harvey Oswald, practicing at

various ranges with a high-powered rifle, and being very visible in doing so—in

some cases going out of his way to draw attention to himself. The fact is that the

FBI could find absolutely no physical evidence which showed that Lee Harvey

Oswald had ever purchased ammunition, or practiced firing CE-139. Yet again,

in spite of this lack of evidence, not only did the Warren Commission Report

conclude that he had, but they also concluded that he became so good at shooting

that he could make shots that documented experts could not.

Chris Dolmar 7 Debating Ken Rahn

ASSASSINATION RESEARCH / Vol. 3 No. 2 © Copyright 2005 Chris Dolmar

The length of CE-139 and the length of the rifle depicted in the advertisement allegedly

used to order it, from the February 1963 issue of American Rifleman

magazine, are significantly different. The weapon depicted in that advertisement,

a Mannlicher-Carcano 6.5 mm Italian Carbine, model #C20-T750, is 36 inches

long, assembled. This is the weapon reportedly shipped on 20 March 1963 to:

A. Hidell

P.O. Box 2915

Dallas, Texas

The length of CE-139 is 40.2 inches assembled, and it is model #C20-750. Representatives

of Klein’s Sporting Goods were unable to adequately explain these

differences (CE-773). Also, the FBI records of the length of the rifle they tested

show three different figures, none of which was 36 inches. (Note: the author

owns a Mannlicher-Carcano of the same model as CE-139. Its length is

40.2 inches.) Klein’s was also able to state how it was paid for (postal money order),

when it was deposited, and they were able to produce both the envelope it

was received in, and the stamp used to mail the order to them!

While the serial number of CE-139—C2766—was the same as that of the

weapon shipped by Klein’s to A. Hidell, the FBI discovered that, due to the

manufacturing techniques used by Italy during World War II, this serial number

was not necessarily unique to only one such weapon. In fact, it is possible that

as many as five different rifles could have had the serial number C2766. The FBI

eventually traced another Carcano, serial number C2766, to Canada. In addition,

Scottish researcher and friend, Bill MacDowall, has done significant research

in this area and has traced the rifle mailed by Klein’s to A. Hidell all the

way back to its manufacturer. He has found evidence that all identifying markings

were supposedly removed prior to Klein’s purchase of the weapon. Bill has

written an extensive paper on this weapon. [Editor’s note: Researcher Jack White

has further shown that the serial number C2766 shown in two different photographs

of CE-139 are demonstrably different, despite being superficially similar.

See p. 98 of The Great Zapruder Film Hoax.]

While evidence showed that the rifle from Klein’s was shipped to the post office

box of Lee Harvey Oswald, no one knows for sure who actually took possession

of it on its arrival. For Oswald to have received it, the Dallas Post Office would

have needed to violate Postal Regulations since it was addressed to “Hidell”, and

it was Oswald’s P.O. box. Amazingly, the FBI was able to track this weapon to

the retailer (Klein’s) even before Special Agent Vince Drain actually took possession

of it at 11:30 pm that first night. This is truly amazing since, as late as

9:00 pm on the night of 22 November, Dallas District Attorney Henry Wade was

still calling it a “Mauser”, and, other than the serial number, there was nothing

to go on to search for its owner.

That serial number was only worthwhile if the FBI knew the manufacturer, and

in this case even that would not have been enough, since more than one

Mannlicher-Carcano had that serial number. Yet by 11:00 pm government

agents were already at Klein’s to look up the purchase and shipping orders, despite

the fact that the retailer would have been next-to-last on the possession

time-line.

Few of the eyewitnesses who testified that they saw a gun firing from the sixth

floor window of the Texas School Book Depository described anything similar to

CE-139. Several felt that the weapon was an automatic rifle because of the

speed of the firing, and those few witnesses who testified as to seeing a scope

Chris Dolmar 8 Debating Ken Rahn

ASSASSINATION RESEARCH / Vol. 3 No. 2 © Copyright 2005 Chris Dolmar

mounted on the rifle they saw did not see the rifle actually being fired. There is

no notation, anywhere within the twenty-six volumes of evidence, that either the

Dallas Police Department or the FBI ever tested CE-139 to see if it had been

fired recently—they simply assumed that it had been fired that day. This, despite

the fact that no one testified to smelling gunpowder in or around the

“sniper’s nest”, and with no notations that forensic examinations of the boxes

showed any traces of gunpowder residue.

Documents concerning what was recovered from the sixth floor all state that one

live round was in the chamber when the rifle was found. One live round was also

turned over to the FBI. The problems with this are generally overlooked. They

are:

1. None of the witnesses who testified as to seeing the shots fired spoke of

seeing the shooter eject a round after the fatal head shot, meaning a

spent cartridge, not a live round, should have been in the chamber.

2. If the shooter did eject the fired round, why would he do it after moving

away from the window?

3. And if he did so, why were all three casings allegedly recovered together?

If it was Lee Harvey Oswald who did this, we must factor in the additional delay

that ejecting the final spent round, for reasons unknown, would have on his

ability to wipe the gun clean of prints, hide it, and still be on the first floor no

more than ninety seconds after firing the fatal shot.

Do you have any opinions, input, feedback, or any other comments relating to

these issues concerning CE-139 as I have expressed them?

Thanks for your time.

Sincerely,

Chris Dolmar

Rahn’s response, 11 June 2001, 11:03 am:

Dear Chris,

Thanks for your note. I just returned from two weeks of traveling and found it

last night. I do indeed have much to say about your views, but I don’t know

when I will get time enough.

Basically, you are emphasizing the apparent negatives and avoiding all the positive

physical evidence that shows that the assassination was an easily do-able

feat. I urge you to take more time on the sites maintained by John McAdams

and me. More later, but I don’t know quite when.

Best regards,

Ken Rahn

Kenneth A. Rahn

Center for Atmospheric Chemistry Studies

Graduate School of Oceanography

University of Rhode Island

Narragansett, RI 02882-1197, USA

Chris Dolmar 9 Debating Ken Rahn

ASSASSINATION RESEARCH / Vol. 3 No. 2 © Copyright 2005 Chris Dolmar

My second email to Rahn, 28 June 2001, 2:14 am:

Hello Mr. Rahn,

No doubt you are a busy man as I am, but I thought I would maintain our correspondence

regarding CE-139.

I think, as was outlined in my initial email to you, that the ability of the weapon

itself, is in serious question as to whether it (CE-139) could have been remotely

mechanically capable of accomplishing the accuracy attributed to it by the Single

Bullet Theory and the Warren Commission, the shooting skills of the alleged

assassin notwithstanding.

The only way the assassination “could have been an easily do-able feat”, as you

stated to me previously, is if Lee Harvey Oswald had acted like the lone gunman

that the Warren Commission portrays him as, and taken the best percentage

shot he had—which was a straight away, dead-on, head shot at Kennedy as the

limousine was traveling down Houston Street—almost straight at him—before it

took the dog-leg left turn onto Elm Street.

But Lee Harvey Oswald was, allegedly, using a rifle (CE-139) which the FBI determined

was:

1. inaccurate at 15 yards;

2. had a scope mounted for a left-handed shooter (Lee Harvey Oswald was a

right-handed shooter); and

3. was missing two metal shims that further compromised its accuracy;

and that Lee Harvey Oswald, the lone gunman, still passed up “The Perfect Shot”

on Houston Street, for a tree-filtered, going-away, much lower-percentage shot

on Elm Street.

Why did Lee Harvey Oswald pass on the easy Houston Street shot? And let’s not

debate the difficulty of the Houston and Elm Street shots:

1. The Houston Street shot would have been, by far, the easiest shot for

any shooter in the, alleged, “sniper’s nest” of the Texas School Book Depository;

2. especially a “lone nut assassin”, who (in his mind) would have known

that only he would have one chance to kill the President.

Knowing these odds, as a lone assassin, in your opinion, Mr. Rahn, why didn’t

Lee Harvey Oswald take the high percentage, easy shot on Houston Street?

Sincerely,

Chris Dolmar

Rahn’s response, 28 June 2001, 5:28 am:

Chris,

I cannot pretend to get inside Oswald’s head. I can only say that the shot on

Houston Street has a couple of obvious disadvantages:

• The Secret Service agents would be looking right at him.

Chris Dolmar 10 Debating Ken Rahn

ASSASSINATION RESEARCH / Vol. 3 No. 2 © Copyright 2005 Chris Dolmar

• And, Gov. Connally would have blocked much of Kennedy’s body.

I think I also heard something about the metallic “rollbar” blocking something as

well, but I can’t really remember.

I believe you are overstating the inaccuracy of the rifle. But, your arguments are

made moot by the fact that each of the two bullets recovered was traceable ballistically

to that rifle, to the exclusion of all others. We also know that the bullets

were not planted, because fragments from JFK’s brain and Connally’s wrist

matched the larger fragments chemically.

In general, I think that it is an error to start asking “Why?” too soon. First, we

settle what happened, and only then do we worry about why.

Ken Rahn

My follow-up email to Rahn, 25 August 2001, 2:53 pm:

Hello Mr. Rahn,

It’s been a couple of months since we corresponded. This is the biggest push of

the year, business-wise, for me, and thus my infrequent exchanges.

I thought I would continue our correspondence regarding some of the issues you

last mentioned.

You said:

But your arguments are made moot by the fact that each of the two bullets recovered

was traceable ballistically to that rifle to the exclusion of all others.

From what I can ascertain, allegedly, no human matter of any kind was found

on CE-399 [a bullet] despite the necessary assumption that it had caused numerous

wounds, nor was it recovered from either victim’s body. It, therefore,

could not be scientifically linked to either Kennedy or Connally. In fact, in what

appears to be an effort to hide this, the Warren Commission leads FBI Special

Agent Robert Frazier through contradictory testimony about CE-399 (3 WCH

228–244). He finally states, however, that, even under microscopic examination,

no blood nor human tissue were found.

No striation marks (tiny scratches) were found by the FBI on the bulbous, undamaged

nose of CE-399, despite allegedly going through JFK’s jacket, shirt,

possibly nicking his tie, John Connally’s jacket, shirt, shirt, jacket, jacket, shirt,

shirt, jacket, and pants. Striation marks, around the nose, are common even

when bullets are fired only into cotton for ballistic comparison purposes. Because

of this, CE-399 cannot scientifically be determined to have gone through

either man’s clothes, much less both.

No traces of copper were found on JFK’s tie. This is very inconsistent with the

copper traces found in the other clothes and/or wounds of both men. CE-399 is

copper-jacketed. If traces of copper were found on JFK’s suit (entrance), and in

John Connally’s wounds (entrance and exit), logic would dictate that there

should be traces on the tie (JFK exit), if they were caused by the same bullet or

even the same type of bullet

 

Part 3; Chris Dolmar debates Ken Rahn;

Chris Dolmar 11 Debating Ken Rahn

ASSASSINATION RESEARCH / Vol. 3 No. 2 © Copyright 2005 Chris Dolmar

In addition, the testimony of every one of the autopsy doctors and the physician

who treated Connally at Parkland stated that none of them could believe that

CE-399 could have caused all the wounds because of its “pristine” condition and

because too much metal was removed or remained in the victims. Their testimony

on this point was unequivocal (2 WCH 374–5, 382; 4 WCH 109, 113–4).

Dr. Shaw’s testimony about the wound in John Connally’s thigh (4 WCH 109–

135) is extremely important, yet almost always overlooked. For the Single Bullet

Theory to hold up, the wound to Connally must have been made by the complete

bullet (CE-399) which later “fell out”. The wound must therefore show these

characteristics. Shaw’s testimony, while ambiguous on this point, appears to

describe the wound as being made by a fragment, not a complete bullet. CE-399

is not a fragment, and the largest fragment that could have come from it would

have been no more than three grains, hardly large enough to cause a treatable

wound.

Additionally, Dr. Shaw has told researcher Livingstone that the thigh wound was

indeed caused by a fragment, larger than five grains. The Parkland Hospital report

on Connally (CE-392), appears to corroborate this point, and Dr. Shaw

again identified the thigh wound as being made by a fragment in the Nova

documentary Who Killed President Kennedy? This seriously undermines the theory

that CE-399 fell out of John Connally’s leg while he was on the stretcher,

and that CE-399 caused all his wounds.

In addition, fragments too large to have come from CE-399 show up in X-rays of

Connally. Parkland nurse, Audrey Bell, described these fragments as “anywhere

from 3–4 millimeters in length by a couple of millimeters wide” (Dallas Morning

News interview, 1 April 1977). Finally, Dr. Charles Gregory, who worked on Connally,

testified (6 WCH 122–3) that he saw multiple fragments that were large

enough for him to determine their color.

Darrel Tomlinson, the Parkland hospital employee who recovered the bullet from

a stretcher in the hall of the emergency room, required much cross-examination

by Commission counsel Arlen Specter before he would say that it was even possible

that the stretcher in question was the one that carried John Connally. His

initial—and vigorously maintained—testimony was that the bullet he found

came from a stretcher that had not been used by either Connally or Kennedy

(6 WCH 130–4). He has stood by that contention ever since (Nova, 15 November

1988). Neither Tomlinson, O. P. Wright, Secret Service Agent Richard Johnsen,

nor Secret Service Chief J. J. Rowley—the first four people to handle the bullet

found on the stretcher—could later identify CE-399 as that bullet, leaving open

the possibility that another bullet was originally found and that CE-399, a ballistic

match to CE-139, was substituted to implicate Lee Harvey Oswald. This

would have been possible, since many hours passed before the proper chain of

possession was established (CE-2011).

But you fail to backup your statement, “We also know that the bullets were not

planted, because fragments from JFK’s brain and Connally’s wrist matched the

larger fragments chemically,” with any available supporting source references

concerning this issue. CE-567 and CE-569: two bullet fragments, one from the

front of a bullet, the other from the rear of a bullet. They were supposedly found,

on the night of 22–23 November 1963, inside the President’s limousine while it

was being searched at the White House Garage. Secret Service agents, allegedly,

found both of these fragments on the floor, near the front seat. Each fragment

was ballistically linked to CE-139, the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle. However, I find

Chris Dolmar 12 Debating Ken Rahn

ASSASSINATION RESEARCH / Vol. 3 No. 2 © Copyright 2005 Chris Dolmar

no source references concerning this evidence anywhere that they could be

linked, in any fashion, to any of the other fragments removed from either victim,

nor could they be scientifically linked to either victim. Please list official source

references for me to review concerning this issue.

So, as can be seen, there is no supporting testimony, and no physical evidence, to

support the key Warren Commission Report conclusion that:

All the evidence indicated that the bullet found on the Governor’s stretcher could

have caused all the wounds.

I have spent some time browsing your website, Dr. Rahn, and I couldn’t help but

notice that at the bottom of your first page, you state:

My JFK course at the University of Rhode Island takes this academic approach.

Each year it enlightens a significant fraction of the students who take it, often

with striking results. That is also the goal of this web site. Enlightenment though

proper academic procedures. I welcome any and all reactions from readers, and

will post them for all to see.

When I went to view your “Reactions from Readers” link, I was disappointed to

see the most recent exchange of messages was posted from 30 August 2000—

almost a year ago [in 2001]—and thought I would suggest that you update your

link to that page, perhaps starting with our exchange. I think visitors to that

particular link on your site would enjoy seeing that debates over differences of

opinions (and reaching critical-thinking conclusions) on issues surrounding this

case can be discussed in a courteous and respectful manner, even between a

renowned university professor and a simple Alaskan wilderness guide. Let them

judge for themselves which one of us is displaying true critical thinking over the

issues being debated.

Thank you for taking time to debate these issues with me.

Sincerely,

Chris Dolmar

Rahn’s last reply, 25 August 2001, 8:00 pm:

Chris,

Please understand that I didn’t let “Replies from Readers” go because I wanted

to. It was a casualty of general workload, including preparing the big monograph

on neutron activation analysis, which was a huge undertaking but very important

to the JFK case.

Also, the kinds of messages you write, with many questions and weak premises,

take hours to answer properly. I seldom have that amount of time to spare these

days.

Lastly, if you are implying that I am not thinking critically in my class and my

writings, I am out of this discussion immediately. I will discuss things, but I will

not be put under the gun.

Ken Rahn

Chris Dolmar 13 Debating Ken Rahn

ASSASSINATION RESEARCH / Vol. 3 No. 2 © Copyright 2005 Chris Dolmar

And my most recent reply to Rahn, 28 August 2001, 5:03 am:

Good Morning Mr. Rahn,

I just finished reading your reply to my last email to you. I did not mean to put

you on the defensive, and had thought that according to your world wide website

that you defined your course analysis of the JFK as an objective one.

Oh yes, Dr. Rahn, I have spent a considerable amount of my leisure time examining

your site, and have thus directed my own very objective queries to you regarding

the evidence in a courteous, professional manner, as you might review

throughout our correspondences.

Your last response does you no justice as far as confronting the issues I brought

forth, backed up with solid, supporting Warren Commission and/or House Select

Committee on Assassinations testimony and evidence. “Weak premises”? Are

you accusing me of providing false source references to you concerning the issues

we have been debating? Please elaborate and don’t try to tell me it would

take hours, as I drafted my email to you in less than one hour, referencing everything

with which you’ve confronted me concerning the issues I’ve brought

forth to you with Warren Commission and/or House Select Committee on Assassinations

recorded testimony and evidence.

In most of my emails I have not asked questions but simply provided the facts. If

I asked you for source references regarding your unsupported replying statements

to me, you should have been able to reference them, and cut and paste

them into your reply emails to me in a matter of minutes. After all, you’re an acknowledged

expert on the case and happen to have the enormous responsibility

of providing an objective presentation of the assassination events to numerous

generations of our impressionable youth, some of whom may one day become

leaders in various fields in our country.

I waded through your very dated “Reactions From Readers” page and enjoyed it

very much. But, am I willing to bet (and, to be honest with you, I’m not a wagering

man) that our correspondences will never see the light of day on any “Reactions

From Readers” page on your website because you cannot (and so far refuse)

to refute any of the issues I have confronted you with in an objective way that

would do justice to your website statement:

I can state with surety, and will demonstrate in the coming months, that anyone

in command of the core physical data, and the principles of critical thinking, can

circumscribe the right answer to the assassination in a matter of minutes.

But you told me it would take hours to answer my questions! I didn’t really pose

many questions to you, just facts, that you, for one reason or another, refuse to

refute. Why?

For example (from our last correspondence):

But you fail to backup your statement: “We also know that the bullets were not

planted, because fragments from JFK’s brain and Connally’s wrist matched the

larger fragments, chemically,” with any available supporting source references

concerning this issue.

Chris Dolmar 14 Debating Ken Rahn

ASSASSINATION RESEARCH / Vol. 3 No. 2 © Copyright 2005 Chris Dolmar

Is this an issue you can’t support with any verifiable source references? C’mon

Dr. Rahn, you’re an educator of this case—back it up, or don’t tell me my “premises”

are “weak”.

When you take on the responsibility of educating college students (who are paying

you to be objective), then at least assume that responsibility, objectively, as

you claim you are. Your defensive attitude reeks of an official who thinks his

“credentials” automatically enable him to preach his “gospels” in a manner that

is unquestionable.

Please, objectively, respond to my very accurate source references concerning the

few issues we have debated, in a professional manner, so that I may ponder all

my “weak premises”.

Thank you for taking time to consider my statements.

Sincerely,

Chris Dolmar

I thought this worth sharing to reveal how some of our “celebrated” university

professors, who are entrusted with educating our youth, show their true colors

when confronted by individuals who happen to be able to debate them on their

own terms.

In Dr. Rahn’s case, I expect the only reply I will ever hear from him, after my

last correspondence to him, will be the deafening sound of silence. And, I

should hope his silence speaks volumes to you all, and especially to any youths

who might happen to take the time to read through this article.

[Editor’s note: Dolmar’s final email to Rahn, of 28 August 2001, 5:35 am, contains

many useful references for further reading. Most of these references were

originally published in “The Gun That Didn’t Smoke” (Assassination Research,

Vol. 1 No. 2) Copyright © 1994, 1997 by Walter F. Graf and Richard R. Bartholomew.]

Dear Dr. Rahn,

I thought I would add a list of “objective” source references concerning various

issues of this case for you to review. Although they are many and varied, as an

objective historian of the case, they merit review.

Sources and Notes

Oswald: Michael Benson, Who’s Who in the JFK Assassination (New York: Citadel

Press, 1993), pp. 124, 329–352; John M. Newman, Oswald and the CIA (Carroll

& Graf, 1995); Paul Brancato, Coup D'etat, illustrated card set (Forestville,

California: Eclipse Enterprises, 1989), pp. 1, 7, 10.

Although we often assume that most of the American public initially accepted

the lone gunman scenario, some of the following source references show that

this was not necessarily the case.

Chris Dolmar 15 Debating Ken Rahn

ASSASSINATION RESEARCH / Vol. 3 No. 2 © Copyright 2005 Chris Dolmar

Public Doubt: Paul B. Sheatsley and Jacob J. Feldman, The Kennedy Assassination

and the American Public, National Opinion Research Center (Stanford

University Press, 1965) (a large majority expressing doubt over Oswald’s guilt).

For sources of public opinion for the period November 1963 through February

1977, see “Studies of Public Reactions,” items 1673–1714, DeLloyd J. Guth and

David R. Wrone, The Assassination of John F. Kennedy: A Comprehensive Historical

and Legal Bibliography, 1963–1979 (Connecticut: Greenwood Press,

1980), pp. 174–7, hereafter cited as “Guth and Wrone 174–7”.

It’s also interesting to note that on Sunday, 24 November 1963, soon after

Oswald had been shot, Gordon McClendon, owner of Dallas radio station KLIF,

reported the following from Cleveland’s Municipal Stadium, where 40,000 spectators

were attending the Dallas Cowboys–Cleveland Browns football game:

People seem to think that the Dallas Police Department really had the wrong

man, or that Oswald was being held for want of a better suspect … No one here

that we’ve talked to—taxi drivers, hotel employees, the various people we’ve had

an opportunity to be around since we arrived here yesterday afternoon—no one

really thought that Oswald was the guilty party. (The Fateful Hours: A Presentation

of KLIF News in Dallas, Capitol Records, 1964; reissued on audiotape by

KLIF, 1993.)

For sources of public opinion just before and after the release of the Oliver Stone

film JFK see: Kenneth Auchincloss, “Twisted History,” Newsweek 23 December

1991, p. 46; Ted Gest and Joseph Shapiro, “JFK: The Untold Story of the Warren

Commission,” U.S. News & World Report 17 August 1992, p. 29; No “Credible”

Evidence: Warren Commission Report (Washington D.C.: U.S. Government

Printing Office, 1964) p. 374, hereafter cited as R 374.

Official doubt: Chairman Warren: William M. Blair, “Warren Commission Will

Ask Mrs. Oswald to Identify Rifle Used in the Kennedy Assassination,” New York

Times 5 February 1964, p. 19; Richard Bartholomew discussion with Clint Richmond,

5 March 1997.

Commissioners Russell, Cooper, and Boggs: Select Committee to Study Governmental

Operations with respect to Intelligence Activities, The Investigation of

the Assassination of President Kennedy: Performance of the Intelligence Agencies

(Senate Report 94-755, 94th Cong., 2nd sess., 1976, Final Report, Book V),

p. 80, cited in Bernard Fensterwald, Coincidence or Conspiracy (New York: Zebra

Books, 1977), pp.74–5 (hereafter cited as Fensterwald 74–5); Edward Jay Epstein,

Inquest: The Warren Commission and the Establishment of Truth (New

York: Viking, 1966) pp. 149–150, (Bantam, 1966) p. 122; see also Fensterwald

86, 91, 96, 99.

Commissioner McCloy: Hearings Before the House Select Committee on Assassinations,

Vol. XI (Washington D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1979),

note 11 at p. 14, hereafter cited as 11 HH 14 n. 11; see also Fensterwald 86;

Griffin statements: Charles J. Sanders and Mark S. Zaid, “The Declassification

of Dealey Plaza: After Thirty Years, A New Disclosure Law At Last May Help To

Clarify the Facts of the Kennedy Assassination,” South Texas Law Review

Vol. 34:407, October 1993; later published in “The President John F. Kennedy

Assassination Records Collection Act of 1992” (ARCA), The Fourth Decade, SpeChris

Dolmar 16 Debating Ken Rahn

ASSASSINATION RESEARCH / Vol. 3 No. 2 © Copyright 2005 Chris Dolmar

cial Edition, 1994, pp. 411–2 n. 8; hereafter cited as Sanders and Zaid 411–2

n. 8.

President Johnson: Walter Cronkite interview, CBS News, broadcast on

25 April 1975 (President Johnson’s doubt); see also Fensterwald 76, 124.

FBI policy: Warren Commission Hearings and Evidence (Washington D.C.: U.S.

Government Printing Office, 1964, v. V) p. 99, cited hereafter as 5H 99 (Hoover’s

policy); see also Sanders and Zaid, p. 412 n. 11.

Evidence problems: Robert Sam Anson, They've Killed the President! (New York:

Bantam, 1975) p. 356, hereafter cited as Anson 356; Peter Dale Scott, Deep Politics

and the Death of JFK (Berkeley, California: University of California Press,

1993) pp. 58, 60–1, 69, hereafter cited as Scott 58, 60–1, 69; Walter F. Graf and

Richard R. Bartholomew, “The Gun that Didn’t Smoke”, Fair Play Magazine, Issue

19 (November–December 1997); Karen Gullo, “No JFK Shirt Material on Bullets,”

Associated Press, 21 January 2000 (AP-NY-01-21-00 1120EST, www.wire.-

ap.org); Joe Backes, “Backes Responds To NARA’s Blundered Test Report, and

Gullo’s AP piece” (self-published critique, 21 January 2000, 19:32:42 EST);

Charles E. O’Hara, Fundamentals of Criminal Investigation (Springfield, Illinois:

Thomas Books, 1956, 1970, 2nd ed., 2nd printing) pp. 5–6, 30, 67, 69, 80, 197,

199, 438, 450, 493, 562, 575, 681, 684–5, 687, hereafter cited as O’Hara with

page number(s). As if speaking to the crime-scene investigators of the JFK assassination,

O’Hara wrote the following in a brief preface to his second edition:

On review, however, it would appear that insufficient attention had been given to

the role of the investigator in establishing the innocence of persons falsely accused.

It was thought that this aspect of investigation was too obvious to stress;

that the continued insistence on objectivity and professionalism in the investigator’s

conduct should meet this requirement. After all, the process of establishing

innocence is hardly separable from the task of detecting the guilty. One does not,

that is to say, prove guilt by the method of exhaustion (O’Hara vii).

See also: Walt Brown, Ph.D., The People v. Lee Harvey Oswald (Carroll & Graf 1994 
 

Part 4; Chris Dolmar debates Ken Rahn;

Two Oswalds: John Armstrong, Harvey and Lee (self-published); Deb Riechmann,

“Tape: Call on JFK wasn’t Oswald,” Associated Press, 21 November 1999,

12:46 EST; Joe Nick Patoski, “The Two Oswalds,” Texas Monthly magazine, November

1998, pp. 135, 160.

Conflicting single bullet theories: Warren Commission: Sanders and Zaid,

410–2 n. 8; House Committee: Guth and Wrone xxvii–xxx; American Bar Association:

Gerald Posner, Case Closed (New York: Random House, 1993) p. 317,

326–35, 474, 477, 478–9, hereafter cited as Posner with page number(s). (Posner’s

theory is taken from the American Bar Association Mock Trial of Lee Harvey

Oswald prosecution single bullet theory. It was presented uncritically and

without credit to the ABA by Posner. The entire, unabridged transcript of the

1992 American Bar Association’s two-day mock trial presentation, “The United

States v. Lee Harvey Oswald”, can be found in American Jurisprudence Trials

Volume 56, published by Lawyers Cooperative Publishing).

JFK and Vietnam: L. Fletcher Prouty, JFK: The CIA, Vietnam and the Plot to Assassinate

John F. Kennedy (New York: Birch Lane Press, 1992); John M. NewChris

Dolmar 17 Debating Ken Rahn

ASSASSINATION RESEARCH / Vol. 3 No. 2 © Copyright 2005 Chris Dolmar

man, JFK and Vietnam: Deception, Intrigue and the Struggle for Power (New York,

NY, 1992).

CIA–oil industry and Wall Street connections: Darwin Payne, Initiative in Energy:

Dresser Industries, Inc. 1880–1978 (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1979),

Appendix C; Donald Gibson, Battling Wall Street: The Kennedy Presidency (New

York: Sheridan Square Press, 1994).

The Assassination and Academic History: Michael L. Kurtz (is a Professor of

History at Southeastern Louisiana University and has taught a course on the

assassination for several decades), Crime of the Century: The Kennedy Assassination

from a Historian’s Perspective (University of Tennessee Press, 1993,

2nd ed.); Kenneth A. Rahn, “The Academic JFK Assassination Website,” karws.-

gso.uri.edu/JFK/JFK.html, which supports the University of Rhode Island’s Political

Science course “The JFK Assassination”.

The Assassination in the Media: [Editor’s Note: Chris Dolmar’s acknowledgment

of work of Dr. George Michael Evica has been temporarily removed, pending

correction by the author.]

Miscellaneous assassination-related topic sources: David G. Armstrong,

“Where Was George?” Austin Chronicle, 28 February 1992, pp. 20–2; Richard

Bartholomew, “Possible Discovery of an Automobile Used in the JFK Conspiracy,”

self-published manuscript (1993), p. 63; Fair Play Magazine, Issue 17,

(July–August 1997); Malcolm Wallace Fingerprint: John Kelin, “JFK Breakthrough?”

Fair Play Magazine, Issue 23 (July–August 1999); “A. Nathan Darby’s

Affidavit,” Fair Play Magazine, Issue 24 (September–October 1999); Barr McClellan,

“Mac Wallace Update: Statement Regarding Print Evidence,” Fair Play Magazine,

Issue 28, (May–June 1999).

And, finally, a couple of notes to conclude with:

Let’s consider that a bullet fired from the sixth floor window of Texas School

Book Depository entered the back of JFK’s head and killed him. The building in

question was horizontally located to the President’s rear, while the sixth floor of

that building was considerably vertically above the President’s head. Therefore,

any such bullet must have entered the President’s head from above and behind.

That much is indisputable. No photographs of the President’s injuries were published

at the time, but the Warren Commission Report (Washington D.C.: U.S.

Government Printing Office, 1964) did provide drawings (which can also be

found in James H. Fetzer, Ph.D., editor, Assassination Science: Experts Speak

Out on the Death of JFK (Catfeet Press, 1998), p. 38. Since these illustrations are

published in the Warren Report, we must assume they are official and accurate

portrayals of the President’s injuries. The drawings of the head wound do, therefore,

appear to show a trajectory from above and behind, as the official account

requires. In what I consider to be a solid study of the most basic evidence in his

case by Stewart Galanor for his work Cover-Up (Kestrel Books, 1998), he has

juxtaposed the official Warren Commission drawing with frame 312 of the

Zapruder film (which the Warren Commission itself regarded as the instant before

the fatal head shot incident to frame 313), with the following result: When

the images of the Warren Commission head wound drawing and Zapruder frame

312 are super-imposed over each, and the President’s head is properly positioned,

the Warren Commission’s own drawing displays an upward, rather than

downward trajectory. If the official Warren Commission drawing of the injury to

the head is correct, then the conjecture that the President’s head wound was

Chris Dolmar 18 Debating Ken Rahn

ASSASSINATION RESEARCH / Vol. 3 No. 2 © Copyright 2005 Chris Dolmar

sustained from a hit from above and behind cannot be true. The Zapruder film

itself confirms this.

Let’s also consider that the bullets that hit JFK and John Connally were fired by

Lee Harvey Oswald using a high-powered rifle, which the Warren Commission

also identified as a 6.5 mm Mannlicher-Carcano. The President’s death certificates,

The Warren Report, articles published in the Journal of the American

Medical Association, as well as other sources, state that the President was killed

by wounds inflicted by high velocity missiles. (Some of these articles are reprinted

in Fetzer’s Assassination Science). The Mannlicher-Carcano is the only

weapon that Lee Harvey Oswald is alleged to have used to kill the President, but

the Mannlicher-Carcano is not a high-velocity weapon:

Its muzzle velocity of approximately 2000 feet per second indicates that it qualifies

as a medium to low velocity weapon.

This issue is especially noteworthy, because the extensive and severe damage

sustained by JFK’s skull and brain could not possibly have been inflicted by a

weapon of this kind.

The ammunition that Lee Harvey Oswald is alleged to have used was standard

full metal-jacketed military ammunition, one round which is supposed to have

been found on a stretcher at Parkland Hospital, a photograph of which appears

as CE-399. This kind of ammunition conforms to Geneva Convention standards

for humane conduct of warfare and is not intended to maim but pass through

the body leaving a fairly clean, small wound, as far as bullet wounds go. In other

words, this type of ammo does not explode on impact. If you examine the lateral

cranial X-ray of the President’s head, it reveals an obvious and definitive pepperlike

display pattern of metallic debris which classically exhibits the effects of the

impact of an exploding bullet, which could not have been caused by ammunition

of the kind Lee Harvey Oswald was alleged to have used.

The axis of the debris in the abovementioned X-ray also appears to be consistent

with a shot entering the area of the right temple rather than the back of the

head. Studies of this issue are found in Joseph N. Riley, Ph.D., “The Head

Wounds of John F. Kennedy: One Bullet Cannot Account for the Injuries,” The

Third Decade (March 1993) pp. 1–15; and in the research of David W. Mantik,

M.D., Ph.D., in James Fetzer’s Assassination Science, in his comments on the

recent deposition of James J. Humes, M.D., for the ARRB (Appendix G), and in

his present study of the medical evidence. The major fatal trauma the President

endured had to have been inflicted by one or more high velocity weapons.

Any comments?

Sincerely,

Chris Dolmar


http://www.assassina...om/arindex.html

thanks for your time...take care b 
 

FUCK Ken Rahn!

 

When are we going to understand and act upon this basic truth:  To "debate" Rahn and his ilk is to concede that a level playing field exists for their lies and the truth, and thus to preserve the illusion of doubt about that for which there can be no doubt, and thus prolong the uncertainty and disempowerment upon which the killers of JFK depend for their very lives.

 

What's next?  Shall we "debate" skinheads about the Third Reich?  

 

"Debate" Ken Rahn???

 

FUCK Ken Rahn!

 

Expose his lies, treat him with utter contempt, refuse to afford him the dignity of civilized discourse, disgrace him in the public square.

 

And what is the origin of the absurd quote that leads off this thread?  Show me incontrovertible evidence that JFK delivered those words. 

 

Are we supposed to believe that John Fitzgerald Kennedy thought and spoke like Alex Jones?

 

This "quote" is a shameful fabrication -- one that I debunked years ago.  

 

In the wake of reading this thread, Ken Rahn is giggling in delight like a little girl as he sits in his basement touching himself and tapping his toes to German marching music.

 

FUCK Ken Rahn!

 

Charles,

 

While I agree (fuck Ken Rahn) that the above quote is an utter contrivance, no doubt harvested by the anti-semiticism of its fabricator, this thread was posted to a Forum

that was created in part due to your suggestion: Assassination of JFK 101 -- The Basics.

 

This is the Forum where what is "old news" to some of us may just be "news" to others. While the seasoned researcher knows the difference between the sincere and the

disingenuous, the novice has that yet to learn.

 

Thank you for sounding the alarm for those newbies who don't yet know the difference.

 

Understood, Greg.  I appreciate your calm and reasoned response.

 

I considered a wide variety of, shall we say, tones to take when responding to this thread.  During the process I remained keenly aware of the fact that most readers would qualify as new recruits to the war effort in which we're engaged.

 

Informing my choice of language was the realization that the vast majority of honorable correspondents here would choose to take part in a conventionally civil discourse of the sort that eschews -- or at least minimizes -- overtly confrontational rhetoric in favor of clinical, emotionally detached appeals to reason.

 

Given the theme of my response -- the time for morally defensible "debate" about the basic nature of the attack on JFK ran out a long time ago -- I simply could not engage in any sort of exchange that could be interpreted as an extension of the style and/or substance of the "debate" I demonize.

 

I submit that we are obliged to provide as part of the basic training we would conduct in this section of the forum examples from the full range of available responses to the accessories to JFK's murder who yet stalk and assault us.

 

Examples of my more mainstream literary/scholarly efforts relevant to the JFK assassination are plentiful and readily available here and elsewhere.  Like you and a few others, I have the ability to speak the truth in any number of languages and dialects.

 

To which I would add only this, an example of the polite and the profane:

 

Please FUCK Ken Rahn!

 

I would like to apologize to the membership and the executive and all, but first to Stan for asking him to post the photo that was at the top of this page.. it was offensive, I now know and I am sorry...it was done in haste but there is no excuse,i should have pondered exactly all it contained in the first place...

Below for those who are interested in further information pertaining to the rifle studies , I enclose another link...Again please excuse me, and carry on...take care b







The Great Carcano Swindle




By

Bill MacDowall



http://www.oocities....9a/carcano.html 
 

 

Please.

 

 

:oI HAVE SOME GOODIES TO REPLY TO YOURS BUT ALAS, I CANNOT POST THEM, SO I SHALL SAVE THEM FOR ANOTHER FINE DAY..WHEN I HAVE LEARNT THE HOW TOOS...THANKS ....TAKE CARE..B   

 

I can hardly wait.

 

B.!

Thanks for posting this work by Chris.

I find it appropraite for placement in 'JFK 101'

and for Chris' work ripping Ken Rahn to shreds with truth.

 

Those that already know of the McDingbats and von Peen Hammer and Rohn and Smack and on and on, don't need Chris' effort.

But those younger than myself may appreciate it.

 

They may not have already read Meagher's and McKnight's excellent works of Warren Commission Deconstruction.

They may not remember Penn Jones and Mae Brussells on the AM radio building concensus and demand bearing fruit (almost) in the following HSCA abortion of truth.

The younger that know they being fed a line of hooey need somewhere to gather truth to their own views.

 

I'd like to see this segment of this gathering to be one of the somewheres for the curious.

As an antidote to the jerks that peed in the pool like Smack, Rohn, and etc.

AWDulles and the like can be for later.

 

Jim

 

Thanks Jim For your input...yes that is how I as well as some others look at it...if The newbies are to learn, God love em... they must have access to the materials that have been available, for their education. Otherwise how are they to learn what has gone on previously, and as you are very aware there is so very much.....thank goodness they are out there and wish to learn, we must encourage them not discourage them in any way...imo and also to educate them of the terrible hardships and trials that some of the early researchers went through, and it's all true ...take care....thank you...best b 
 

And just what has this "ripping Rahn to shreds with the truth" accomplished?

 

One day in '69 I read at the encouragement of a great social studies teacher in High School both '6 Seconds in Dallas' and 'Rush to Jugement'.

Doubt already grew but after that work on a paper I was changed by the events.

 

Prouty's Secret Team in '74 would not have found fertile ground in my spirit without the initial research of that time.

 

Many can blast both Mr. Mark Lane and Mr. Tink Thompson for whatever reason.

But I keep the works in favor because of the role they played in my own political evolution, not because the works nor the persons are flawless.

No one is.

 

I remind myself of what path my feet chose with those works.

I figure other younger folks may be taking similar paths chosen.

The People know they are being fed a line of hooey already.

If the interest can be turned to WHY and away from the Fable of one patsy,

then another one rides the bus (thanks weird Al it is stuck in my head).

And we got a large inclusive bus.

 

I know this from active outreach to all curious people here.

 

The only ones that can answer the question

"And just what has this ripping Rahn to shreds with the truth" accomplished?"

are the ones that still need to know that the Fable of Dallas is RIPPED TO QUIVERING SHREDS OF ROTTED BS.

The next set of shoulders to stand upon for other generations may be one that needs to deconstruct the WC presently.

 

And they are I take it the focus of the JFK Basics arena.

Chris did a great job in deconstructing the Fable.

Before one can absorb Mae Brussell's "Nazi Connection to the Assassination of President Kennedy" one must come to see that:

WeThePeople 'wuz screwed, blewed and tatooed' in the Warren Commission Cover Op.

 

Tone matters.

 

The tone of said "deconstruction" facilitates the cover-up.

 

Charles,

Granted as to a short focus on the Fable can be of a positive effect to the Enemy. Sadly so.

 

Opinon only but second thought and examination of the events of the murder itself led my own search of the pile of lies.

 

Seeing the BS as BS of Nov 22. 1963 and knowing the MSM and the USGovernment were complicit in lying to me forced the longer focus of Why was the man killed?

 

In my own situation it took a while to detect the odor of Empire over the stench of the Patsy Fable.

 

For myself I had to examine Dallas for myself but with the help of the shoulders upon which we stand, writers, speakers and general dissidents from Empire.

 

From on those folks' shoulders I can see clearly past three murders as stageworks and setting for cloaked revolution by violence.