10-07-2011, 05:47 PM
Charles Drago Wrote:Seamus Coogan Wrote:Charles Drago Wrote:Seamus,
I don't want the blood to boil again on this topic, but the quote in your previous post is beyond absurd.
Lol, no danger of 'blood boiling' here. I'm not getting at anyone or proving a point. I just think it's an interesting idea and I'm sure Gregs got a good answer for it. Of course we do need sources and if Al can come up with some that would be interesting. But I imagine Greg will point out that dear old Bundy was pretty tooled up in the Eastern Establishment anyhow. If anything CD I jumped the gun on GB awhile back before I'd had the chance to hear him out.
As for the rest of what you said. Im not sure if its directed at me or the general populace because I do agree with you 100 percent on the issue of JFK's speech. :dancingman:
Let me be clear, Seamus:
1. I did not direct my commentary at you.
2. I had previously reacted strongly against the Doyle quote you chose. It contains textbook examples of over-complication and the conflation of hypothesis and fantasy.
3. Greg and I have agreed to disagree on this point. I remind all who may be interested that the harsh words we exchanged have been buried, and my respect for Greg's work continues to grow. FWIW, my friend Peter Lemkin and I also hold radically different views on JFK's meaning (Pete is in basic agreement with Greg). So too my friend Jack White.
I too agree that the case is certainly not closed. It is a powerful speech and one we can wonder about. I am not convinced that JFK was unaware of secret societies to which he was uninvited and disagreed with their intent.
Dawn