JFK describes "The Unthinkable" -- "The High Cabal"

[Charles Drago]

His description of the "unspeakable" fits the bill perfectly. Whether or not he meant to convey this interpretation of his words is unknown. However, it seems to be a HUGE stretch to imagine that he did not.

The hugest stretch is to imagine that he did.

[Greg Burnham]

His description of the "unspeakable" fits the bill perfectly. Whether or not he meant to convey this interpretation of his words is unknown. However, it seems to be a HUGE stretch to imagine that he did not.

The hugest stretch is to imagine that he did.

I suppose we'll just disagree on this one, Charles. That's OK, though.

[Charles Drago]

Indeed it is, Greg.

From impassioned, informed, honorable disagreement there arises tested, enlightened concensus.

[James Lewis]

Exactly, Dawn...JFK, despites the opinions of some, knew EXACTLY what he was up against.

I think JFK was talking about exactly what it sounds like he was talking about. Secret societies. People have to remember just how intelligent he was and how well read. He was aware of groups that he did not join. And how powerful they were.
That is my opinion, of course. That the "subtext" was actually the very core.

He was in this speech attempting to expose some of his killers before they acted.

Dawn

[Charles Drago]

Poppycock!

(With apologies to Barbara Bush.)

James, but I'm not buying what you're selling.

It's a process.

We conflate what we've come to know over 50-plus years of investigation with what was known even to the likes of JFK 50 years ago at our own peril.

Again, recall what Robert Kennedy later said: "I thought I knew how the world worked, and I didn't." [paraphrase]

[Greg Burnham]

Charles,

I kindly take exception to the aggressive tone in many of your posts. I have already stated my belief, namely, that in this speech JFK's description of "this unspeakable something" is far too broad for "the something" he is describing to be limited to political, religious, or idealogical philosophies and their proponents.

I further believe that overly aggressive refutation of logically deduced or inferred conclusions (be they ultimately accurate or not) is evidence of a defensiveness born from a lack of confidence in one's own position, rather than evidence of the weakness in another's.

Me thinks thou protests too loudly, indeed.

Poppycock!

(With apologies to Barbara Bush.)

James, but I'm not buying what you're selling.

It's a process.

We conflate what we've come to know over 50-plus years of investigation with what was known even to the likes of JFK 50 years ago at our own peril.

Again, recall with Robert Kennedy later said: "I thought I knew how the world worked, and I didn't." [paraphrase]

[Charles Drago]

Charles,

I kindly take exception to the aggressive tone in many of your posts. I have already stated my belief, namely, that in this speech JFK's description of "this unspeakable something" is far too broad for "the something" he is describing to be limited to political, religious, or idealogical philosophies and their proponents.

I further believe that overly aggressive refutation of logically deduced or inferred conclusions (be they ultimately accurate or not) is evidence of a defensiveness born from a lack of confidence in one's own position, rather than evidence of the weakness in another's.

Me thinks thou protests too loudly, indeed.

Greg,

I find your amateur psychoanalysis to be devoid of insight into both the discipline you're aping and the "patient" to whom you would attend.

Further, I find your from-the-mount pronouncements describing my responses as "aggressive" or "overly aggressive" simply mind-boggling in terms of the ignorance and hubris from which they emerge.

Who are you trying to impress?

I might mention in passing that I remain singularly unimpressed by your work in its totality -- my subjective judgement to be sure. In particular, there is nothing "logical" about your interpretation of the JFK speech in question. Your interpretation rightly has been rejected by the majority of respondents on this thread, and if I were to engage in the cheap analytics which seem to be your forte, I might note that your response here emerges from an endangered and petty ego.

Let's put it this way: You're as on-target about my work as you are about the meaning of JFK's words.

Finally: If you don't like the tone of my posts, don't read them.

Which is a kind way of saying, "mind your own business."

Charles

P.S. You didn't need the second comma in your post's title.

C.

[Greg Burnham]

Charles,

I kindly take exception to the aggressive tone in many of your posts. I have already stated my belief, namely, that in this speech JFK's description of "this unspeakable something" is far too broad for "the something" he is describing to be limited to political, religious, or idealogical philosophies and their proponents.

I further believe that overly aggressive refutation of logically deduced or inferred conclusions (be they ultimately accurate or not) is evidence of a defensiveness born from a lack of confidence in one's own position, rather than evidence of the weakness in another's.

Me thinks thou protests too loudly, indeed.

Greg,

I find your amateur psychoanalysis to be devoid of insight into both the discipline you're aping and the "patient" to whom you would attend.

Further, I find your from-the-mount pronouncements describing my responses as "aggressive" or "overly aggressive" simply mind-boggling in terms of the ignorance and hubris from which they emerge.

Who are you trying to impress?

I might mention in passing that I remain singularly unimpressed by your work in its totality -- my subjective judgement to be sure. In particular, there is nothing "logical" about your interpretation of the JFK speech in question. Your interpretation rightly has been rejected by the majority of respondents on this thread, and if I were to engage in the cheap analytics which seem to be your forte, I might note that your response here emerges from an endangered and petty ego.

Let's put it this way: You're as on-target about my work as you are about the meaning of JFK's words.

Finally: If you don't like the tone of my posts, don't read them.

Which is a kind way of saying, "mind your own business."

Charles

P.S. You didn't need the second comma in your post's title.

C.

Ok, Charles...you win.

[Magda Hassan]

I don't think we need the grammar police here. And it would be good if there was more good will and collegiality shown here. Greg is not a hostile intruder but a dedicated and generous researcher.

[Charles Drago]

I don't think we need the grammar police here. And it would be good if there was more good will and collegiality shown here. Greg is not a hostile intruder but a dedicated and generous researcher.

Nor do I.

Here is an explanation of a rhetorical device: My correction of Greg's grammar has as much relevance to our allegedly shared work as does his psychoanalysis of my writing style.

Get it?

Except, of course, that my analysis was objective and sound.

While you're criticizing posts and sharing your opinions, you might wish to evaluate Greg's "kindly taken" exception for its "kindness" and its appropriateness to this forum.

And simply out of a sense of fairness, you might have weighed in on whether or not, in your opinion, I am improperly defensive about my work and less than confident in its value.

Thanks.