Jump to content
The Education Forum

Too Late Now


Recommended Posts

I just now noticed on two other forums that yesterday (May 29th) was the anniversary of JFK's birthday.

As you all know, my feelings on the man are mixed. I certainly always admired his intellect and wit.

So, even though we all missed the day, in honor of his birthday I suggest we use this thread not to comment on his presidency but to note your favorite Kennedy quote (leaving out entire speeches although I know the left-oriented members respect his "peace" speech while I greatly respect his speech at the Berlin Wall. He had that huge crowd of Germans so worked up with his stirring oratory he could have told them to "take" East Berlin and I suspect it would have happened!)

I'll post one or two of mine tonight.

Edited by Tim Gratz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Sincerity is always subject to proof"

This is one of my favorite quotes from JFK's inaugural address, and should be borne in mind in our inquiry into his assassination. Corollary: If someone's arguments are logically inconsistent, then we have reason to doubt that person's sincerity.

Suppose a researcher writes: "Now I am fairly convinced he [Lee Oswald] was not a shooter (because of the lady who observed him in the lunchroom at 12:15 and Truly and Baker finding him there only a few moments (was it ninety seconds) after the bullets stopped."

Now if the same researcher also claims to believe that Fidel Castro was behind the assassination, then we have logical inconsistency and reason to doubt the sincerity of one of his stated beliefs.

It is possible to hold the belief that Lee was an assassin, and it is possible to simultaneusly hold the belief that Castro was behind the assassination, but I submit that it is not logically possible to simultaneously believe that Lee was NOT an assassin AND that Castro was behind the assassination.

I conclude that one of these these stated beliefs is not sincerely held, and my questions to the forum are: Which belief is not sincerely held, and can you identify the researcher in question? .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just now noticed on two other forums that yesterday (May 29th) was the anniversary of JFK's birthday.

________________________

I thouhgt about it a lot yesterday, but then I always do on May 29. That day should be more observed than 11/22.

"Enen little wars are dangrours in this nuclear world"

11/5/63

Dawn

Link to comment
Share on other sites

J. Raymond Carroll wrote on this thread:

Suppose a researcher writes: "Now I am fairly convinced he [Lee Oswald] was not a shooter (because of the lady who observed him in the lunchroom at 12:15 and Truly and Baker finding him there only a few moments (was it ninety seconds) after the bullets stopped."

Now if the same researcher also claims to believe that Fidel Castro was behind the assassination, then we have logical inconsistency and reason to doubt the sincerity of one of his stated beliefs.

It is possible to hold the belief that Lee was an assassin, and it is possible to simultaneusly hold the belief that Castro was behind the assassination, but I submit that it is not logically possible to simultaneously believe that Lee was NOT an assassin AND that Castro was behind the assassination.

This is why threads end up goping down the "Castro did it" scenario.

Why turn this thread into an attack on me?

One is tempted to quote Ralph Waldo Emerson: "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." But I won't.

What in the world is inconsistent with saying Castro did it but LHO was not a shooter?

There are at least two possibilities that suggest themselves.

First, LHO was really a Castro supporter whose job it was to get the rifle into the TSBD but a trained Cuban sharpshooter shot and killed Kennedy. Castro (or Escalante) knew LHO was not a good marksman, or perhaps they just wanted the satisfaction of having a Cuban kill Kennedy (who Castro had called a "cretin" less than a month earlier).

The second possibility (one I favor) is that LHO was a patriotic American working for American intelligence, and was set up as a "patsy" by the Cuban plotters.

You may argue why Castro would set up as a patsy someone whose public record was pro-Castro but I submit that if LHO was indeed a US intelligence asset then whoever set him up either (a) was Communist and knew that; or (B) was unaffiliated with US intelligence and had no idea of Oswald's true allegiance (or possibly a "rogue" intelligence agent so low on the totem pole he was unaware of LHO's true allegiance.

There is absolutely nothing inconsistent with saying LHO was not a shooter but Castro did it. Nor is it inconsistent to say (assuming Castro did not do it) that LHO was not a shooter but was still a part of the conspiracy (whose role may have been to insert a rifle into the TSBD for use by a more skilled marksman.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just picked up a nice little paperback "The Wit and Wisdom of JFK", lots of good stuff for this thread. But I forgot it tonight! So I'll post a couple of them tomorrow.

Most of us, I am sure, have read "Profiles in Courage". Query who has read "Why England Slept"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Stephen Turner

" To that World assembly of sovereign States, the United Nations, our last best

hope, in an age when the instruments of war have far outpaced the instruments of

peace, we renew our pledge of support" JFK, Inaugural address. My how times

have changed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mark wrote:

"Forgive your enemies but never forget their names".

I like it!  Sounds like it could be a Bobby quote (or a Nixon quote, for that matter).

Tim,

No Tim, it's JFK. One of the many things I admired about JFK was that he had a well honed self-deprecating humor. As you astutely observed on another thread, it's a sure sign of high intelligence. One of my favorites, I'm sure many will have heard before, was the occasion when JFK, speaking at a public function during his battle to win the Democratic nomination, announced that he had just recieved a telegram from his father. It read, "Don't buy a single vote more than you need---I'll be damned if I'm paying for a landslide".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...