Myra Bronstein

Did he ever get his kids straightened out about where he was on 11/22/63? He testified that he had trouble convincing them that he wasn't in Dallas, when he had testified earlier that the kids were with him that day. I imagine this only confused the kids more than ever. Ron As you know, Mark Lane's PLAUSIBLE DENIAL tells the story in detail. Hunt claimed to sue the newspaper because the suggestion he was part of the Kennedy assassination was hurtful to his children, who saw him in Washington on 11/22/63....... but when put on the stand the kids said he was gone all weekend, so he had no alibi....... I don't believe that Lane ever put Hunt's kids on the st What won the case for Lane is that Hunt's defense was entirely based on Hunt's whereabouts on Nov 22, '63. They managed to get some BS "alibi" from other CIA spooks that they saw him in DC that day, not in Dallas. So Lane brilliantly decided to focus on proving Hunt was in Dallas the night of Nov 21. He got a deposition from CIA asset Marita Lorenz placing Hunt (and Sturgis) in Dallas, handing out money or weapons or both to various thugs at some motel hours before the murder. The jury found that there was sufficient proof that Hunt was in Dallas on Nov 21, '63. Therefore, the CIA was involved in President Kennedy's murder. We don't hear much about that in the media do we? The jury forewoman Leslie Armstrong stated to reporters: "Mr. Lane was asking us to do something very difficult. He was asking us to believe that John Kennedy had been killed by our own government. Yet when we examined the evidence closely, we were compelled to conclude that the CIA had indeed killed President Kennedy." http://www.skepticfiles.org/socialis/jfklane.htm (Oh, and I don't believe Hunt ever got his own kids to believe his lie about his Nov 22 whereabouts. I think it remained a big issue between them.) Myra, If my memory serves. After Mark Lane questioned the alibi's given by Hunts Company buddies, Mark asked Hunt directly why he would not call the people who could give him a cast iron alibi. His children, who Mr Hunt said he had spent the afternoon with in the family home watching the the events of the day unfold on TV. Chris Brown That makes sense Chris. It would be a logical question for a lawyer to ask. And Lane seems like a damn good lawyer. Do you recall what lie Hunt used to explain why his children weren't testifying for him? Were they too young at that point?

The nose and chin match up, as does his taste in eyewear, but who needed black glacier wraparound goggles in Texas? The man with the wraparound goggles and hat with the headband is said to be that of Jim Braden at Dealey Plaza, before being taken into custody in the Dal Tex building by Dallas Sherriff deputy Lummie Lewis. I'm not that convinced it's him. BK Ah, Jim Braden. His presence in the plaza was, IMO, strong proof of the Hunt klan's involvement in President Kennedy's murder, since he was a lackey for them. http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKhuntHL.htm http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKbrading.htm That is one of the few times that I've ever seen Jim Garrison fooled. He said, in On the Trail of the Assassins, that he thought Braden was placed in the plaza as a red herring, to fool people into wrongly believing oil money was in the mix. Gotta disagree with big Jim on this one. HL Hunt and that hideous Lamar son and that other son Whatsisname had the President's blood all over them. Not sure about Murchison... but probably. (When Nixon referred to "The Texans" I think he meant Hunt and Murchison. Input on this point is welcome & appreciated.) So the Lamar Hunt Trophy, presented to the AFC champion each year, probably should be in the shape of, or at least contain a diamond chip-like slice from, the Harper fragment? The other son, I believe, is Bunker Hunt. Which is what the Russian Army went on in Berlin in April, '45. A plague on the house of Hunt. If karma really existed they would all have died of plague. When the widow of Lamar Hunt popped up at the Superbowl kickoff this year I wanted to jump through the screen at her. Her husband's victim had his head blown off and she gets to go to the Superbowl like some hero. Yeah, Nelson Bunker Hunt, I think you're right. The one who was behind the horrendous "Wanted for treason" signs that greeted their victim in Dallas. Here's the Wiki on him (and since Wiki is right wing this is probably sanitized): "...He is notable for having participated in cornering the world silver market during Jimmy Carter's presidency and the high inflationary period of the late 1970's and 1980. His actions caused the price first to rise almost ten-fold, and then to plummet shortly thereafter, which ultimately led to his bankruptcy. ... The son of Texas oil billionaire H. L. Hunt, who was believed to be the richest man in the world at the time of his death, Nelson Bunker Hunt also entered the oil business.... The late sports tycoon Lamar Hunt was Hunt's younger brother. ... He has donated millions to Christian groups such as Promise Keepers, Campus Crusade for Christ, Christian World Liberation Front, Moral Majority, Christian Broadcasters Network, Strategies to Eliminate Poverty (STEP). At one point, he was active in a number of organizations, including the John Birch Society and the International Association for the Advancement of Ethnology and Eugenics." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nelson_Bunker_Hunt

The nose and chin match up, as does his taste in eyewear, but who needed black glacier wraparound goggles in Texas? The man with the wraparound goggles and hat with the headband is said to be that of Jim Braden at Dealey Plaza, before being taken into custody in the Dal Tex building by Dallas Sherriff deputy Lummie Lewis. I'm not that convinced it's him. BK Ah, Jim Braden. His presence in the plaza was, IMO, strong proof of the Hunt klan's involvement in President Kennedy's murder, since he was a lackey for them. http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKhuntHL.htm http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKbrading.htm That is one of the few times that I've ever seen Jim Garrison fooled. He said, in On the Trail of the Assassins, that he thought Braden was placed in the plaza as a red herring, to fool people into wrongly believing oil money was in the mix. Gotta disagree with big Jim on this one. HL Hunt and that hideous Lamar son and that other son Whatsisname had the President's blood all over them. Not sure about Murchison... but probably. (When Nixon referred to "The Texans" I think he meant Hunt and Murchison. Input on this point is welcome & appreciated.)

Did he ever get his kids straightened out about where he was on 11/22/63? He testified that he had trouble convincing them that he wasn't in Dallas, when he had testified earlier that the kids were with him that day. I imagine this only confused the kids more than ever. Ron As you know, Mark Lane's PLAUSIBLE DENIAL tells the story in detail. Hunt claimed to sue the newspaper because the suggestion he was part of the Kennedy assassination was hurtful to his children, who saw him in Washington on 11/22/63....... but when put on the stand the kids said he was gone all weekend, so he had no alibi....... I don't believe that Lane ever put Hunt's kids on the stand. What won the case for Lane is that Hunt's defense was entirely based on Hunt's whereabouts on Nov 22, '63. They managed to get some BS "alibi" from other CIA spooks that they saw him in DC that day, not in Dallas. So Lane brilliantly decided to focus on proving Hunt was in Dallas the night of Nov 21. He got a deposition from CIA asset Marita Lorenz placing Hunt (and Sturgis) in Dallas, handing out money or weapons or both to various thugs at some motel hours before the murder. The jury found that there was sufficient proof that Hunt was in Dallas on Nov 21, '63. Therefore, the CIA was involved in President Kennedy's murder. We don't hear much about that in the media do we? The jury forewoman Leslie Armstrong stated to reporters: "Mr. Lane was asking us to do something very difficult. He was asking us to believe that John Kennedy had been killed by our own government. Yet when we examined the evidence closely, we were compelled to conclude that the CIA had indeed killed President Kennedy." http://www.skepticfiles.org/socialis/jfklane.htm (Oh, and I don't believe Hunt ever got his own kids to believe his lie about his Nov 22 whereabouts. I think it remained a big issue between them.)

All of Hunt's statements are necessarily self-serving. His veracity is doubtful. Jack Oh thank you for saying that Jack. As I've often said, books by the professional murderers and liars in the CIA have no credibility. I don't see how they can have any value to researchers, or to truth buffs. They might, however, be useful to gardeners with compost piles.

Oh. Sometimes it takes a while for things to sink in. Thanks for reiterating John. Well, I need to do much more reading on this subject. It's hugely significant. And I'm so tired of hearing people gush about what a great liberal LB friggen J was 'cause of his devotion to civil rights.

Thank you for the summary John! So, just to be hyper-clear, are you of the opinion that President Kennedy would have proposed civil rights legislation that was stronger than the legislation LBJ (ugh) ultimately implemented? And are you saying that LBJ (...) compromised significantly on the legislation, which weakened it? (Again, I haven't done the homework on this subject yet. I will...) Follow up: One of my research objectives has been to find out if the civil rights legislation LBJ got passed (and that people gush about in warm remembrances of the big ol' murderer) was actually Kennedy policy that LBJ appropriated. John's input was helpful, and yesterday I saw this: "And it was Lyndon Johnson who, by his deft negotiating, managed to pass President Kennedy's civil rights legislation after his assassination." http://www.wnbc.com/news/11095649/detail.html

I'm familiar with the infamous Hyde park episode Stephen; I didn't know there was a documentary about it though. Thanks. That would be worth seeing. And, yeah, the symbolism was perfect. Now that I think about it though I'm surprised that Jagger didn't have Stones employee Thoroughgood drown the butterflies instead of suffocating them. Hell, they had that down to a formula. Then Stones employee Keylock could again handle the cover-up and throw acid in the eyes of pesky witnesses to permanently blind and intimidate them so that no one would ever have to know the unsavory truth about the insect massacre. And I didn't recall that Jagger had on a nancy girl kinda frock. I wonder if he started dressing more flamboyantly after Brian's murder or before? Do you know? I may have to get those old Ed Sullivan tapes from the library again to check. In every performance I've seen with Jones present, it's obvious that he--not Jagger--was the focal point. Jagger could flounce about and pucker his lips all he wanted but people were looking at the blond bombshell in the purple suit and plumed hat blissfully playing an instrument most people had never seen or heard before. Sitting or standing or whatever, Brian was the star and his mastery of sitar, dulcimer, mellotron, harmonica, flute, guitar... was what gave songs like Dressed in Black and Ruby Tuesday their other-worldly beauty. It was a classic case of idealism vs commerce. Jones cared mainly about the purity of the music and about innovating. The other Stones just wanted to crank out increasingly mundane and crass music and rake in money as fast as possible. Jones would go to any length and distance--from the US R&B community to the remote mountains of Morocco--to create a fresh sound. Jagger and Richards wanted the fast pound and would go to any lengths for fabulous wealth. Between the jealousy over Jones' natural star quality (which Dan pointed out) and Jones' objection to the increasing bastardization of his group's music, they were intent on getting rid of him. The misery they put him through, from outright refusal to talk to him to setting him up with planted drugs and drug busts to leaving him stranded and alone in the middle of nowhere while Keith Richards ran off with his girlfriend, was a huge part of Jones' emotional problems and led him to increasingly turn to drugs. Of course that was the excuse the Stones used to dump him--according to them his legal problems meant they couldn't rake in more money by touring. Bullxxxx. Jagger and Richards' legal problems over drugs were just as bad. So Jagger steals Jones' life, look, and legacy. Much like Lyndon Johnson did with Kennedy. Jagger and Johnson. Does crime pay or what?

So it's common knowledge in the industry eh Don? Well that's pretty damn interesting. Hoo boy, and Jagger became successful because of Jones. Jones hired him, Jones mentored him, Jones kept him in the band even though he was not a good singer, and couldn't even sing in time to the music, and at first he wasn't a good performer. Jones was brilliant and terribly fragile emotionally. He wasn't perfect but he sure as hell didn't deserve the prolonged abuse and harassment Mick and Keith dumped on him. They put him through hell for years and drove him from the band. But that wasn't enough for them; they wanted him dead. And I agree about their lack of remorse after the Altamont murder. The Gimme Shelter filmmaker showed Keith and Mick the murder footage, in slow motion, on camera, and they basically shrugged. I guess at that point they were desensitized to murder. I hear it gets easier with practice. Oh, and yes Mick did attend the London School of Economics. He was a proper bloke. Jones was never a proper bloke. He was the kind that just won't shape himself to his environment. Instead he was a creative force who molded a musical environment in which he finally felt at ease. Briefly. Then he became the victim of a coup. And his murderers went on to gain fabulous wealth and status. And it's all pretty revolting. My favorite Stones songs are the ones in which Jones played the sitar and the flute and many other unusual instruments, and gave the music an ethereal sound. The man could play any instrument he picked up, seemingly within minutes.

All of your points make perfect sense to me John. Altamont was supposed to be the Stone's Woodstock. And I'll add that in England, from what I've read, hells angels are more cuddly. Supposedly they don't have the image of an aggressive violent gang over there. So context is very significant. A lot of my reaction is obviously emotional. And again context is a factor. A mention of Mick Jagger in any context would set me off because of his role in the murder of the extraordinary founder of the Stones (who is now almost erased from history... much like other people we discuss here) while Mick gets to strut at the Superbowl. Then put it in the context of Altamont, in which they basically lured a huge crowd to their stage and dropped a stick of dynamite on 'em, and I get pretty furious. I think Sympathy for the Devil, in isolation, is a great song. Sympathy for the Devil, in context, is--to me--hypocritical and kinda repulsive. Thanks for talking through this with me. I want to make sure that you know my disgust is directed at Mick and clan, not you.

Thanks for that link John!

If you read my post you'll see that I didn't say that they were performing Sympathy for the Devil when the murder happened John. They were playing Under my Thumb. If my tone is harsh it's because I do think the Stones were responsible for the Altamont murder but never took responsibility. (In fact there were four deaths that day due to lack of planning on their part.) They were also largely responsible for Brian Jone's murder and much of the cover-up including the burning of Jones' possessions. In both cases their direct employees committed the crime. In the Altamont murder case the Stones at least weren't willful accomplices. In the case of Brian Jones they were. So I don't much like them. And I was pointing out that Jagger was a hypocrite when he wrote those lyrics and is every time he sings them.

The great Bobby Darin, who penned some of the most best protest songs ever, was devastated when Bobby Kennedy was murdered. He wrote "In Memoriam" about the train that carried RFK's body to his burial site. Darin was one of the mourners at the cemetery holding a candle. The casket arrived late because of all the mourners lining the track. By then it was too dark for workers to cover the grave so Darin stood all night guarding the gravesite and wouldn't leave until the workers finished covering the grave the next day. In Memoriam He's a ruthless opportunist And he motivates by greed He's just the way his father was And that we sure don't need So they all cried out destroy him For he wants to see us drowned They never understood him So they put him in the ground. Now some had stood for hours And some sat on the grass Listening to their radios For where the train had passed And a crowd will get impatient As the clock hands turn around They never understood him So they put him in the ground. They handed out some candles To the somber weary crowd And told us not to light them Till our eyes beheld the shroud Not even at that moment Could there be tranquility I could feel them push and argue Hey, sit down, I cannot see They never understood him So they put him in the ground. When the fathers closed their bibles And the family left the site The ropes and walls and hedges Kind of faded in the night Replaced by all the people Who made a prayerful sound They never understood him So they put him in the ground. Some people say the eighth of June But the morning of the ninth The workmen gently lowered him By the beam of three work lights Easy, take it easy Set him down real slow He'd been on some rougher trips But he couldn't tell them so They never understood him So they put him in the ground. Now no man has the answers And he was just a man And yet I can't help feelin' That he knew a better plan A shorter road to justice On the trip that's freedom bound But they never understood him So they put him in the ground. http://www.bobbydarin.net/inmemoriam.html

I don't think it was the lyrics that provoked people to violent behavior. I think it was the fact that the Stones hired hell's angels as bodyguards for the Altamont concert, paid them with cases of beer, let them get drunk as hell, then were silent bystanders as the angels physically assaulted (and rendered unconscious) Marty Balin of the Jefferson Airplane who performed before the Stones. When Mick finally took to the stage he shouldn't have been surprised when his drunk and out of control hell's angels stabbed an audience member dead, all visible on film, as he pranced about singing. Mick and the Stones never acknowledged their complicity in the murder of the audience member who was assassinated by their employees. But I do acknowledge that Mick was qualified to write about murder and complicity given the Stone's complicity in planting Frank Thorogood, another one of their employees, in the house at pooh corner to harass and murder Brian Jones--the Stones founder and most brilliant musician. http://archive.salon.com/ent/col/srag/2000.../gimme_shelter/ http://www.amazon.com/Brian-Jones-Killed-C...g/dp/1900924811 When Don McLean penned his ballad about Buddy Holly, he pulled no punches in describing Mick Jagger at Altamont: "So come on: jack be nimble, jack be quick! Jack flash sat on a candlestick Cause fire is the devil’s only friend. Oh, and as I watched him on the stage My hands were clenched in fists of rage. No angel born in hell Could break that satan’s spell. And as the flames climbed high into the night To light the sacrificial rite, I saw satan laughing with delight The day the music died" http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a3_398b.html http://www.faqs.org/faqs/music/american-pie/

We are not the United Nations ... Darn. I was looking forward to having Hugo Chavez come here and call Bush "El Diablo." I'll send him an email, see if he is available. If not I will happily call El Presidente anything you require. I appreciate the offer, and I must say that you are a full service moderator. Ok you're on. I want you to call him what he really is: irrelevant. He's the puppet the regime created, props up and controls. Charlie Mccarthy was more life-like and human. So call him irrelevant. Please and thank you. And say it in Spanish like Prez Chavez would.

I looked at your thread Sid. Almost a year ago you were noticing the same thing I've just noticed. In your case you're quoting his speech to the UN General Assembly--now at this URL: http://www.jfklibrary.org/Historical+Resou...ons09251961.htm (they've moved it). Here's another of his addresses to the UN: http://www.jfklibrary.org/Historical+Resou...bly09201963.htm Between those speeches and the space race speeches it's getting quite apparent that the President, from the first months of his term to the end, was intent on peace and would not be dragged into a cold war or a hot war or any kind of war so that LBJ's Brown & Root could become Bush's Halliburton by raking in blood money. There's no way President Kennedy would get us mired in Vietnam or anyplace else; that was clear from the start, which meant he was a marked man from the start. He was a true visionary, a real leader, and a peace president. The non-stop propaganda that claims he was cut from the same cloth as LBJ, that he would have sent tens of thousands of poor boys to Vietnam to fight a rich man's war, is brazen. And sadly quite successful. I have to dispute that very point with people nearly every time I post on any political forum. Then and now the CIA & Bush/Rove propagandists have done very well using the tactic of accusing their opponent of the very things they're guilty of. More people need to see, hear, read these speeches; read his documents and national security memos and relevant reports... We need to put every accessible piece of video on youtube... 'Cause once people see and hear the man himself things will start to click. His own words are just the best evidence to show the reason he was murdered. 'Cause he was a damn peace-monger and the sociopath capitalists wouldn't stand for it.

Peter, that's remarkable footage. Just chilling, and sorta encouraging... I'm trying to figure out how to add it to the youtube group. Is it possible to point to an existing video? I'm flailing. Traditional with additional lyrics by jim mcguinn He was a friend of mine He was a friend of mine His killing had no purpose No reason, or rhyme He was a friend of mine He was in dallas town He was in dallas town Form a sixth floor window A gunner shot him down He died in dallas town He never knew my name He never knew my name Though I never met him I knew him just the same Oh, he was a friend of mine http://www.lyricsfreak.com/b/byrds/he+was+...e_20026412.html The lyrics don't quite jibe with the comments made before the song... "sixth floor window"? It's the comments before the song that say what needs to be said. Well, Bobby Darin was proud of his protégé Jim/Roger Mcguinn. He taught him a lot about folk singing. Then Roger flew the coup and popularized folk music all over again in the post-Beatles era. I know Roger looks up to his mentor even to this day for his sincerity and purity and passion about politics and human rights. He's said so in many interviews. Darin was one more casualty of the 60's political murders. When Bobby Kennedy was assassinated it destroyed him.

The answer is yes. Thank you Gary Mack. James Do you think that fact is significant to the assassination James? Myra, At this stage, the answer to that is no. James Thank you Bernice and James for the info/reply.

The answer is yes. Thank you Gary Mack. James Do you think that fact is significant to the assassination James?

The film is irrelevant re matters occuring on Elm Street in DP on Nov 22nd 1963... (we and THEY know that) Perhaps as ole Gerald Posner makes his rounds of talk shows on FOX, MSNBC, CNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC fielding all those powder-puffs questions he's sure to be asked, he'll be kind enough to quote Gary Mack eluding to your above. I sure Posner no doubt will comment on how GREAT Jackie looks 60 seconds before her husband is shot to death with wounds in the back and head. Immediately after he states how Jeffries film supports the contention of the WCR... Exactly!...Forget the jacket !... look at the wound on the body and where people who saw it, described it's location. Even S A Sibert says it was where the autopsy photo shows it, and apparently he was the first to spot it when the body was turned over, and it's why he doesn't accept the SBT (See William Laws intv. of James Sibert ) So who among us will write a letter to the NY Times that they may or may not publish under the pretense fair and balanced op-eding? The same question applies to MSNBC, CNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC etc--the whole propaganda parade. Should the chores be divided up? Should we each do it?

A musical answer, aka... The CIA Lullaby (Ahem) HUSH little babies, dont say a word Poppy’s gonna buy you a mockingbird And when that mockingbird does sing Poppy’s gonna buy it diamond ring But if the bird song just don’t fly Poppy’s gonna try with another lie So when that President gets killed Luce is gonna publish Z-flam stills The film will frame a Harvey goat So you’ll believe what Warren wrote But if you tend to disbelieve There are more writers to deceive Tho’ when the HSCA’s born The party line will be transformed If congress shows conspiracy Then we’ll need a new patsy The mafia will fill the bill ‘Cause we all know they’re born to kill Ignore the fact they work for us That’s not a point we want to stress If “mob dunnit” seems absurd Poppy’s gonna send more mockingbirds They’ll fly full circle to proclaim The Oswald tale still fits the frame Then when that bird flock drops its load You should think the Case is Closed And if you really buy that bull Then you’ll be the dumbest little babes in the world (Thank you; thank you very much.)

Ah, they're on a roll. The NY Times--all the propaganda that fits they print. The paper of record for the CIA. Poser sure was ready with that piece of... "Op-Ed. But there is no doubt much more to come as always from our fine feathered mockingbird friends. However I think in the days leading up to May 29 there will be an especially high number of bird droppings. Note the framing in the opening paragraph: "cold cases decades old, has turned many Americans into armchair sleuths seeking to “solve” the unexpected deaths of people like Princess Diana and Anna Nicole Smith." So JFK assassination researchers are lumped in with readers of trashy tabloids obsessing on Anna Nicole Smith. And they sneer at researchers into Princess Diana's murcer while they're at it. That blurb has it all; it's pithy and mocking. Hmmm, mocking, bird--are those CIAers clever or what? Frank Luntz, would be proud. Frank Luntz may be the ghost-writer... (Oh John, I need to check and see of Luntz is included in your propaganda page. If not, I think he should be.) "Single Bullet, Single Gunman." "definitively resolves" "The new film has finally resolved the issue." "Lee Harvey Oswald fired the first shot" "Kennedy’s suit is significantly bunched up, with several layers creased together." "Lee Harvey Oswald fired the first shot," "Kennedy’s suit jacket was precisely in the position to misrepresent the bullet’s entry point." "the film solves one mystery" CASE CLOSED!!!!!!!!!!!! Nothing to see here move along. (Oh, and if anyone finds more evidence, by all means turn it over to Gary Mack so that he can, you know, take care of it.)

Administrative note: I didn't see this subject in the forum, or the index, or in search results. Disclaimer: Sometimes I don't see stuff that's there. Ok, I'm talkin' to someone about President Kennedy after a third person made the party-line claim that the President was a war-monger blah blah blah. And Someone makes an observation that I think is fantastic and I'd love to take credit for (dagnabbit). Someone states: "I've been thinking lately that Kennedy's effort to go to the moon was a way to re-direct the military industrial complex away from war and into a peaceful endeavor.... I think it was a truly bold, brilliant move by President Kennedy to launch the space age." And I think "Ooooo!" Beyond that I start looking at the President's speeches describing his vision for manned space exploration. I found his speech to congress in which he announced his plans to go to the moon. That speech was shortly after the Bay of Pigs set-up so there was likely some image polishing/distraction going on in addition to the space race element. Also found his famous speech at Rice University in Houston. I'll quote some excerpts of each speech. I'd love to get input from y'all on whether "Someone" is on to Something. I'm presenting them in reverse chronological order because there's video/audio of the Rice speech, along with the transcript, which makes it very special. This video shows how "inspiring" (to quote Helen Thomas who regularly cites Kennedy as her favorite president), charismatic, poetic, and witty the President was. Highly recommended viewing. And it's short, so it's very watchable... after we get past the stupefying introductions that is. Unfortunately two of the intros are from those winkin' co-conspirators Albert Thomas and LBJ (http://www.rense.com/general40/thewnk.htm ). (As an editorial aside, one of the worst things about researching the President's murder is seeing that LBJ thug behind him smirking.) Anyway, back to the point. Text of President John Kennedy’s Rice Stadium Moon Speech, September 12, 1962 (Short speech with video and transcript here) http://www1.jsc.nasa.gov/er/seh/ricetalk.htm Excerpts: “Those who came before us made certain that this country rode the first waves of the industrial revolutions, the first waves of modern invention, and the first wave of nuclear power, and this generation does not intend to founder in the backwash of the coming age of space. We mean to be a part of it--we mean to lead it. For the eyes of the world now look into space, to the moon and to the planets beyond, and we have vowed that we shall not see it governed by a hostile flag of conquest, but by a banner of freedom and peace. We have vowed that we shall not see space filled with weapons of mass destruction, but with instruments of knowledge and understanding.” “Yet the vows of this Nation can only be fulfilled if we in this Nation are first, and, therefore, we intend to be first. In short, our leadership in science and in industry, our hopes for peace and security, our obligations to ourselves as well as others, all require us to make this effort, to solve these mysteries, to solve them for the good of all men, and to become the world's leading space-faring nation. We set sail on this new sea because there is new knowledge to be gained, and new rights to be won, and they must be won and used for the progress of all people. For space science, like nuclear science and all technology, has no conscience of its own. Whether it will become a force for good or ill depends on man, and only if the United States occupies a position of pre-eminence can we help decide whether this new ocean will be a sea of peace or a new terrifying theater of war. I do not say the we should or will go unprotected against the hostile misuse of space any more than we go unprotected against the hostile use of land or sea, but I do say that space can be explored and mastered without feeding the fires of war, without repeating the mistakes that man has made in extending his writ around this globe of ours. There is no strife, no prejudice, no national conflict in outer space as yet. Its hazards are hostile to us all. Its conquest deserves the best of all mankind, and its opportunity for peaceful cooperation many never come again.” (End of speech) “Well, space is there, and we're going to climb it, and the moon and the planets are there, and new hopes for knowledge and peace are there. And, therefore, as we set sail we ask God's blessing on the most hazardous and dangerous and greatest adventure on which man has ever embarked.” President John F. Kennedy's Man on the Moon Speech Special Message to the Congress on Urgent National Needs, delivered on May 25, 1961 before a joint session of Congress. (Long speech) http://history1900s.about.com/od/1960s/a/jfkmoon.htm Excerpts: “But while we talk of sharing and building and the competition of ideas, others talk of arms and threaten war.” “I cannot end this discussion of defense and armaments without emphasizing our strongest hope: the creation of an orderly world where disarmament will be possible. Our aims do not prepare for war--they are efforts to discourage and resist the adventures of others that could end in war.” "A third asset is our desire for peace. It is sincere, and I believe the world knows it. We are proving it in our patience at the test ban table, and we are proving it in the UN where our efforts have been directed to maintaining that organization's usefulness as a protector of the independence of small nations. In these and other instances, the response of our opponents has not been encouraging. Yet it is important to know that our patience at the bargaining table is nearly inexhaustible, though our credulity is limited that our hopes for peace are unfailing, while our determination to protect our security is resolute. For these reasons I have long thought it wise to meet with the Soviet Premier for a personal exchange of views. A meeting in Vienna turned out to be convenient for us both; and the Austrian government has kindly made us welcome. No formal agenda is planned and no negotiations will be undertaken; but we will make clear America's enduring concern is for both peace and freedom--that we are anxious to live in harmony with the Russian people--that we seek no conquests, no satellites, no riches--that we seek only the day when "nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.” (I feel like saying "amen.")

That is one of the best comments ever Don. I'd make it my sig line if President Kennedy wasn't so darn quotable. Imagine ... In 1964, the official USG investigation of the assassination concludes that, based upon the available medical, eyewitness, earwitness, photographic, ballistic, and other forensic evidence, JFK was the victim of a conspiracy, likely domestic in origin. Imagine ... At the same time, a small, vocal, impassioned group of self-styled "critics" appears and argues that one man -- LHO -- without assistance of any form or fashion, did it all. Their conclusion rests upon a theory that a single bullet caused seven separate wounds to the president and the Texas governor, a characterization of LHO as a "troubled loner" and "marksman" with "Communist leanings," and all the rest of the nutter nonsense. How long would these critics' arguments have lasted in the public consciousness? How soon would they have been laughed off the planet? It is the imprimatur of the parent state alone that preserves the lie. And so our enemy is known. Ah, nicely done Charles. Just flip things around and the LNers sound psychotic. Of course in reality many of them are more strategic than psychotic.

That is one of the best comments ever Don. I'd make it my sig line if President Kennedy wasn't so darn quotable.