JFK was murdered by the British as part of a plot to...

[Denis Pointing]

... who were actually Peter Paul and Mary, on a re-write of their infamous "Puff the Magic Dragon" espousing drug abuse).

/quote]

You mean to say "Puff the Magic Dragon" was actually about DRUGS!!! That's yet another illusion shattered.

Edited October 8, 2008 by Denis Pointing

[Mark Knight]

As a student of history, I must agree with Ron. Sex has been in America a lot longer than just since the JFK assassination; I was born 9 years before that ....

No sir, I'm here to tell you that you were born a mere eight years before sex was practiced in America! If you wish to be famous, please find a different way to do so, okay? False claims such as this have a way of interfering with some of the classes I teach, and I want you to know that I don't appreciate it!

Yours (Roy "Back to Basics") Truly

Duke, did you notice that the person espousing the theory that the JFK assassination unleashed sex, drugs, and rock and roll on America...has, as a signature line, a line from Tom Petty...one of those rock and rollers who came after the JFK assassination? So I guess we can in one breath claim that rock and roll is a part of what's wrong with America--and, by extension, the world--and still cling to rock and roll lyrics as a sign of our "salvation" from this evil?

I believe I detect some hypocrisy here...

...but what I don't believe is that sex, drugs, and rock and roll (1) were only unleashed on America after the JFK assassination; (2) are the only reason we're in a state of decline; (3) were employed as a tactic by a single cohesive force of evil; or (4) are any more to blame than alcohol, divorce, country music cheatin' songs, and obesity for the sad state of America and its citizens.

Just my opinions...NOT cribbed from Limbaugh OR LaRouche, or any other demagogue with a last name beginning with "L".

Edited October 9, 2008 by Mark Knight

[Len Colby]

As a student of history, I must agree with Ron. Sex has been in America a lot longer than just since the JFK assassination; I was born 9 years before that ....

No sir, I'm here to tell you that you were born a mere eight years before sex was practiced in America! If you wish to be famous, please find a different way to do so, okay? False claims such as this have a way of interfering with some of the classes I teach, and I want you to know that I don't appreciate it!

Yours (Roy "Back to Basics") Truly

Dike, did you notice that the person espousing the theory that the JFK assassination unleashed sex, drugs, and rock and roll on America...has, as a signature line, a line from Tom Petty...one of those rock and rollers who came after the JFK assassination? So I guess we can in one breath claim that rock and roll is a part of what's wrong with America--and, by extension, the world--and still cling to rock and roll lyrics as a sign of our "salvation" from this evil?

I believe I detect some hypocrisy here....

Mark

I made a similar observation on a thread in the Political Conspiracies forum:

... the Brits launched an Opium War against this country starting after the murder of John Kennedy in the mid 1960's, with their launching of the sex, rock, drug counter culture. You've been a customer of theirs for years isnt that right?

Yes you finally get something right, yes with pride! However my drug consumption has waned considerably since my youth. But isn't a bit a ironic that someone who has made posts referring to the men she's had and who is a fan of such drug gobbling rockers as Tom Petty and the Eagles would object?

I don’t see it as much as hypocrisy as much as she is too brainwashed to see the contradiction.

PS - Interesting 'typo' in your post, it wasn't a "Freudian slip" by any chance?

[Mark Knight]

No. Len, my typo was simply a typo. I meant no disrespect to Duke, and I have since edited my post to correct my mistake. Something about hasty replies necessitated by an on-again, off-again wireless connection allows those sort of things to occur...well, that, plus the fact that I'm not a very proficient typist/keyboardist to begin with.

Mea culpa.

[Guest Stephen Turner]

Terry, which section of the British establishment do you believe was responsible for the assassination. Did they receive any local help/ encouragement. and who (organisation) pulled the trigger.

Thanks, Steve.

[Terry Mauro]

Terry, which section of the British establishment do you believe was responsible for the assassination. Did they receive any local help/ encouragement. and who (organisation) pulled the trigger.

Thanks, Steve.

I would indentify Betrand Russell as being a leading figue of the faction responsible for the JFK murder. Permindex was the vehicle used to actually carry out the murder. Jim Garrison got that much right when he arrested Clay Shaw.

With the marriage of Kathleen Kennedy to the Duke of Devonshire John Kennedy and the Kennedy family became intertwined with the notorious Cecil clan. John Kennedy was supposed to do the bidding of these British oligarchs. British Ambassador to the United States David Ormsby-Gore(later Lord Harlec) was also an in law to JFK. JFK had Ormsy's-Gore placed on the highly secret Ex-comm committee. This was the committee best known for it's work during the Cuban Missiles Crisis.

You might also want to read a book regarding the little know Skybolt Missile crisis that JFK had with his British counterparts. The book was written in 1993 and chronicles of the sudden shift in the "Special Relationship" between JFK and the British. The Skybolt story is just one indication of Kennedy's break with British policy (and I am not refering to the British people). The diaries of PM Macmillan testify that JFK had to be armtwisted at the famous Nassau summit in spring 1963 before he would agree to turn over the Polaris missile program to the British.

http://www.alibris.com/search/books/qwork/...n%20Perspective

Edited October 9, 2008 by Terry Mauro

[Mike Tribe]

I've always been highly sceptical of the various conspiracy theories surrounding the Kennedy assassinations. It just seemed to me that the "cock-up" theory of history whereby even the best organized conspiracies would go wrong and be revealed was so much more convincing. A discussion over lunch in Bratislava with John Simkin really made me think that maybe there was something behind the idea. Unfortunately, the obviously silly and uninformed rants by people like Ms Mauro, can do nothing but reinforce the sceptical point of view. She has claimed, over the past couple of days that:

* the fact that Gov Schwartzenegger's campaigns had been supported by members of the Kennedy family proved that he was a nazi

* the fact that he was originally Austrian proved that he was a nazi

* the pre-WWII head of the German Central Bank was born in the United States when he was demonstrably born in Germany

* the American Revolution was caused by a British commitment to free trade when any historian could confirm that the opposite was the case

* the Beatles were part of a plot to bring the United States to its knees morally and physically

Taken in the context of these totally ridiculous and unsubstantiated claims, then her belief in a British plot to assassinate Kennedy would seem to place this whole theory in the realms of the bizarre, if not in that of abnormal psychology. It certainly does little to persuade sceptics that the JFK "research community" has much validity...

Edited October 9, 2008 by Mike Tribe

[Pamela Brown]

I don't know if I would consider Terry's statements about the Brits being behind JFK's murder a 'rant'; the statements are not yet supported by documentation that she believes credible yet, except for the Skybolt reference, which is certainly interesting.

Ironically, the Kennedys and the Brits have been intertwined since Papa Joe was Ambassador to the Court of St. James until he had to be recalled by FDR for his Hitler-appeasing position.

[Terry Mauro]

I've always been highly sceptical of the various conspiracy theories surrounding the Kennedy assassinations. It just seemed to me that the "cock-up" theory of history whereby even the best organized conspiracies would go wrong and be revealed was so much more convincing. A discussion over lunch in Bratislava with John Simkin really made me think that maybe there was something behind the idea. Unfortunately, the obviously silly and uninformed rants by people like Ms Mauro, can do nothing but reinforce the sceptical point of view. She has claimed, over the past couple of days that:

* the fact that Gov Schwartzenegger's campaigns had been supported by members of the Kennedy family proved that he was a nazi

* the fact that he was originally Austrian proved that he was a nazi

* the pre-WWII head of the German Central Bank was born in the United States when he was demonstrably born in Germany

* the American Revolution was caused by a British commitment to free trade when any historian could confirm that the opposite was the case

* the Beatles were part of a plot to bring the United States to its knees morally and physically

Taken in the context of these totally ridiculous and unsubstantiated claims, then her belief in a British plot to assassinate Kennedy would seem to place this whole theory in the realms of the bizarre, if not in that of abnormal psychology. It certainly does little to persuade sceptics that the JFK "research community" has much validity...

Exactly what conspiracy theories are you highly skeptical? The manner in which your summarize my statements smack of sophistry. One might conclude that you've taken to sleeping with Len Colby.

You might also want to look into the murder of Abraham Lincoln for a "how to manual" for British assassins. There is nothing bizzare about the British killing American Presidents. Our history shows this to be a fairly common event. The problem lies with ignorant educators who do not understand history.

Edited October 9, 2008 by Terry Mauro

[Duke Lane]

... but what I don't believe is that sex, drugs, and rock and roll (1) were only unleashed on America after the JFK assassination; (2) are the only reason we're in a state of decline; (3) were employed as a tactic by a single cohesive force of evil; or (4) are any more to blame than alcohol, divorce, country music cheatin' songs, and obesity for the sad state of America and its citizens.

Just my opinions...NOT cribbed from Limbaugh OR LaRouche, or any other demagogue with a last name beginning with "L".

Leaving aside that my name begins with an "L", I only wished to point out that there was, in fact, sex in America before the Beatles. Not much and not often, but it was practiced in certain esoteric circles for no less than nine years before JFK even, much less the Beatles.

I suppose that I should point out that this is not thoroughly documented and thus remains something of a theory, but I believe that there are recorded instances of it taking place and, that being the case, feel that earlier conjectural instances of its practice should not be ruled out.

Rock and roll probably didn't appear before the advent of electricity, but as for drugs, all I can say is that I've heard from respected students of history that the "Boston Tea Party" had nothing whatsoever to do with darjeeling or pekoe, and may have had something to do with a major cartel controlling the traffic at the time. Don't quote me on that, mind you, but there is evidence to support the proposition.

[Ron Ecker]

Wasn't Peter Lawford a Brit, and married to a Kennedy sister? An overlooked suspect! If he didn't help introduce sex in America, he may have at least introduced it to that sister he married. Where was he on 11/22/63? Which tramp could be Lawford? (After all, they all look like somebody.) I believe that Lawford is supposed to have helped RFK dispose of Marilyn Monroe (he mentioned to someone that Marilyn had "taken her last enema"). Did Lawford then have a hand in the RFK hit? If Lawford was in LA making a movie at the time, was that just a coincidence? Did he ever hang around with Jim Braden? Perhaps the Ambassador Hotel photos should be reexamined for a Lawford lookalike. This could produce a lead that could eventually bring down the monarchy.

[Terry Mauro]

... but what I don't believe is that sex, drugs, and rock and roll (1) were only unleashed on America after the JFK assassination; (2) are the only reason we're in a state of decline; (3) were employed as a tactic by a single cohesive force of evil; or (4) are any more to blame than alcohol, divorce, country music cheatin' songs, and obesity for the sad state of America and its citizens.

Just my opinions...NOT cribbed from Limbaugh OR LaRouche, or any other demagogue with a last name beginning with "L".

Leaving aside that my name begins with an "L", I only wished to point out that there was, in fact, sex in America before the Beatles. Not much and not often, but it was practiced in certain esoteric circles for no less than nine years before JFK even, much less the Beatles.

I suppose that I should point out that this is not thoroughly documented and thus remains something of a theory, but I believe that there are recorded instances of it taking place and, that being the case, feel that earlier conjectural instances of its practice should not be ruled out.

Rock and roll probably didn't appear before the advent of electricity, but as for drugs, all I can say is that I've heard from respected students of history that the "Boston Tea Party" had nothing whatsoever to do with darjeeling or pekoe, and may have had something to do with a major cartel controlling the traffic at the time. Don't quote me on that, mind you, but there is evidence to support the proposition.

You seem a bit uncomfortable. Like a nervous giggle.

Edited October 10, 2008 by Terry Mauro

[Duke Lane]

Yes, actually, I am a bit uncomfortable about this whole discussion. Having been born and raised Catholic, sex is something we only discuss behind closed doors, drugs only affect Protestants, and rock-n-roll ... well, for all the references to Ed Sullivan being a "comedian," I never really did find him very funny.

But then, Leno was funnier before he tried to be Johnny Carson, too, don't you think? So was Letterman, who's still pissed about not being Johnny.

The farther afield the suspects become, the less likely there will ever be a chance of figuring out who pulled that trigger or caused it to be pulled, if in fact it wasn't Lee Oswald. The more spaghetti we can throw against the wall, the more likely it is that one strand or another is going to stick to the wall. In the end, only Lee Oswald's face shines through that mess because he is the only suspect whose "guilt" sticks to the wall better than the others'.

Probably because most of the others didn't do it.

I'm also uncomfortable with the Pope having done it out of concern for The Flock following a secular rather than a spiritual leader. Makes exactly as much sense as the Brits being behind it.

No "nervous giggle" here, girl. It is also not always true that the best defense is a good offense. "You just don't get it" is typically not a compelling argument.

Edited October 10, 2008 by Duke Lane

[Len Colby]

No. Len, my typo was simply a typo. I meant no disrespect to Duke, and I have since edited my post to correct my mistake. Something about hasty replies necessitated by an on-again, off-again wireless connection allows those sort of things to occur...well, that, plus the fact that I'm not a very proficient typist/keyboardist to begin with.

Mea culpa.

I was joking Mike eeer Mark and I didn’t mean to imply you were thinking of Duke when you made your typo because the word can’t apply to him. It could only apply to two people who had participated in the thread up that point and I wasn’t thinking of the one with the cool sunglasses.

I’m hardly one to give anyone a hard time about typos

[Len Colby]

Yes, actually, I am a bit uncomfortable about this whole discussion. Having been born and raised Catholic, sex is something we only discuss behind closed doors, drugs only affect Protestants,

RIP