william mook wrote:

Clearly you are attempting to fool us into believing that Kennedy's
argument behind the scenes with NASA and others positining himself
to lower the high price of the supplemental budget should wrongly
tell us something about his lack of larger commitment to space.

Fool you how? I'm merely quoting the transcript. Believe what you
want.


You repeat the same things you've already repeated in the hopes
that by repeating misinformation people will buy it. Clearly
you're attempting to fool us into believing something that isn't
true.

I'm not selling anything. Nor am I buying the yarn you're trying
to sell.


Setting aside the recently released tape which I've explained was
from a meeting held following NASA's supplemental budget for the
moon program. What else have you got?

You choose to set it aside. I do not.


You are attempting to assasinate Kennedy again.

Oh, please. Because I don't put him on a pedestal, I assassinate
him? Is there no middle ground for you? Your position appears to
be driven more by emotion than reason.


JFK was assasinated before the Apollo 1 fire. Prior to that
fire NASA was to land on the moon sometime in 1967 or 68. The
Apollo 1 fire and the retrofits that followed it delayed the
program 18 months or so according to those who worked on the
project.

So? Do you mean to imply that the fire and subsequent delay
would not have occurred if JFK had remained president? Non
sequitur.

Why are you complaining? Obviously, you've created a non-sequitor
by taking a tangential view of an answer I made to another
tangential question. Plainly you seek to bury any real
conversation in a pile of minutiae that has no meaning.

You're the one who brought up the fire. I ask the relevance of that,
and you accuse me of taking off on a tangent.


So, lets get back to the point. I say that had Kennedy been
President two terms NASA's budget during that period would have
hovered around 4% GDP, and likely have remained there for a
number of years following his presidency.

That's your fantasy. In actual fact, it would have required the
consent of a lot of other people, even if Kennedy had remained
committed to 4% of GDP, which is not certain.


Look, I say had Kennedy benn president over two terms we would
have avoided the Vietnam war, spent far more on cooperative
ventures like the Peace Corps - reduced covert activities that
destabilized freely elected governments - and spent far more on
space travel development. NASA would have remained at 4% to 5%
of GDP and not dropped to 1/2% of GDP.

You're free to say that. I'm not convinced. Too bad if that
upsets you.


I maintain he would spend 4% to 5% GDP and seek to argue for that
level of funding following his tenure as president. You maintain
he would have engineered a reduction to 1% by the end of his two
terms and then sit idle while subsequent presidents reduced it to
1/2%.

Now you're fabricating. I have never made any specific statement
about what Kennedy would have done. In fact, that's what I object
to in your position: the certainty that he would have done thus and
so, and all the country would have rallied behind him.

It's unknowable. Kennedy was a politician, not an emperor. He
would have done what politicians do: prioritize, compromise, give
and take, possibly even reverse course if the situation demanded.
I'm not sold on the notion that he had a unique overarching
commitment to space.


Clearly you are trying to fool us ...

How so? By doubting your interpretation and extrapolation of
history? The transcripts are there for all to read. I encourage
anyone interested to read them and draw their own conclusions. How
is that fooling anyone?


Whatever Kennedy's commitment, he would have been out of office
in January 1969 at the latest. Very possibly, he would have
been out of office by January 1965, depending on how voters
weighed his performance regarding the Bay of Pigs, the Missile
Crisis, and his spending 4% of GDP on NASA.

Well, I'm glad to see that you agree had Kennedy been in office
over two terms he would have continued spending on space at 4% GDP.

I agree to nothing of the sort. On the contrary: I suspect that,
if Kennedy had thought his reelection depended on cutting the NASA
budget, he would have done so. I doubt that he would have sacrificed
his political career and everything else in his agenda for the sake
of NASA.


Why should I believe that he [JFK] would have acted any
differently (contrary to his earlier public statements)?

Differently than what?

Differently than LBJ, who also made bold statements about being
first in space, but cut the budget anyway.


As a juror in the court of public opinion,

???? Well, I don't want to deflate your ego, but I don't remember
asking you to serve on this jury.

Talk about ego! What makes you think I need an invitation from you?
Who appointed you judge?

I'm a member of the public. I have my opinions. You have different
opinions, to which you're entitled. Personally, I find your
supporting arguments unconvincing.


I'm not convinced that it would have made much difference in
that regard.

Yet, you have no basis at all for saying this.

It's the null hypothesis. What should I assume in the absence of
evidence? You would have me believe that JFK would put the NASA
budget above all other political and economic concerns, and that
the country would give him everything he asked. I'm not convinced.
He barely won '60. If winning '64 or passing other important
legislation meant cutting back the NASA budget, I suspect he would
have done so, because that's the sort of thing real-world
politicians do. Camelot is a fantasy.


Understand you have no real basis for the opinions you have.

Understand you venerate the fallen president and are distressed
that others do not.

This has become tiresome. You may have the last word. I doubt
many others are still following it.

--

Ted Hall