1. Joined
    04 Nov '03
    Moves
    6803
    31 Aug '05 18:481 edit
    In our continued attempt to discover truth, and having resolved the of issue morality affecting the search for truth, let us consider a secular example before moving on to a more "spiritual" event.

    How did JFK die?

    My position is that he was killed in 1975 in Chicago by a crazed Native American who shot him with a bow and arrow.

    Let's figure out how we can determine the nature of JFK's death (if in fact he actually died).
  2. Standard memberJoe Fist
    Troubador
    Land of Fist
    Joined
    28 Sep '04
    Moves
    19210
    31 Aug '05 18:50
    Originally posted by kingdanwa
    In our continued attempt to discover truth, and having resolved the issue morality affecting the search for truth, let us consider a secular example before moving on to a more "spiritual" event.

    How did JFK die?

    My position is that he was killed in 1975 in Chicago by a crazed Native American who shot him with a bow and arrow.

    Let's figure out how we can determine the nature of JFK's death (if in fact he actually died).
    Crack kills dude....put down the pipe.
  3. Joined
    04 Nov '03
    Moves
    6803
    31 Aug '05 18:53
    Originally posted by Joe Fist
    Crack kills dude....put down the pipe.
    We have one vote for "crack" as the cause of death. Any other takers?
  4. Joined
    04 Nov '03
    Moves
    6803
    31 Aug '05 19:04
    To quote rwingett from another thread: " *stunned silence* "
  5. Standard memberJoe Fist
    Troubador
    Land of Fist
    Joined
    28 Sep '04
    Moves
    19210
    31 Aug '05 19:05
    Originally posted by kingdanwa
    We have one vote for "crack" as the cause of death. Any other takers?
    Sigh....Fine here is my theory on the nature of JFK's death:

    In 1962, while having some friends over for dinner, an associate of President Kennedy started on some obscure, pseudo spiritually enlightening metaphor about the nature of Lincoln's death. Contrary to the popular belief that Lincoln was assassinated, this associate attempted to prove that Lincoln was indeed attacked by Samoan midgets while fishing off the coast of Idaho.

    JFK, looking befuddled, decided to go into hiding in Tasmania and still lives there today with Walt Disney. The event in Dallas were staged so as the world would stop asking questions.
  6. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52619
    31 Aug '05 19:06
    Originally posted by kingdanwa
    To quote rwingett from another thread: " *stunned silence* "
    not stunned, more like bored
  7. Joined
    04 Nov '03
    Moves
    6803
    31 Aug '05 19:07
    Originally posted by Joe Fist
    Sigh....Fine here is my theory on the nature of JFK's death:

    In 1962, while having some friends over for dinner, an associate of President Kennedy started on some obscure, pseudo spiritually enlightening metaphor about the nature of Lincoln's death. Contrary to the popular belief that Lincoln was assassinated, this associate attempted to prove that Li ...[text shortened]... with Walt Disney. The event in Dallas were staged so as the world would stop asking questions.
    Sounds interesting. Do you have any evidence?
  8. Standard memberJoe Fist
    Troubador
    Land of Fist
    Joined
    28 Sep '04
    Moves
    19210
    31 Aug '05 19:08
    Originally posted by kingdanwa
    Sounds interesting. Do you have any evidence?
    Sigh again....no. I think this entire thread and your methodology is extremely condescending. Do you have any evidence to the contrary?
  9. Joined
    04 Nov '03
    Moves
    6803
    31 Aug '05 19:09
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    not stunned, more like bored
    Bored? Fine. Perhaps you don't like the premise. But could you at least offer a way to resolve this issue, and in so doing you will certainly point out my ignorance.
  10. Joined
    04 Nov '03
    Moves
    6803
    31 Aug '05 19:11
    Originally posted by Joe Fist
    Sigh again....no. I think this entire thread and your methodology is extremely condescending. Do you have any evidence to the contrary?
    Modern scholarship.

    Just a few months ago, the Kennedy Seminar casted different colored stones in an attempt to discover the truth. Some colors represented what certainly happened, but other stones represent what obviously didn't happen.

    In a recent book, The Search For the Historical Kennedy, we find out that most of what we thought we knew about Kennedy is nothing but propaganda put forth by a cult of Kenne-deists.
  11. Joined
    04 Nov '03
    Moves
    6803
    31 Aug '05 19:14
    I'll quit being ridiculous if someone would offer a way in which we can figure out what happened to Kennedy.
  12. Standard memberJoe Fist
    Troubador
    Land of Fist
    Joined
    28 Sep '04
    Moves
    19210
    31 Aug '05 19:14
    Originally posted by kingdanwa
    Modern scholarship.

    Just a few months ago, the Kennedy Seminar casted different colored stones in an attempt to discover the truth. Some colors represented what certainly happened, but other stones represent what obviously didn't happen.

    In a recent book, The Search For the Historical Kennedy, we find out that most of what we thought we knew about Kennedy is nothing but propaganda put forth by a cult of Kenne-deists.
    Reread my question: Do you have any evidence to the contrary that this thread and your methodology you are using is not condescending?

    This seems to be a great deal of "all wind up and no pitch" to get to whatever obscure point you are attempting to make.
  13. Joined
    04 Nov '03
    Moves
    6803
    31 Aug '05 19:18
    Originally posted by Joe Fist
    Reread my question: Do you have any evidence to the contrary that this thread and your methodology you are using is not condescending?

    This seems to be a great deal of "all wind up and no pitch" to get to whatever obscure point you are attempting to make.
    What is condescending? I, in my ignorance, want a method to evaluate the nature of an historical man's death. This is a legitimate question. I thought that a bogus proposition would bring about the clear and concise method that would solve my question. If it is so condescending because my original idea was so clearly wrong, please give us the obvious reason it is wrong, and your method for demonstrating it.
  14. Standard memberJoe Fist
    Troubador
    Land of Fist
    Joined
    28 Sep '04
    Moves
    19210
    31 Aug '05 19:18
    Originally posted by kingdanwa
    I'll quit being ridiculous if someone would offer a way in which we can figure out what happened to Kennedy.
    Do you not understand or just don't care that the nature of being "ridiculous" totally obliterates any theory you are attempting to present?

    Why are you attempting to get anyone to jump through this hoop with you? Your point might be interesting if you got around to making it.
  15. Standard membermokko
    Sinner
    Where I belong
    Joined
    23 Apr '05
    Moves
    22384
    31 Aug '05 19:19
    sigh
    Leave it to men to overlook the obvious. Poor Jackie O finally got fed up with all her husbands infidelity, took on a lover (who happened to be a mafia mob boss) and lured him into killing her cheating husband. As for the cover up, women rule the world, women do not abide by cheating husbands and women are better at keeping secrets than you think. End of story.
Back to Top