BS: Who shot JFK

Subject: RE: BS: Who shot JFK
From: Greg F.
Date: 04 Nov 17 - 05:32 PM

No U.S. prez by that name, Ake. Are you thinking of Dumbfuckistan?

Let me know when you've read that elementary history text. Til then, I really don't have time for your ignorant shit.

Subject: RE: BS: Who shot JFK
From: akenaton
Date: 04 Nov 17 - 05:22 PM

Your Democratically elected President.

Subject: RE: BS: Who shot JFK
From: Greg F.
Date: 04 Nov 17 - 05:03 PM

Who is this "Donal-John:" character you keep mewling on about?

Subject: RE: BS: Who shot JFK
From: akenaton
Date: 04 Nov 17 - 05:01 PM

What do you mean "Back to JFK"!! You've been ranting on about Donal-John in every bloody thread for weeks! Get a grip. :0)

Subject: RE: BS: Who shot JFK
From: Greg F.
Date: 04 Nov 17 - 04:47 PM

Now, back to JFK...........

Subject: RE: BS: Who shot JFK
From: Greg F.
Date: 04 Nov 17 - 04:46 PM

In your opinion tRUMP is the savior of the western world.

Subject: RE: BS: Who shot JFK
From: akenaton
Date: 04 Nov 17 - 04:37 PM

Telepathy does exist, but a bigger conundrum is the origin of the Universe......that is a question which will never be solved by humanity and anyone who believes that it will is in my opinion many times more deranged than those who believe in a Deity.

Subject: RE: BS: Who shot JFK
From: Paul Burke
Date: 04 Nov 17 - 03:20 PM

We've known all along who shot JF***K- it was Gracie Knowle and Buck Suppository.

What I can't understand is why nobody shot KaOH.

Subject: RE: BS: Who shot JFK
From: Donuel
Date: 02 Nov 17 - 07:51 AM

There are rational explanations. Measurement is the problem but breakthroughs have been made.

Subject: RE: BS: Who shot JFK
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Nov 17 - 04:23 AM

If telepathy exists, there is no rational scientific explanation for it as yet.
Supernatural.

Subject: RE: BS: Who shot JFK
From: akenaton
Date: 01 Nov 17 - 08:09 PM

Ha ha....I made you say that Greg!!

Subject: RE: BS: Who shot JFK
From: Greg F.
Date: 01 Nov 17 - 06:21 PM

[mental telepathy] one of these things which have to be experienced before an opinion is valid.

Always assuming that it isn't simply a load of bunkum.

Nor does "the experience" validate the opinion.

Subject: RE: BS: Who shot JFK
From: Raggytash
Date: 01 Nov 17 - 05:37 PM

I have experienced "telepathy" which I found disconcerting.

However I have tried to rationalise the sensation and I came up with this.

Before we could communicate verbally we MAY have had further senses than we one's we acknowledge today, sight, sound, vision, taste, and touch.

Is it possible that before we learned to communicate by these methods we had further abilities that because we no longer use them have deteriorated to the point that they only become apparent on rare occasions.

Subject: RE: BS: Who shot JFK
From: frogprince
Date: 01 Nov 17 - 04:21 PM

Well, as long as it's drifted in this direction...something that I haven't told to a lot of people...

46 years ago. After my first year of theological seminary, in Chicago I have signed up to participate in a program of immersion in inner-city ministry for the summer. I return to home in Minnesota for a few days in between. At some point in the drive back to Chicago, I know that, of all the student participants, one will stand out as having at least the image of a "hippy", and that I will be teamed with him for the summer. (I very nearly wrote it all down and gave it the sealed envelope treatment, and wished that I had done so.) The participants arrive at a YMCA where the program will be headquartered. I'm in the lobby with other early arrivals; assorted people, included other program participants, filter through the door. I see Murray coming through the door (no, I didn't know his name yet), and know full well that he is my expected partner. Throughout the summer I hear the question raised as to whether Murray is really a hippy, or self-identifies as a hippy. Never heard Murray give a straight answer. But he would have looked right at home on stage with the Grateful Dead.

Subject: RE: BS: Who shot JFK
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 01 Nov 17 - 12:49 PM

Ake - I'm agnostic, probably atheist, but too lazy to be bothered committing [I'm not too comfy with 'leaps of faith' either way..]
.. and it's healthier to keep an open mind....


Telepathy...? my nan used to read Tea Leaves,
and I've experienced weird 'coincidence' long distance connections with my mum on the odd occasion..

ie.. "But mum, I was just picking up the phone to call you too.. well how uncanny...???"

.. of course we could have just over the decades developed strict habitual calling times...???


.. and now back to JFK and the thread topic..... 🙄

Subject: RE: BS: Who shot JFK
From: Jeri
Date: 01 Nov 17 - 12:45 PM

I really miss the X-Files.

Subject: RE: BS: Who shot JFK
From: akenaton
Date: 01 Nov 17 - 12:26 PM

I think PFR, that belief in "god" and belief in those who pertain to represent him are two completely different things.

I.E. I am personally an atheist, but I have a belief in spirituality, I have a "god" of sorts which roughly equates to "nature", I believe mental telepathy exists, because I have experienced it several times.
It is one of these things which have to be experienced before an opinion is valid.

Subject: RE: BS: Who shot JFK
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Nov 17 - 11:57 AM

my last referred to Nigel's post.
Steve also introduced religion into this thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Who shot JFK
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Nov 17 - 11:55 AM

Also religion.

Subject: RE: BS: Who shot JFK
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 01 Nov 17 - 11:54 AM

Keith - Yeah, but Sir Arfer was a great mind at a time of sweeping fashionable fads of bonkers romantic new agey mysticism and theosophising...

..and he was getting on a bit and maybe becoming a touch befuddled...???


---------------------------------------------------------------------

Ake - I wonder how content god is with his PR representation down here on Earth..???

If I was him I'd be looking for a much better agency of consultants and marketing,
than the old stale firms who've monopolised the contract for the last couple of millennia...

Subject: RE: BS: Who shot JFK
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 01 Nov 17 - 11:49 AM

For the purpose of this discussion, 'fairies' are 'straw men' introduced to the discussion by Steve Shaw.

Steve Shaw is the same one who plucks percentages from thin air, and when challenged on their use describes them as 'mere whimsy'.

Also when shown to have been defeated by facts, starts to claim he is being 'stalked' and will appeal to the mods.

Subject: RE: BS: Who shot JFK
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Nov 17 - 10:38 AM

Of course, "pretend" things such as fairies at the bottom of my garden,.....

Sir Aurthur Conan-Doyle, considered to be one of the greatest minds of his time, was prepared to accept evidence for those kind of nature spirits referred to as fairies.
He was duped, but he was otherwise no fool.

Subject: RE: BS: Who shot JFK
From: akenaton
Date: 01 Nov 17 - 10:33 AM

"God" doesn't carry a gun, or so I'm told, He believes in "gentle persuasion"

Subject: RE: BS: Who shot JFK
From: Jeri
Date: 01 Nov 17 - 09:59 AM

Stupid weeping angels!

I sort of love that we try to find reasons to believe things. It's the seeking that makes us righteous, not the finding. It's the open minds and the questions. If "finding" were significant, everybody would believe the same thing, and there would be no more "seeking", or even discussion. Game over.

I'm going with the lone gunman, until something more concrete than suspicion and possibility comes along.

Subject: RE: BS: Who shot JFK
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Nov 17 - 09:39 AM

Whimsy, dear boy, mere whimsy.

An explanation for everything that is himself beyond explanation? Irrational...

Subject: RE: BS: Who shot JFK
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 01 Nov 17 - 09:20 AM

From: akenaton - PM
Date: 01 Nov 17 - 09:04 AM
. . .
Nigel, I think he was referring to those who voted to leave the EU
You're probably right, and that is what I thought as well, but it was a response to:
"Only a fool would categories a significant proportion of the entire population as 'fools.'"

And Steve Shaw has previously pointed out, at some length, that that figure does not relate to the percentage of the total population, he would hardly start using it as such now.

Subject: RE: BS: Who shot JFK
From: akenaton
Date: 01 Nov 17 - 09:04 AM

Well Jeri, at the moment and perhaps for ever, "God" is as good an explanation as any other?


Nigel, I think he was referring to those who voted to leave the EU

Subject: RE: BS: Who shot JFK
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Nov 17 - 09:04 AM

There is nothing in the universe that, in theory, could never submit to an explanation. Of course, "pretend" things such as fairies at the bottom of my garden, blue seven-legged alien colonies on the rings of Saturn and supernatural deities can never be explained, for the simple reason that their inventors deliberately put them beyond explanation. If telepathy exists at all (I have my doubts, but who knows), one day science will explain it. But have fun with your gods, ghosts, weird apparitions, weeping statues and fairies. The magic and beauty of reality is more than good enough for me. Tangentially connected to all that is my disdain for conspiracy theories. My dad's convinced that the moon landings were staged somewhere in Nevada. Ten thousand people worked on that project, yet not one whistleblower? But I can't tell him...

Subject: RE: BS: Who shot JFK
From: Jeri
Date: 01 Nov 17 - 08:44 AM

These are things that, perhaps we won't believe, but also, you (whoever had the experience) can't explain. That's why others don't believe. I'd suggest there IS an explanation somewhere, we just don't know what it is. If a person is otherwise credible, people who know them will just accept that something happened.

One thing that eludes explanation is how a thread about a president releasing documents related to an assassination turned into a discussion about The Weird. Maybe it's just more fun, and nobody can be expected to prove any of it. I suspect it's just a transition to the usual religion/not flame war. Stay tuned...or not.

Subject: RE: BS: Who shot JFK
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 01 Nov 17 - 08:40 AM

From: Steve Shaw - PM
Date: 01 Nov 17 - 07:55 AM
"Only a fool would categories a significant proportion of the entire population as 'fools.'"
How about 52%?

Where does that figure come from?
Percentage of the population that are religious?

Subject: RE: BS: Who shot JFK
From: akenaton
Date: 01 Nov 17 - 08:18 AM

Or the origins and extent of the universe...there are many more.

Subject: RE: BS: Who shot JFK
From: akenaton
Date: 01 Nov 17 - 08:15 AM

There are many phenomena which cannot be explained by science, for example "Mental telepathy".

Subject: RE: BS: Who shot JFK
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Nov 17 - 07:55 AM

"Only a fool would categories a significant proportion of the entire population as 'fools.'"

How about 52%?

Subject: RE: BS: Who shot JFK
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 01 Nov 17 - 07:53 AM

"Supernatural experiences are so common that there must be an explanation for them whether they are real or not."

The fallibility of human mind, ignorance from good education, and poor eyesight in variable lighting conditions...

I constantly see ethereal black manifestations floating in the air around me..

Are they dark malignant fairy sprites...

..or floaters in my eye fluids...

Hooray for modern science...!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Who shot JFK
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Nov 17 - 06:56 AM

Supernatural experiences are so common that there must be an explanation for them whether they are real or not.
Only a fool would categories a significant proportion of the entire population as "fools."

Subject: RE: BS: Who shot JFK
From: akenaton
Date: 01 Nov 17 - 06:27 AM

Nothing is as simple as it seems to the literalists.

Subject: RE: BS: Who shot JFK
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Nov 17 - 05:30 AM

Sexual assault is a reality that we are at long last beginning to give the serious attention it deserves. Claiming to have seen an impossible being eighteen times who spake unto her, etc., is taken seriously only by fools. You were perfectly correct to strongly suspect me of either lying or being demented apropos of the fairies. St Bernadette is no different, except that a bunch of men in frocks got their heads together and decided it was all true.

Subject: RE: BS: Who shot JFK
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Nov 17 - 03:52 AM

Steve, People lie when giving evidence, as you did over meteorites and fairies.
That evidence was false.

Bernadette was a teenage girl who testified to events she claimed to have witnessed.
It was uncorroborated.
Suppose she had reported being sexually assaulted. If uncorroborated her evidence may not be believed, but it is still evidence.

Subject: RE: BS: Who shot JFK
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Oct 17 - 05:46 PM

God knows.

Subject: RE: BS: Who shot JFK
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 31 Oct 17 - 03:43 PM

If god really is omnipresent.. he saw who shot JFK.. he definitely knows who dunnit...!!!

Anyone asked him yet...???

Subject: RE: BS: Who shot JFK
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Oct 17 - 03:14 PM

If a statement is INTRINSICALLY valueless, nothing can alter that. There are no fairies at the bottom of my garden. That's for definite, though I can't actually prove it. Any statement that is contrary to that has no value. Pretending that it has value to me if I happen to believe it is fallacious. Any benefit you may ascribe to it is delusional. In fact, holding to that assertion can have a negative impact only. I am wasting my time and emotion on it and I'm inviting ridicule. All negative. Belief in religion is not the same thing, quite. Adhering to a religion involves having a large set of beliefs (a belief system in other words), and it's possible to tease them apart somewhat and see relative benefits for some of them. For example, your irrational belief may get you to church where you may meet lots of pleasant people who enhance your social life. Your actual belief in a deity, on the other hand, taken in isolation, is always a negative. It prevents you from using your powers of reasoning to see the beauty of reality for what it is. In some cases it may even lead you to deny truths such as evolution. As a believer in a particular God is an atheist apropos of every other God bar his own, he's in danger of becoming a bigot. All negative, no benefits. You may see a lifetime lived in a state of happy delusion as somehow beneficial. But it's beneficial only to those who like to exercise authoritarian, manipulative control over you. The modus operandi of all major religions. Scare tactics are usually involved.

Subject: RE: BS: Who shot JFK
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 31 Oct 17 - 10:51 AM

From: Donuel - PM
Date: 31 Oct 17 - 10:37 AM
. . .When its bad, its very bad.

"There was a little girl,
A pretty little girl,
With a curl in the middle of her forehead.
When she was good she was very, very, good.
And when she was bad
She was fantastic!"

Subject: RE: BS: Who shot JFK
From: Donuel
Date: 31 Oct 17 - 10:37 AM

Individual learning should be hailed.
We have seen the evil and the good that hive mind mentality has wrought.
When its bad, its very bad.

Subject: RE: BS: Who shot JFK
From: Donuel
Date: 31 Oct 17 - 10:32 AM

In a world where facts do not matter, where the scrutiny of scientific method is ignored with the toss of a phrase, belief reigns supreme.

Yes I have seen things you would not believe.

I do not and will not insist you believe.

I do not blame people for that.

I blame the physiology of the brain in the way we learn individually.
Hive minds would not have this debate.

Subject: RE: BS: Who shot JFK
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 31 Oct 17 - 10:32 AM

From: Steve Shaw - PM
Date: 31 Oct 17 - 10:15 AM
"If it was a statement you made just to make a point, but do not believe in (also known as a lie), then that is of less value than statements made by persons who believe they are telling the truth."
But you can't assess that value because you don't know whether I'm telling a lie or whether I believe I'm telling the truth. The thing is, there are no fairies at the bottom of the garden. Whether I'm being genuine or whether I'm lying makes no difference to that rather obstinate fact. So both statements are intrinsically equally valueless.

Yes, but until you confirmed that you were lying, you would be the only one to know that the statement was valueless.
Compare that with statements from theists who believe in God, and state that God exists, and you should see that their statements have a value. (if only to themselves) So your attempt to equate the two was also worthless.

Subject: RE: BS: Who shot JFK
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Oct 17 - 10:15 AM

"If it was a statement you made just to make a point, but do not believe in (also known as a lie), then that is of less value than statements made by persons who believe they are telling the truth."

But you can't assess that value because you don't know whether I'm telling a lie or whether I believe I'm telling the truth. The thing is, there are no fairies at the bottom of the garden. Whether I'm being genuine or whether I'm lying makes no difference to that rather obstinate fact. So both statements are intrinsically equally valueless.

Subject: RE: BS: Who shot JFK
From: Greg F.
Date: 31 Oct 17 - 09:11 AM

the guns set off the smoke alarm in the Vegas hotel room.

Didn't realize JFK was shot in Vegas.

Subject: RE: BS: Who shot JFK
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 31 Oct 17 - 08:35 AM

From: Steve Shaw - PM
Date: 31 Oct 17 - 07:25 AM
i prefer not to do belief.
"It may also be taken as evidence of your mental state."
In that case you are calling into question the mental state of billions of believers in God. After all, he's no more likely to exist, based on any evidence I've ever seen, than fairies at the bottom of my garden.
Not at all.
If you truly believe you saw fairies then you have a reason for your belief in fairies.
If it was a statement you made just to make a point, but do not believe in (also known as a lie), then that is of less value than statements made by persons who believe they are telling the truth.
On that basis there is no equivalence in your belief in fairies, and others belief in God.


St Bernadette's witness testimony was evidence. But at this remove it must be considered that anyone relying on it is relying on 'hearsay evidence', as no-one now living was alive to cross-examine her. But the fact that it was recorded for posterity suggests that many found it credible at that time.
Similarly, no-one now can give personal evidence of the Battle of Rourke's Drift. But there is sufficient documentary evidence available that I do not doubt it occurred (although the version in the film 'Zulu' may not be a true representation).

Subject: RE: BS: Who shot JFK
From: Donuel
Date: 31 Oct 17 - 07:43 AM

point and match

Subject: RE: BS: Who shot JFK
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Oct 17 - 07:25 AM

i prefer not to do belief.

"It may also be taken as evidence of your mental state."

In that case you are calling into question the mental state of billions of believers in God. After all, he's no more likely to exist, based on any evidence I've ever seen, than fairies at the bottom of my garden.