NationStates Jolt Archive

Do you know that some people claim that President John F. Kennedy was an actual person who actually lived and existed!!!!!??????

This is entirely preposterous, and any serious scholar can see that this "historical figure" was obviously just a myth.

This person never existed. Why would anyone accept his existence? There's no evidence. On the contrary, there is plenty of evidence to back up my claims.

There are crazy religious zealous fanatics who want to beleive John Kennedy existed just because of he is a crutch for them. They need to face facts.

There are astonishing similarities between Kennedy, and Abraham Lincoln (A United States President who lived in the 19th Century). This PROVES beyond the shadow of a doubt, that John F. Kennedy NEVER EXISTED. He was obviously just a myth who's authors just copied from the life of Lincoln.



Lincoln was elected to congress in 1846. Kennedy was elected to congress 1946
Lincoln was elected president in 1860. Kennedy was elected president in 1960.
The names Lincoln and Kennedy both contain seven letters

Both were presidents during times of major changes in civil rights

Both presidents were killed by an assassin's bullet on a Friday

Both assassins were known by three names consisting of 15 letters

Both assassins were killed before their trials

Both men were succeeded by men with the surname of Johnson
Kennedy had a secretary named Lincoln, and Lincoln had a secretary named Kennedy.

So let us stop this foolishness of believing Kennedy was a real person. Let's use some rational thought, and our brains.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

James A. Tyre

Assocation of Being Rational and Rejecting the Existence of Kennedy, because we are free-thinking and rational people.

I am a free-thinking, rational person. Therefore, I believe that JFK does not exist.

...Lulz.

What say you, NSGers?

You forgot both Johnson's were democrats from the south.

You forgot both Johnson's were democrats from the south.*snaps finger* Damn, knew I forgot something.

A jab at Zeitgeist?

Sounds like a thoroughly valid and sound argument.

Strawman fail. I've been saying that way too much lately

I say that a weak strawman is not much of an argument.

Now I assume you're comparing this silliness to the Ultra-skeptic claim that Jesus of Nazareth never existed. While I don't buy that argument, they have a much stronger case than the strawman you just put on the table.

If you're not, then please ignore the remainder of this post

That JFK existed can be demonstrated by mounds of independent evidence from American newspaper reports, foreign newspaper reports, videos, pictures, books, letters he wrote, books he wrote, eyewitnesses, a birth certificate and a death certificate.

Therefore when one considers the totality of the evidence, it is evident that a man known as JFK lived, loved and died.

On the other hand, outside of the gospels, there is little independent evidence for the existence of a real human being called Jesus of Nazareth and many, many parallels of the story of Jesus with the mystery religions popular in the Roman Empire in the 1st century.

So while tons of independent evidence makes short work of your "JFK did not exist claim" there is no such mass of independent evidence to make short work of the "Jesus did not exist claim" which is why no one would take your straw man seriously, but some folks do take the Jesus was just another mythical savior god like Horus or Dionysis or Mythras seriously.

I say that a weak strawman is not much of an argument.

Now I assume you're comparing this silliness to the Ultra-skeptic claim that Jesus of Nazareth never existed. While I don't buy that argument, they have a much stronger case than the strawman you just put on the table.

If you're not, then please ignore the remainder of this post

That JFK existed can be demonstrated by mounds of independent evidence from American newspaper reports, foreign newspaper reports, videos, pictures, books, letters he wrote, books he wrote, eyewitnesses, a birth certificate and a death certificate.

Therefore when one considers the totality of the evidence, it is evident that a man known as JFK lived, loved and died.

On the other hand, outside of the gospels, there is little independent evidence for the existence of a real human being called Jesus of Nazareth and many, many parallels of the story of Jesus with the mystery religions popular in the Roman Empire in the 1st century.

So while tons of independent evidence makes short work of your "JFK did not exist claim" there is no such mass of independent evidence to make short work of the "Jesus did not exist claim" which is why no one would take your straw man seriously, but some folks do take the Jesus was just another mythical savior god like Horus or Dionysis or Mythras seriously.
It was a joke, you can cool off.

Shitty argument is shitty.

It was a joke, you can cool off.

oh, yeah, that author obviously has no agenda there, whatsoever. he's obviously not trying to draw a very thinly veiled analogy, at all. :rolleyes:

It was a joke, you can cool off.

Not a very funny or thought out one though.

Rolling squid;14667994']Not a very funny or thought out one though.

Even so, does that excuse an attempted threadjack?

Even so, does that excuse an attempted threadjack?

How does anything yet posted constitute a thread jack?

Rolling squid;14667950']Strawman fail. I've been saying that way too much lately

I say that a weak strawman is not much of an argument.

Now I assume you're comparing this silliness to the Ultra-skeptic claim that Jesus of Nazareth never existed. While I don't buy that argument, they have a much stronger case than the strawman you just put on the table.

If you're not, then please ignore the remainder of this post

That JFK existed can be demonstrated by mounds of independent evidence from American newspaper reports, foreign newspaper reports, videos, pictures, books, letters he wrote, books he wrote, eyewitnesses, a birth certificate and a death certificate.

Therefore when one considers the totality of the evidence, it is evident that a man known as JFK lived, loved and died.

On the other hand, outside of the gospels, there is little independent evidence for the existence of a real human being called Jesus of Nazareth and many, many parallels of the story of Jesus with the mystery religions popular in the Roman Empire in the 1st century.

So while tons of independent evidence makes short work of your "JFK did not exist claim" there is no such mass of independent evidence to make short work of the "Jesus did not exist claim" which is why no one would take your straw man seriously, but some folks do take the Jesus was just another mythical savior god like Horus or Dionysis or Mythras seriously.

Shitty argument is shitty.

oh, yeah, that author obviously has no agenda there, whatsoever. he's obviously not trying to draw a very thinly veiled analogy, at all. :rolleyes:

Rolling squid;14667994']Not a very funny or thought out one though.

None of you have ever gotten the (incredibly over-sent) chain-mail that has been around for years saying the exact same thing that is posted in the original post?

Even so, does that excuse an attempted threadjack?

how is it in any way a threadjack? The OP asked us to discuss an article he posted. The author of that article is trying to make a point, and create a comparison between the existence of Jesus, and the existence of Kennedy, by trying to imply that the same arguments used to argue against the existence of Jesus, can be used (obviously foolishly) to argue against the existence of President Kennedy.

Thus discussing how the author failed to do so, instead of being a threadjack, would appear to be DIRECTLY on topic. And the only one trying to change the thread topic, rather than discuss it, but instead berate posters, is....you.

None of you have ever gotten the (incredibly over-sent) chain-mail that has been around for years saying the exact same thing that is posted in the original post?

No.

None of you have ever gotten the (incredibly over-sent) chain-mail that has been around for years saying the exact same thing that is posted in the original post?

Yeah. I still think it's funny though.

Rolling squid;14668007']No.Aw, you're missing out!

It's total proof that Jesus never existed. Oh, wait, did I say Jesus? I meant JFK! ;)

Yeah. I still think it's funny though.It's pretty funny, once you get past the punctuation rape at the end of the first sentence.

Silly, but funny.

JFK did exist, but not as a man. He was a donut. *Nods sagely* He said it himself.

None of you have ever gotten the (incredibly over-sent) chain-mail that has been around for years saying the exact same thing that is posted in the original post?

Yes, but they always forget the most important fact that belongs in the OP list:

A month before he was killed, Lincoln was in Monroe, Maryland.
A month before he was killed, Kennedy was in Marilyn Monroe.

JFK did exist, but not as a man. He was a donut. *Nods sagely* He said it himself.

Bullshit. He was a burrito.

Yes, but they always forget the most important fact that belongs in the OP list:

A month before he was killed, Lincoln was in Monroe, Maryland.
A month before he was killed, Kennedy was in Marilyn Monroe.

http://thumbs.dreamstime.com/thumb_185/1189997318d83yw1.jpg

I can say from personal observation that those Lincoln/Kennedy "similarities" have been circulating for at least 20 years. Kinda funny the first time, though, sure.

I am a free-thinking, rational person.

You really need to watch this:

Open Mindedness- what it is, and what it isn't (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T69TOuqaqXI)

:p

I can say from personal observation that those Lincoln/Kennedy "similarities" have been circulating for at least 20 years. Kinda funny the first time, though, sure.I think the person's "name" in the e-mail is pretty funny, myself.


James A. Tyre

;)

You really need to watch this:

Open Mindedness- what it is, and what it isn't (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T69TOuqaqXI)

:pAlright. *bookmarks*

A month before he was killed, Lincoln was in Monroe, Maryland.
A month before he was killed, Kennedy was in Marilyn Monroe.

An interesting foot note the description of the guy on the grassy Knoll matches Monroe's Ex Boyfriend.

You really need to watch this:

Open Mindedness- what it is, and what it isn't (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T69TOuqaqXI)

:p

Made. Of. Awesome.

I think the person's "name" in the e-mail is pretty funny, myself.


James A. Tyre

;)



*facepalm* HOW did I not catch that? Well done. *applauds*

*facepalm* HOW did I not catch that? Well done. *applauds*Thanks. Took me a few minutes to catch it the first time. I didn't know what it was, at first. The y threw me off. :D

Bullshit. He was a burrito.

Do the words Ich bin ein Berliner mean anything to you?

Yes, but they always forget the most important fact that belongs in the OP list:

A month before he was killed, Lincoln was in Monroe, Maryland.
A month before he was killed, Kennedy was in Monroe, Marilyn.

corrected for... well... appearances.

Silly OP. Your argument actually proves that ABRAHAM LINCOLN never existed. After all, no one on earth can offer firsthand evidence, can they? He's a figment of the global imagination to bring meaning to the death of JFK.

Do the words Ich bin ein Berliner mean anything to you?
With all seriousness, JFK went over the speech with the mayor of West Berlin, I believe. It's an urban legend.

Do the words Ich bin ein Berliner mean anything to you?

It means I am a burrito ? in German.

With all seriousness, JFK went over the speech with the mayor of West Berlin, I believe. It's an urban legend.

JFK Berlin speech on YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hH6nQhss4Yc)

*edit* alleged speech by JFK. Probably CGI from the sixties. That explains the monochromatic appearance, I guess. :p

It means I am a burrito ? in German.

No it doesn't -- especially since what we call the berliner is called the pfannkuchen in Berlin.

JFK Berlin speech on YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hH6nQhss4Yc)

*edit* alleged speech by JFK. Probably CGI from the sixties. That explains the monochromatic appearance, I guess. :p

either that or restored news footage... they did have news reels at that time.

oh, yeah, that author obviously has no agenda there, whatsoever. he's obviously not trying to draw a very thinly veiled analogy, at all. :rolleyes:

There was no agenda, its a chain letter he thought was funny. I get it from my mom about once a month...

There was no agenda, its a chain letter he thought was funny. I get it from my mom about once a month...
does she forget that she has already sent it to you?

does she forget that she has already sent it to you?

I think so. She tends to forget jokes, even ones she thinks are funny. I could tell her the same joke a week later and she's never heard it before.

Do the words Ich bin ein Berliner mean anything to you?

Only because I took three years of German in high school. I know it means "I am a jelly-filled pastry" -- I was just being silly.

corrected for... well... appearances.

Perhaps, but the appearance doesn't lend it the punch of the arrangement that sounds better.

It means I am a burrito ? in German.

No, it means I am a Berliner. Nothing to do with burritos or doughnuts.