Bohemian Grove

[woolfe9999]

How do you figure it was quoted from memory, do you not realize that journalists tend to take notes?


Fern started the line of discussion, I just added what I'd seen. So why are you only attacking me and not him too?


Hardly, as explained in this New York Post article (link to a blog repost since the NYP no longer has it up and they use a robots.txt which blocks the Wayback Machine):


Granted, none of that proves foul play, but it does prove that it wasn't the "open and shut" case you claim.


I'm not convinced on this matter one way or another, so I can't rightly be labeled as had here. That said, I don't doubt that you are afraid, though obviously for other reasons.

Yeah, "suspicious" goings on. Family members disturbing the scene and doing strange and irrational things after they find him dead. Since the family was in the house, they'd have to have been in on any government conspiracy. I think the author of your article is wondering if the family murdered him. Which is only slightly more plausible than the government having done it. Glad you haven't made up your mind because it's pretty clear.

Yeah, I'm shaking in my boots.

 

[kylebisme]

Yeah, "suspicious" goings on. Family members disturbing the scene and doing strange and irrational things after they find him dead.

You left out the most suspicious part.

Since the family was in the house, they'd have to have been in on any government conspiracy.

Again, that's a ridiculous leap in logic you keep making here.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Yeah, "suspicious" goings on. Family members disturbing the scene and doing strange and irrational things after they find him dead. Since the family was in the house, they'd have to have been in on any government conspiracy. I think the author of your article is wondering if the family murdered him. Which is only slightly more plausible than the government having done it. Glad you haven't made up your mind because it's pretty clear.

Yeah, I'm shaking in my boots.

LOL

We all know what Kyle is doing here. He got caught espousing his ridiculous 9/11 conspiracy theory, was exposed for not properly vetting his claim, and is now desparately trying to backpedal by claiming 'What I said is not really what I meant."

It's classic Kyle. It has the potential to be one of the first self-ownage threads of the year.

 

[kylebisme]

An example of self-ownage:

The important part that you ommitted is bolded:

It's not important at all.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

An example of self-ownage:

You owned yourself again, Kyle. Please note that the exampes you are citing (without actually quoting them, because that would expose your attempted deception) are two different ones.

Sorry, but you failed miserably yet another time. Keep up the desperation though. It's become comedic at this point.

 

[kylebisme]

Tell me Chicken, what were you referring to as "not important at all" if not what you'd just called "The important part" in your previous post?

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

The "not important at all part" because it was pure fantasy based on the imagination of the author, as plainly admitted:

Hunter telephoned me on Feb. 19, the night before his death. He sounded scared. It wasn't always easy to understand what he said, particularly over the phone, he mumbled, yet when there was something he really wanted you to understand, you did. He'd been working on a story about the World Trade Center attacks and had stumbled across what he felt was hard evidence showing the towers had been brought down not by the airplanes that flew into them but by explosive charges set off in their foundations. Now he thought someone was out to stop him publishing it: "They're gonna make it look like suicide," he said. "I know how these bastards think . .

The important part, because it was fact:

That's how I imagine a tribute to Hunter S. Thompson should begin. He was indeed working on such a story, but it wasn't what killed him. He exercised his own option to do that.

As he said to more than one person, "I would feel real trapped in this life if I didn't know I could commit suicide at any time."

Do you really need that explained to you or are you missing some part of the critical thinking gene that doesn't permit you to comprehend it?

 

[kylebisme]

Please explain: what does "He was indeed working on such a story", which you quote as fact, refer to?

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Please explain: what does "He was indeed working on such a story", which you quote as fact, refer to?

What it means, in this particular context, is that the story will never be finished because he blew himself away. It also means that his working on this story had absolutely no relationship to his suicide, something you might understand when you pair it with the clause that directly followed, a clause that you purposefully ommitted:

"but it wasn't what killed him."

What is it about the above that you don't seem to grasp?

 

[kylebisme]

I omitted it because it is nothing more than a:

declaration of faith that there was no foul play in Thompson's death

What is it about the above that you don't seem to grasp?

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

I omitted it because it is nothing more than a:

What is it about the above that you don't seem to grasp?

You can really be completely ridiculous. Faith? It was a declaration of knowledge based on the known facts. The only one relying on faith here is you by pretending there was something more insidious to his death based on some very loosely interpreted remarks that haven't even been substantiated. iow, it's your own paranoid-based faith beliefs driving your thought process and allowing that paranoia to completely override any and all critical thinking.

 

[kylebisme]

Faith? It was a declaration of knowledge based on the known facts.

Nonsense. Roberts wasn't there to see what happened, nor did he investigate the scene afterwards. Rather, he simply repeated a conclusion reached by others, a conclusion which he has taken on faith.

The only one relying on faith here is you by pretending there was something more insidious to his death

I'm not pretending anything of the sort. As I've previously explained:

I'm not convinced on this matter one way or another

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Nonsense. Roberts wasn't there to see what happened, nor did he investigate the scene afterwards. Rather, he simply repeated a conclusion reached by others, a conclusion which he has taken on faith.

And? You weren't there either and did not investigate the scene yet you somehow feel qualified to remark about what happened. Besides that, Roberts actually knew Thompson personally, unlike you, and was well aware of his motivations and desires.

Additionally, if you are claiming that one must be a personal witness to have true knowledge of any situation then that pretty much invalidates anything you have to say about 9/11 or Bohemian Grove because you weren't there to see what happened.

Glad that is now settled and that now, by your own reasoning, you have invalidated anything you might ever have to say on those issues.

I'm not pretending anything of the sort. As I've previously explained:

Convinced "either way?" What other way? That covert government assassins killed him to hush up his story about 9/11? You haven't shown anything to even to begin to substantiate that other than extremely weak and unsupported speculation.

 

[kylebisme]

You weren't there either and did not investigate the scene yet you somehow feel qualified to remark about what happened.

No, I don't feel qualified to claim to know what actually happened, which is why I freely admit that I'm not convinced one way or another.

Convinced "either way?" What other way? That covert government assassins killed him to hush up his story about 9/11?

I didn't say "either way", but rather "one way or another", as I'm not so small minded as to imagine this is a binary matter of either no foul play or the scenario you just proposed, which is basically the same scenario I've criticized Woolfe for proposing twice before. There's all sorts possibilities of foul play which don't necessarily involve the government, assassins, or 9/11 which you're "either way" argument ignores. Perhaps he was killed by government assassins to hush him up about something other than 9/11, or by assassins working for private interest rather than government, or by someone acting on his own accord rather than assassins, and so on.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

No, I don't feel qualified to claim to know what actually happened, which is why I freely admit that I'm not convinced one way or another.

Well friends, family (who were there) and police reports do feel qualified and none of them claim anything but suicide. If you don't feel qualified then why even bother posting about it in the first place?

I didn't say "either way", but rather "one way or another", as I'm not so small minded as to imagine this is a binary matter of either no foul play or the scenario you just proposed, which is basically the same scenario I've criticized Woolfe for proposing twice before. There's all sorts possibilities of foul play which don't necessarily involve the government, assassins, or 9/11 which you're "either way" argument ignores. Perhaps he was killed by government assassins to hush him up about something other than 9/11, or by assassins working for private interest rather than government, or by someone acting on his own accord rather than assassins, and so on.

You are small minded enough to imagine alternate scenarios without one iota of proof. Also, your initial claim wasn't that there were other possibilities, but that it was because he had uncovered evidence of a demolition on 9/11 and he was murdered. You were called on your mistake in claiming that and you've desperately been trying to squirm and wriggle your way out ever since. It's disingenious and patently transparent so give it up already. I doubt that a soul in here views you as open minded and fair thinking, so I don't know exactly who you are trying to BS, other than yourself.

 

[kylebisme]

If you don't feel qualified then why even bother posting about it in the first place?

I'm not qualified to reach a conclusion on Thompson's death, but I'm qualified to relate what I've seen on the matter, and I did so because Fern brought the topic up.

Also, your initial claim wasn't that there were other possibilities, but that it was because he had uncovered evidence of a demolition on 9/11 and he was murdered.

No, I never made any such ridiculous leap in logic, you came up with that on your own.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

No, I never made any such ridiculous leap in logic, you came up with that on your own.

Here is exactly what you claimed:

"Where did you see that? I saw a different explanation of what happened to Hunter S. Thompson from The Globe & Mail:"

The paragraph you posted - and incorrectly took out of context in the process because you obviously never read the entire article until after I pointed out your faux pas - claimed that Thompson had allegedly found evidence of demolitions on 9/11, was writing a story about it, and was murdered because of that.

You fell for a snippet of a story because you believed it confirmed your existing bias about 9/11 and you never bother to properly vet the information. It's clear what you did. Stop with all the gyrations and weak attempts to lie your way out of that fact.

 

[kylebisme]

Here is exactly what you claimed:

"Where did you see that? I saw a different explanation of what happened to Hunter S. Thompson from The Globe & Mail:"

And that's exactly what I meant, its a different explanation than the one Fern suggested. I didn't claim it is the correct explanation, nor do I presume to know what actually happened.

The paragraph you posted - and incorrectly took out of context in the process because you obviously never read the entire article until after I pointed out your faux pas - claimed that Thompson had allegedly found evidence of demolitions on 9/11, was writing a story about it, and was murdered because of that.

The paragraph I quoted doesn't say he was murdered, and as I said previously, I read the whole article back when it came out. Get a grip man.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

And that's exactly what I meant, its a different explanation than the one Fern suggested. I didn't claim it is the correct explanation, nor do I presume to know what actually happened.


The paragraph I quoted doesn't say he was murdered, and as I said previously, I read the whole article back when it came out. Get a grip man.

lol. Keep trying to wriggle your way out of your mistake. You didn't claim that you read a different explanation of what might have happened. You specifically said that you read a different explanation of "what happened."

Stop blowing smoke up everyone's collective ass in here. I'm not buying your backpedaling and it's doubtful that anyone else is either.

 

[kylebisme]

You specifically said that you read a different explanation of "what happened."

Right, "a different explanation of what happened" than the one Fern presented. Again, that doesn't imply that its the correct explanation, and nor was it my intent to do so.

 

[sportage]

WOW!
You mean to suggest all those Christian loving, abortion hating, family oriented, anti Gay, the perfect wife, the perfect kids, God fearing millionaires and executives in government might simply be putting on a big show to suck up to the masses?

That Santorum really doesn't give a crap about FAMILY VALUES?
That Newt really doesn't give a crap about jobs, the deficit, morality or God?
That Romney really doesn't give a crap about YOUR little world?
That Ron Paul really doesn't give a crap about becoming THE LITTLE DICTATOR?
That Sarah Palin's really doesn't give a crap about KA-CHING$$$.
That none of them gives a crap if you lose your house?
That none of them gives a crap if grandma's social security is turned over to vultures of Wall Street?
That none of them gives a crap if your sick kid has no affordable healthcare?

That we actually can relate to some power hungry ka-billion/millionaire selling their soul to obtain "unimaginable" power and wealth?
That they can't realize for one second the power of fooling every hick in Hicksville?

Are you trying to tell me THAT...?

 

[Modelworks]

Along with the bohemian grove, don't forget the other two organizations the same people are usually affiliated with, put all the groups together, and these people seem to be into some kinky stuff !
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skull_and_Bones
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilderberg_Group

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Right, "a different explanation of what happened" than the one Fern presented. Again, that doesn't imply that its the correct explanation, and nor was it my intent to do so.

Citing a fantasy scenario, as admitted by the author, and presenting it as an "explanation" certainly is different.

 

[IronWing]

What a world of wonder and mystery that greets us each morning!

 

[IceBergSLiM]

summer sleep away camp for the elite. What bad could happen from the rich and powerful meeting off the record to decide public policy.

Next your going to wonder why the heads of state and CEO of conglomerates meet at Bilderberg.

Go back to sleep sheeple nothing to see here.