Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
TheMacGuffin

New JFK Assassination Lecture

130 posts in this topic

According to this 2012 lecture by Jim Fetzer, none of the official version of the JFK assassination is true, Oswald was not on the 6th floor of the School Book Depository when the shooting took place, nor did he ever fire the weapons used to kill the president and Officer J.D. Tippet. In any case, the weapons allegedly used to commit these murders were not the ones used in reality.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

According to this 2012 lecture by Jim Fetzer, none of the official version of the JFK assassination is true.

I can't say that would surprise me. I think most who look into the JFK assassination without a foregone conclusion will come away with the belief that things did not occur in the manner the government has told us they did and would like us to believe.

Oswald was not on the 6th floor of the School Book Depository when the shooting took place, nor did he ever fire the weapons used to kill the president and Officer J.D. Tippet.

If I recall correctly, a policeman (and / or other witnesses) located Oswald on the 4th floor of the depository calmly drinking a soda (and I think eating a sandwich) within a minute or so of the shooting. They noted that he was not out of breath.

Basically, his demeanor made it very unlikely that he had just shot the President from the 6th floor of the depository and then ran down to the fourth floor where he decided to have himself a beverage rather than get out of the area as quickly as possible.

For this reason it is very unlikely that Oswald was on the 6th floor at the time of the shooting and that he ever fired a weapon at Kennedy.

In any case, the weapons allegedly used to commit these murders were not the ones used in reality.

I'm not too familar with the particulars of this claim, but I know there is apparently fair reason to believe the rifle presented as the weapon Oswald used to shoot the President was not the actual weapon fired.

Edited by Angel Left Wing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not too familar with the particulars of this claim, but I know there is apparently fair reason to believe the rifle presented as the weapon Oswald used to shoot the President was not the actual weapon fired.

This documentary basically demolishes the Warren Commission and the official version. It shows that they had three different rifles being identified as the one Oswald used, and that they had him shooting Tippett with a revolver but the bullets came from an automatic. They didn't even have the right magazines for the rifle that Oswald supposedly used.

The autopsy pictures and documents on JFK were not only bogus but actually contradicted each other, but the basic point was that they were trying to conceal that he was hit twice from the front.

And then there were people like Frank Sturgis who admitted that they were part of assassination, but nothing was ever done about it.

And so on, and so on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He also makes the case that contrary to what is being shown in the (edited versions) of the Zapruder film, the presidential limo not only slowed down when the shooting began but actually STOPPED for 3-4 seconds, while JFK was hit at least two more times.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you watch the old video files and watch JFK's head. His head snaps backwards not forwards. Supposely the shooter shot him in the back of the head which would cause a forward snap in the head. Instead the head snapping backwards. The gun that Oswald supposely used was not a acrate weapon.

Jack Rudy was paid over to kill Oswald to keep him from talking. Rudy was involded heavily in the mod.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jim Fetzer is probably one of the last people I would ever turn to for accuracy in historical or technical analysis of any kind.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jim Fetzer is probably one of the last people I would ever turn to for accuracy in historical or technical analysis of any kind.

I've never heard of him before (and haven't watched the video yet). Why is it that you question his accuracy on such things?

Is there any proponent of any conspiracy theory that you do, or would, not think negatively of?

Also, in regards to the JFK assassination, do you believe the government's version of events? If not, do you believe the government played a role in the cover-up and / or in planning and carrying out the assassination itself?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In any case, the weapons allegedly used to commit these murders were not the ones used in reality.

So they were like fantasy weapons then?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

So they were like fantasy weapons then?

Um, no.

It would simply mean that if I shot John Doe with 'Gun A,' but it was never found (or purposely kept hidden upon being found for some reason) and the police then produced 'Gun B' and said that it was the gun I used to shoot John Doe, it would be false information.

That wouldn't make the real weapon actually used in the shooting, 'Gun A,' a fantasy weapon at all. 'Gun B' wouldn't be a fantasy weapon either. It just wouldn't be the real weapon that was used in the shooting of John Doe.

Do you understand now?

Edited by Angel Left Wing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So they were like fantasy weapons then?

No, the weapons and bullets were fatal enough, but they just weren't the ones that the official investigations claimed. Tippett was killed with an automatic yet the official investigations claimed it was a revolver. They also had three different rifles that they asserted the Oswald had used, or at least they had pictures of them, but none of them were fired at JFK. It is very likely that the actual weapons used were Mauser's with silencers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jim Fetzer is probably one of the last people I would ever turn to for accuracy in historical or technical analysis of any kind.

I didn't see anything in this documentary that I disagreed with, including the fact that JFK and Connelly were hit from the front and back, that there was more than one shooter, and that Oswald never killed anyone. He wasn't even on the 6th Floor of the School Book Depository when the shooting took place. I also agree with him that the autopsy pictures and records were altered to make it appear that there was only one shooter, firing from behind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I also agree with him that the autopsy pictures and records were altered to make it appear that there was only one shooter, firing from behind.

It wasn't just the records that were altered, Kennedy's actual body was altered. The entire autopsy was conducted poorly, and intentionally so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oswald did not act alone. You only need 2 people for a conspiracy. There was another shooter on the grassy knoll, behind the picket fence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oswald did not act alone. You only need 2 people for a conspiracy. There was another shooter on the grassy knoll, behind the picket fence.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know if it's because I'm a lifelong Texan, but if there are any conspiracy theories that I'm absolutely sick-to-death of, it's those surrounding the assassination of President Kennedy.

Oswald was a nut-job who turned cold-blooded murderer, and yes, I believe he acted alone.

Since that's the official record, then it's up to those who don't believe it to disprove it, and half a century later, they have not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've never heard of him before (and haven't watched the video yet). Why is it that you question his accuracy on such things?

I guess that you haven't subjected yourself to any of his views on 911 then. If you're ever looking for a way to cause you to shake your head in amazement at stupidity, then I suggest you look up some of his stuff on that subject.

Is there any proponent of any conspiracy theory that you do, or would, not think negatively of?

I haven't yet encountered a conspiracy theory that is substantiated. As for proponents of such theories, I have a great deal of respect for many of them, others I don't necessarily have an opinion one way or the other, some I think are complete lunatics, some simply idiotic, and every other range or degree between each of those descriptors.

Also, in regards to the JFK assassination, do you believe the government's version of events? If not, do you believe the government played a role in the cover-up and / or in planning and carrying out the assassination itself?

I haven't seen any convincing reasons to doubt that the official version of events is blatantly incorrect. As with all investigations, there may be a handful of inconsistencies and areas of ambiguity, but that doesn't mean the core conclusions are invalid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No conspiracy !? But...but what about the Badge Man !? Think about the Badge Man for Christ's sake. The Coke Bott....i mean Badge Man.

:P

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, the weapons and bullets were fatal enough, but they just weren't the ones that the official investigations claimed. Tippett was killed with an automatic yet the official investigations claimed it was a revolver. They also had three different rifles that they asserted the Oswald had used, or at least they had pictures of them, but none of them were fired at JFK. It is very likely that the actual weapons used were Mauser's with silencers.

For hiding the muzzle fire?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't know if it's because I'm a lifelong Texan, but if there are any conspiracy theories that I'm absolutely sick-to-death of, it's those surrounding the assassination of President Kennedy.

Oswald was a nut-job who turned cold-blooded murderer, and yes, I believe he acted alone.

Since that's the official record, then it's up to those who don't believe it to disprove it, and half a century later, they have not.

Really, that's how it works? :rolleyes:

The government tells us the "official" version of things and then it is up to the people to disprove that version of events. And if we can't do so, well then, obviously the government's version is the truth.

No wonder the government gets away with doing whatever the hell it wants.

How about this - how 'bout the government needs to prove their version of events just like anybody else before it becomes established as fact? They haven't done so with the JFK assassination (or a number of other crimes that have taken place).

And by the way, the government itself pretty much disproved the "official" version when the United States House Select Committee On Assassinations concluded in 1978 that "Kennedy was very likely assassinated as the result of a conspiracy."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking of conspiracy theories, I wonder why this is in the True Crime section of the forum in the first place. Wouldn't the Conspiracy section be more appropriate?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking of conspiracy theories, I wonder why this is in the True Crime section of the forum in the first place. Wouldn't the Conspiracy section be more appropriate?

I guess the Conspiracy section is sick of threads about the JFK conspiracy and decided to boycott this thread. :P

Seriously how many threads were created about this topic in the 10 years of UM ?? 500 ?? I agree that it's a fascinating, important topic, but sometimes too much is too much.... :(

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Probably because the assassination of JFK is a true crime - it covers both this and the conspiracy section.

As for the topic itself, there really aren't that many (if any) current / recent threads discussing the topic.

I fail to understand why people bemoan certain topics being discussed more than once considering the fact many members haven't partaken in the discussion simply because they hadn't noticed a previous thread on it, or they are simply a new member who wasn't around at the time the topic was previously discussed.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know if it's because I'm a lifelong Texan, but if there are any conspiracy theories that I'm absolutely sick-to-death of, it's those surrounding the assassination of President Kennedy.

Oswald was a nut-job who turned cold-blooded murderer, and yes, I believe he acted alone.

Since that's the official record, then it's up to those who don't believe it to disprove it, and half a century later, they have not.

I'd say the exact opposite. With all the evidence we have now, it's up to the other side to prove that Oswald acted alone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I fail to understand why people bemoan certain topics being discussed more than once considering the fact many members haven't partaken in the discussion simply because they hadn't noticed a previous thread on it, or they are simply a new member who wasn't around at the time the topic was previously discussed.

Personally I don't care if a certain topic is being discussed on numerous different threads, I have no problems with that. The murder of JFK sure deserves to be discussed over and over again. It's the most important unsolved murder case in history. :yes:

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I guess that you haven't subjected yourself to any of his views on 911 then. If you're ever looking for a way to cause you to shake your head in amazement at stupidity, then I suggest you look up some of his stuff on that subject.

Like I said, I've never heard of him before, whether it be positive or negative commentary about him. For that reason I was wondering why you personally take issue with him.

Also, simply because you may dismiss his thoughts about 9/11, it doesn't mean his thoughts on other topics should be quickly dismissed, although I understand the reasoning behind taking that approach.

I haven't yet encountered a conspiracy theory that is substantiated.

Could you provide your thoughts on this one then?

I can't help but notice that no one has made a serious attempt (or any attempt really) to debunk the information presented within that topic and I can't help but wonder why that is so.

As for proponents of such theories, I have a great deal of respect for many of them, others I don't necessarily have an opinion one way or the other, some I think are complete lunatics, some simply idiotic, and every other range or degree between each of those descriptors.

Fair enough. The same can be said about the range of people who tend to believe most, if not all, conspiracies are nonsense.

I haven't seen any convincing reasons to doubt that the official version of events is blatantly incorrect. As with all investigations, there may be a handful of inconsistencies and areas of ambiguity, but that doesn't mean the core conclusions are invalid.

What do you make of the fact that doctors who operated on Kennedy have stated that the wounds he suffered were clearly entry wounds to the front of his neck and forehead?

What about the fact that these same physicians have also stated, based on autopsy photos, that the wounds to Kennedy's head and neck were clearly tampered with after his body was taken from the hospital?

Also, how do you explain the fact a police officer witnessed Oswald located on the fourth floor of the depository calmy drinking a Coke within roughly a minute of the President having been shot?

If Oswald really did shoot the President from the sixth floor of the depository, it would've been nearly impossible for him to run down two flights of stairs so quickly, have himself a soda, and not show any signs of being perplexed or out of breath.

It also seems like an odd course of actions for the man who supposedly just assassinated the President to remain in the building rather than distance himself from the crime scene as quickly as possible.

Edited by Angel Left Wing
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.