First, I want to apologize for all my "hit and run" postings (especially regarding my YouTube videos): I never seem to stay and chat...could be because I am somewhat "handicapped" by not having a home pc (by choice; while I still have the net on my cell phone, I used to spend waaaay too much time on it, so I have learned some restraint and do other things LOL).

I WILL say this: all the postings I read (especially about the Odio incident and the back of the head issues) are compelling...Vince Bugliosi's book just truly floored me. Perhaps I need to keep my self-professed open mind even more open than it already is.

I also have to say: yes, i do have an ego...but it's mostly online; in person, you would say to yourself, "Gee, Vince, you don't seem at all like the egotistical bastard you are on the net" LOL. Always remember this; often, a so-called ego masks insecurities... The net is a free and fun way to advertise yourself (as Nixon said, history belongs to those who write it for themselves, or something like that); guess I get carried away sometimes...

Like I have been telling everyone, since at least 1995, I have been saying/ writing "Oswald or no Oswald, conspiracy or no conspiracy, my work still holds up"...for it is an examination of what the Secret Service did and did not do that cost the nation its president. That said, I STILL BELIEVE THERE WERE CONSPIRACIES TO KILL JFK BREWING...just that, as much as it pains me to say (still), Oswald beat them to the punch. To me, a TRUE "lone-nutter" is a jerk who feels Oswald acted alone AND THERE WERE NO THREATS TO JFK...if i still believe that there were mortal threats to JFK, I am not a true lone nutter.

I AM making a ton of things available free online (my book, articles, videos, etc.), as I always have, because I like to share information.

I am very sorry if I upset or pissed people off with my book blurb or endorsement of Bugliosi's book. Remember: i am only one man, armed with an opinion...and you know what they say about opinions

Vince Palamara

Vince, I get out of control too with repurcussions. You're not alone there.

But what I want to ask you is what one thing did Bugliosi write that convinced you 100% that it was Lee Harvey Oswald, shooting from the 6th Floor window, who managed to shoot and kill President Kennedy? Please don't say there were too many things. Please narrow it down.

Kathy C

Yes, to my eye, your work looking at the USSS stands-up and is very helpful in the cause of the research. Also to my eye it is almost exclusively supportive, however, of a conspiracy - unless one likes/wants/needs to believe that that day a statistically impossible set of 'coincidences' just happened to befall the same people at the same time in the same place. While you are entitled to your conclusions [or to change them] I can't fathom how someone with your apparent attention to at least some of the details of that day [I have NO idea how much you know of non-SS related matters] could come up with the one-foot-in-both-camps conclusion of LHO being the lone assassin who beat-out the others lurking in Dallas and elsewhere. All the various assassination plots and assassins - as well as their planners, obscurers, doubles, cut-outs, and those that sent them and then cover-up their ever going, were all part of ONE overarching plot to do away with JFK in several overlapping sub-plots. IMO. One can argue if the SS were manipulated or only a few were complicit or many were complicit - but their behavior in Chicago, Miami, Tampa, Dallas and elsewhere was 'strange'. Their spying upon and (for some) hatred of JFK was bizarre and chilling. Their actions before, during and after the 'hit' were extremely damning.
I hope you come back to your senses - the logical conclusion that your own work - and that of many others clearly point to. VB has only made a prosecutors [cherrypicked evidence] case - and even that is not convincing IMO.

Staking out a niche market. The one Foot In Both camps brigade are now accommodated.

Vince, I have been searching for a reason to apologize for the remarks I made about you a few weeks ago. Unfortunately, I can not.

If someone even takes a cursory look at the so called evidence used to frame Oswald, they would see that the SBT can not be proven. The rest of the story then becomes suspect and even implausible, and the whole charade falls apart.

It is not rocket science. It has only been because of big names that the story continues to this day. The question is; why have so many of these names been thrown behind this story?

And, why do they have to do that in the first place? Because….

If the cover story was believable in the first place, this gargantuan effort of convincing people that it is true wouldn’t have to be.

QUOTE(Vince Palamara @ Jun 28 2008, 03:12 PM)

I WILL say this: all the postings I read (especially about the Odio incident and the back of the head issues) are compelling...Vince Bugliosi's book just truly floored me.
Vince Palamara

What has caused this appreciation for the Bug's book? I found it tedious and repetitious, another WCR redux, like CC.

It really stretches credulity. It is as if a number of 'lone' assassins sort of had some vague knowledge of the others, but fought to be first and win the prize of the turkey shoot. Lee 'won' in Dallas [those on the GK must have been mad as hell!]; after some others having lost-out in other cities. Ruby gave him the prize. [Ruby and the DPD men who let him in had lost their bets.] A whole new industry for a quasi-conspiracy book genre has been created. The SS were only involved to the extent they took bets on who would win via their betting parlor markers. Roselli was in charge of the betting and Morales, Harvey, Phillips, Bishop, et al. were only sending agents to be the first to know who had won. Another betting parlor group was run by Bannister and Shaw in N.O. with Ferrie and friends as croupiers. Nagell got 'out' as he knew his bet was lost. The Oswald doubles were there to confuse and confound some of the betters. UM and DCM were betting on Lee and hedging their bets. Prouty was sent to Antarctica, as he was opposed to betting. The Paines only manipulating Oswald and Marina in order to maximize their profits. The jamming of DPD channels and phones in D.C. were to confound angry loosers on their bets. Winning DPD officers arrested Oswald in the theatre in order to get their winnings early. Tippit was a big looser with a 'beef' that he was misled.......and so on. Officers changed the type of gun in a futile attempt to save their lost bets and detroyed and tampered with evidence in last-ditch efforts in the same vein.

All of the suspected CIA, FBI, JCS, NSA, SS, DPD, MI, Ultra-Right, Nazis, SOF, and anti-Castro Cubans [and others] only had a 'sporting interest' in the event....rather than any actual involvment. [This also explains all the interesting onlookers in the Plaza waiting to see the outcome and how their bets would make-out with their own eyes] I'll bet the odds were on Lee....maybe THAT was the conspiracy...the event was 'fixed'! Martino and others had inside info on this fact. The cover-up from that day to this has only been to keep from the American Public the largescale betting on political events and assassinations by insiders. Even the tampering with films and photos were to disguise people exchanging money and markers. Case Resolved.

Everyone go back to John Le Carre novels, The Green Felt Jungle, and endless re-readings of Alice In Wonderland. Bartender make mine a double - I've wasted the greater part of my life on a phantom and wild goosechase - when the truth was always so obvious, so innocent and so clear.....I've now seen the light and am saved further as of my time and mental energies. The light of truth is blinding....America is pure and innocent. [if a bit addicted to gambling]. This also explains the other assassinations and even 911. I feel unburdened for the first time in decades.

Sorry Vince, I'm not at all conVINCEd! [by any 'Vince'].

Rick: How can you close me up? On what grounds?
Captain Renault: I'm shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!
[a croupier hands Renault a pile of money]
Croupier: Your winnings, sir.
Captain Renault: [sotto voce] Oh, thank you very much.
[aloud]
Captain Renault: Everybody out at once!

Captain Renault: What in heaven's name brought you to Casablanca?
Rick: My health. I came to Casablanca for the waters.
Captain Renault: The waters? What waters? We're in the desert.
Rick: I was misinformed.

- Casablanca [1942]

I'll tell you this: a good many fellow researchers are doing their very best to "UNconvince" me of my regard for Bugliosi's book...and it is starting to have an effect. As I alluded to before, the back-of-the-head witnesses and the Sylvia Odio incident still trouble me.

Bugliosi's book just totally caught me off guard---I did not expect such a well-written, LENGTHY indictment of Oswald that was so all-encompassing (I kept a legal pad of all the areas I wanted him to cover...and, to my astonishment, between the text and the disc, he did). I may already be heading for the Anthony Summers/ Tink Thompson "agnostic" viewpoint, so that is progress from my adamant reversal LOL

Vince

Tony Summers wrote one of the best books on the assassination, CONSPIRACY,
and I have never heard that he has disavowed it. He is definitely not agnostic,
rather just careful to avoid undocumented theories or claims. Or do you know
something we don't?

Tink Thompson is another matter still not fully resolved.

Jack

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...ost&p=50287

QUOTE:

"I did say to Lisa Pease that I don't think a conspiracy has been proven - for the good reason that there is no definite, uncontested proof of conspiracy. Perhaps there was a plot, and my writings show that I'm very open to that possibility. But there's nothing finite, or indeed anything hard enough to "go to the bank" on. Any open-minded person ought to accept that."


This is hardly a disavowal or change of mind! I agree with Tony that NOTHING HAS BEEN PROVEN.

Jack

Tink, Tony, Jeff Morley and David Talbot all approach the subject from the perspective of journalists, and while following evidence of conspiracy, they're not going to make the mistake of pinning the blame on anyone or any agency or org.

It would be easy to draw a line in the sand between Lone Nuters and Conspiracy Theorists, but the game board is not black and white, and there are those who fit into a third category, one composed of those who try to keep an open mind and work without an agenda or ax to grind.

As for Tony's "Proof," I think it is there, it just has to be properly identified as such, and brought to the legal table at Justice.

Proof is not so much a hard comodity to come by, especially in a homicide case, as it is to be recognized and identified, it is secured, its provance determined, and it is entered into evidence in a court of law.

"Proof" of water ice on Mars was determined to a precise certainty last week when time lapse photos showed the disapearance of what appeared to be salt or ice. Since salt doesn't melt or disolve, it had to be ice and they labeled that "proof," with no serious doubters.

Is there Proof of conspiracy in the assassination of JFK?

I would say that we are tripping over all kinds of Proofs, but since there's no place to take it, the proof of the conspiracy has not been properly developed.

If there are JFK Act Oversight Hearings, Waxman's committee will be the place to take "Proof" of destruction of public records, proof of the ignoring of the law by government administrators, and proof of crimes that are in the paper trail.

If there is a JFK Grand Jury, that would be the place to review all of the hard evidence, and where new witness testimony could be heard in the assassinaition.

Of course we can argue over what proves what till Doomsday, and it will only mean something if they do it in Congress or the Courts.

Sorry to keep harping on this, but from my perspective, its really the only way to go.

BK

Interesting.

It's a proven fact that the bullet holes in JFK's shirt and jacket are 4 inches
below the bottom of the respective collars.

http://www.subversivehistory.com/

Is it not a proven fact that for the official 3-shot scenario requires JFK to have
been shot at the back base of his neck?

Yes, that is a proven fact. The Single Bullet Theory does not work given a wound
below the neck.

Is there any evidence that JFK's shirt and jacket were elevated nearly 3 inches
in tandem at the time of the shooting?

No, the photographic evidence is to the contrary.

http://www.occamsrazorjfk.net/

Anyone who claims that conspiracy in the murder of John F. Kennedy is not
a PROVEN FACT is either unfamiliar with the basic physical facts of the case,
or has been rendered cognitively impaired as a result of egregious intellectual
dishonesty.

Cliff,

You are talking about proof required to win an argument on an internet forum, while I'm talking about evidential proof that can be admitted into a court of law.

BK

The clothing evidence would readily be admitted into a court of law.

Why would you think otherwise?

Absolutly, Except that a real serious Grand Jury would require the bodies of the victims to be exhumed and a proper, forensic autopsy performed that would determine the exact measurements on the body, rather than the shirts or jacket.

BK

Vince, if Bugliosi's book overwhelmed you with evidence that Oswald did it, what is your response to the overwhelming evidence that Oswald didn't do it in John Armstrong's book "Harvey and Lee"? Have you read it? If not it is a must......I am sure you will get over your midlife crisis soon......

A little late for measuring the actual back wound, I dare say.

Since the 3-shot scenario requires JFK to have been shot in the back of the
neck, the holes in the clothes stand as prima facie evidence of 4+ shots.

It does not require an "exact" measurement of the back wound to debunk the
single bullet theory.

After all, the "low" back wound also appears in the only medical evidence
produced according to proper military autopsy protocol: in Burkley's death
certificate (signed off as "verified") and the location of the back wound recorded
in pencil on the autopsy face sheet (also signed off as "verified.")

None of the medical evidence of the well-traveled "high" back wound was
recorded according to autopsy protocol.

I would argue that a Grand Jury only needs to see the holes in the clothes, the
photographic evidence that JFK's jacket dropped in Dealey Plaza, the death
certificate, the autopsy face sheet, the FBI autopsy report, the wound diagrams
sworn to by the FBI SAs attending the autopsy, the sworn testimony of four secret
service agents, and the statements of more than a half-dozen Bethesda medical
witnesses -- and the "probable cause" standard is more than satisfied.

To argue the case for conspiracy on any other grounds is to present a weak case, imo.