Vince Palamara

thanks

Well put! Good point.

One lone-nutter, Todd Vaughan, is livid at Buell for his 57-year old revelation about the gunman he allegedly saw.

I agree with your assessment.

My pleasure!

Give it a rest, "friend" (I don't even know you LOL). That error in a very long book is insignificant to both the book as a whole and to my suspicions about the Paines. It makes 0.0 difference either way and played no part whatsoever in my assessment of the Paines, pro or con. Those two bums Nixon and Trump both visited CIA headquarters...many honorable people also served in the CIA...some visited CIA headquarters, some never did (just as many FBI informants never visited headquarters; many police informants never visited police headquarters...get it?). Whether Ruth or her sister visited the a

The sad reality is this: even IF true, any lone-nutter (or lawyer) worth a lick will dismiss it as a over-57-year-old revelation that is impossible to prove. It is footnote material at best.

I will say this: if Frazier added that bit to boost sales, epic fail- my own new book has enjoyed much better daily Amazon rankings than his (although Tink Thompson's new book is blowing BOTH of our books away. Tink is a super star, I am "known" but not a super star, while Frazier's book was released very low key and does not, at first glance, look like a JFK assassination book). I am surprised that Dave Perry, Gus Russo and Hugh Aynesworth allowed that bit to appear in his book, as it is (obviously) very pro-conspiracy and such a late-date revelation. I think Buell made a mistake al

JFK assassination conference: "The Lone Assassin Theory - Photographic Evidence" 2004 - YouTube

JFK assassination conference: "The Lone Assassin Theory - Photographic Evidence" 2004 - YouTube

Ruth Paine - YouTube Ruth Paine 9/13/13 JFK assassination - YouTube

HAHA! Her laughing is disturbing

Weird Ruth Paine interview - I guess it's funny to her - YouTube

Thanks for that. Keep in mind, my book is roughly 480 pages and is massively footnoted and documented and, out of necessity, relies on MANY sources from others (see, for example, the massive bibliography). Nothing is knowingly false. I have an errata page on both my major blogs (since March and I haven't posted anything above them, so they remain the newest entry) for the world to see (both my blogs have over 250K views. In fact, one is at over 880K views). The specific line about Ruth herself visiting CIA headquarters will be removed in future printings- the rest will remain.

Exactly!