Vince Palamara

20 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

And by the way, these trolls are hydra headed.

By that I mean they go under more than one name and identity.

At Matt D's web site, somebody exposed one of them as using two different names. And the other guy was a real person.

I would advise no one to underestimate the xxxxx factor.

I notice this hydra headed trolls on Amazon A LOT. They love to go after pro-conspiracy books, especially when just released, leaving a one-star awful "review" to try to hinder sales.

18 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

Vince, you're saying that after almost 60 years, slightly over 60% of the US public still believe there was a conspiracy.  It's not just all of us old folks anymore. 

When you put it that way- true.

23 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

I wrote about this in 2013. There was a decided and perhaps co-ordinated effort among the major news media to downplay the possibility of a conspiracy, and make conspiracy theorists look like loonies. As a result, those wanting to feel smart without actually doing any research took to dismissing the case with a wave of a hand. Things continued to slide from there, with the sloppiest, stupidest and bloodiest videos getting the most views, to such an extent even that many newbies are first exposed to Files-did-it, Greer-did-it, Hickey-did-it, and Judy-did Lee nonsense. This pushes the genuinely curious away, IMO. And serves as a filter whereby most newbies developing a marginal interest in the case are gullible and overly excited by bright shiny objects, or cynical trolls who think it's fun to "own" the "nuts"

 

Well said!

3 hours ago, Tom Gram said:

I see your point Vince, but I'm not sure I agree with all the pessimism. The goal of historical research should be pursuit of the truth, and the collective understanding of the JFKA and the surrounding history is still inching forward every single day. 

It's unfortunate and sad that attracting new interest in the case has turned into a propaganda war of lone assassin vs. conspiracy. If the media and advocates for Oswald's sole guilt could bring themselves to acknowledge just a sliver of ambiguity in the evidence, and actually encourage people to study the case in depth and come to their own conclusions instead of demonizing those with even a passing interest in the assassination as nutty "conspiracy theorists", we might be able to make some real progress. 

Right now we are right on the cusp of the biggest leap forward since the ARRB. Everyone gets worked up about still-withheld files, but the vast majority of documents that are already released have been locked up at NARA since the 90s and have never been seen or analyzed by basically anyone - other than maybe a handful of dedicated paper junkies. Once NARA digitizes the entire ARC, I guarantee that there will be new major breakthroughs and patterns noticed that we never knew even existed. Online access to the FBI Field Office files alone will be a complete game-changer for research, and for the sake of history we should be encouraging as many people to parse and study those files as humanly possible. 

The problem is that most people don't realize just how inconclusive and messy the evidence in this case really is. The debate has raged on for 60 years for a reason, but it takes a massive time and attention commitment to get to the level of understanding required to make connections and spot problems in the official story. I'm a "new generation" researcher myself, and what ultimately piqued my interest enough to do primary-source research is that the critics, despite all their flaws, frequently come across as more honest, thorough, objective, and interested in an accurate portrayal of history that those defending the conclusions of the Warren Commission. As long as propaganda, deception, and outright denial of genuine ambiguity in the evidence is required to promote the idea that Oswald acted alone to the average citizen, curious people will continue to see right through it and take action to search for the truth.

The best we can do as a "community" is to stick to the evidentiary record; acknowledge when we are speculating; acknowledge that we could be wrong when interpreting inconclusive material; and engage with and genuinely consider the arguments of the other side. That goes for folks on both sides of the fence. I have nothing against anyone's opinions about the JFKA as long as their belief is genuine, they are willing to engage in cordial, collaborative discussion about the evidence and articulate their position, and are willing acknowledge when they might be incorrect. My personal experience with lone assassin theorists on this forum has been generally positive, but I do wish that the LN - CT dialogue in general was a lot more encouraging and collaborative than a fiendish search for flaws in opposing arguments and condescending quips at others' intelligence. 

Basically my point is that as long as we all take the high road and stay committed to finding to truth, even if it contradicts our own deeply ingrained beliefs, interest in and sustained skepticism about the JFKA is here to stay.  

Great comment!

12 hours ago, Gene Kelly said:

Vince

Interesting point about time not being a friend.  When I reflect back to how I first became interested, and then educated myself, it's quite the journey (and I'm still travelling).  First it was certain prominent books (not all of which were accurate or enlightening).  Next were conferences and talks given by certain experts and television specials (which in retrospect weren't reliable sources of valid information). More recently, it's been the computer and websites like the Education Forum, with a focus on whom I personally consider to be the most knowledgeable individuals. The difficult part is wading through a veritable mountain of information - and filtering well-disguised disinformation - to arrive at a coherent story, one that rings true.  It takes great patience and persistence. 

When I think of the current generation (and my own children), they generally don't have the patience to read books, or perform the necessary due diligence.  They want instant news and learn from Tweets (i.e., sound bites).  And with so much out there now - including valid differing points of view - it's an almost impossible task to discern the Truth. As far as the older generation, when I forward information about JFK Revisited to my friends and family, some have taken the time to watch it and were impressed (so that's reassuring).  However, given that the story is now more than 50 years old, I fear that many (young and old) just don't much care, nor does history interest them. 

Last, one thing I've learned in my JFK journey is to respect the many different perspectives and individual views ... that's its healthy to disagree (because that is how we learn). Nor do I like simplistic labels like LN's or CT's; we are all too sophisticated to be simply labelled as such.  The reality is that there's a lot more to the JFK story than simply one guy taking three shots from the 6th floor (all on his lonesome).  Where we all differ is in the details, and who was behind it (and why) ... nonetheless, I believe that the majority (70% or more) still don't buy that simple story. 

Gene

excellent comment!

20 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Vince,

That is not in any way a scientific sample.

There are so many trolls online over the JFK case its kind of ridiculous.  And they know where to go.

The DVD for JFK Revisited has been out for five weeks.  This has been the ranking on Amazon documentaries:

Week 1: Number 1

Week 2: Number 1

Week 3: Number 1

Week 4: Number 4

Week 5: Number 6

In my opinion, that is pretty impressive.  Since the film has been out since last July.

Oh, I agree--OUTSTANDING documentary; THE best. Jim, the documentary is the one reason I am not going totally "debbie downer" haha. Seriously, though- the pervasiveness of the trolls is alarming.

1 hour ago, Stephanie Goldberg said:

Not a real reply, but I’m not able to access my full keyboard at the moment. You’ve made some excellent points. I’ll be back later today or tomorrow to agree with more words. 

Thanks! Yes- not trying to be a "bummer" but I am alarmed at the sheer number of lone-nut responses I am seeing online from non-researchers. Back when the movie JFK came out up to 2003, I only knew of lone-nutters and they were the same handful everyone else know. Now, it is an army!

1 hour ago, Gil Jesus said:

The MSM never gave a thought to the inconsistencies in the WR. I'll let Harold Weisberg give my two cents with his explanation of how the MSM handled critics of the WC early on. It seems to be the same way they handle us critics even today:

https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/weisberg-media.mp4

Excellent, Gil!

While I am excited about the new Stone documentary (outstanding) and several recent books, not to mention the level of scholarship the past 5-15 years or so, I am noticing a sea change online from NON-researchers about the JFK case. For one example of many- a local Pittsburgh celebrity posted a short video of Dr. Wecht dismantling the single bullet theory from just the other night and, rather than a bunch of nice comments from the public, the vast majority of the comments (again, from NON-researchers) would make Fred Litwin, DVP, Tracy Parnell and others proud. I have no doubt that, if this video would have been posted pre-2013 and especially pre-2003, the comments would have been largely in agreement.

The public opinion polls used to be hugely in favor of conspiracy. As we know, the last major poll in 2013 demonstrated only a 61 percent pro-conspiracy slant. I wouldn't be surprised at all if the number is even lower now.

One can even see this on Amazon reviews for Hill's three (soon to be 4) books, Gerald Blaine's book, and other (anti) conspiracy books. There seems to be a feeling of "relief" that it was "only" Oswald from the regular folks who post these reviews, something in direct opposition to the silly claim that people seek comfort in CONSPIRACY notions. Uh, if anything, it is the OPPOSITE- people definitely seem to be "relieved" that is was "only" Oswald after swallowing the contents of these anti-conspiracy books hook, line and sinker. The cult of personality associated with Clint Hill is mind-boggling: he was one of the NINE agents who drank and stayed out late that morning and admitted for years that he and his fellow agents failed, even stating several times it is "my fault", yet don't DARE say anything about either the drinking incident, pro-conspiracy notions or the agent's failure on 11/22/63 or these cult-like sycophants will rip you a new one!

Simply put (and it pains me to say this): despite our valiant efforts, they won. The history books will not be changed (most barely mention the controversy or even use the word alleged when talking about Oswald) and time has NOT been a friend. So many witnesses have passed on. Think about it: 30 years ago, when Stone's JFK came out, Jackie, the Connallys, Ted, JFK Jr., and many principal people were still among us. The "evil" George H.W. Bush, ex-CIA director, was president. It was a heady time when conferences were just beginning again after a huge lull in the 1980's and the blossoming internet (largely computer bulletin boards) AND print journals spread the interest and inspiration for the masses.

Now, the net is old news (everyone has access to it and has for ages) and anyone can post anything they want about the case, free of charge. Society has changed a lot in 30 years- the dawn of the 21rst century, 9/11, other (corrupt) administrations, etc.

Don't get me wrong with this "downer" post- we have achieved a lot: many books of a scholarly nature; several major documentaries (TMWKK 1-9, A Coup in Camelot, JFK Revisited, etc.); the ARRB and the file releases, including recent ones in 2017-2018; and so on.

Again, this is just a reminder that time is not a friend.

I even see it online for my own self with my You Tube channel and various blogs and social media platforms: the vast amount of pro-conspiracy comments are silly, stating that Greer or Hickey shot Kennedy; James "I am not in any" Files killed JFK; Jackie (!) shot her husband; and a fair amount of "get a life-it was Oswald", something that almost never happened pre-2013 unless it came from a well-known anti-conspiracy person/author...now these comments come from John Q. Citizen!

Just my two cents. Thoughts?

2 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

With all due respect, Vince, I think you need to go through your video channel and add attributions (at the very least) to where you got these videos. I was annoyed when I saw you posting Mark Oakes' video without attribution. I believe you fixed that. But I've recently noticed other complaints online about you taking videos from other people's websites without attribution.

You have a good reputation. You don't want to become known as the guy who takes other people's videos without attribution. 

P.S. I know it's not about money. I think we can both agree that Groden's trying to copyright the autopsy photos was wrong. But for most of us a little shout out--"Hey, this is a video put together by Max Good. Check it out!" Is enough.)

P.P.S. I realize, of course, that this gets complicated when posting news footage. But we can assume those guys got paid for their efforts. This is rarely true for fellow researchers.

Thanks- you make a valid point (yes, I fixed that one and several others). I did that for a slew of Bart Kamp videos, for which he was grateful for the attribution. I will do that now.

11 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

It seems like just yesterday. I think I was sitting just to the right of the camera. Are any other videos from this conference online, Vince? 

I will look!

12 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Thanks for this VInce.  I forgot about it completely.

Sure!

5 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:

If you watch the Z film at regular speed, there is no discernible slowdown, much less a full stop. This is not even a close call. The witnesses would have seen the limo moving in real time. It strains the imagination to fathom how the 1-2-second full stop or obvious slowdown described by over 40 witnesses could be the split-second slowdown that Alvarez only identified by measurement and frame-by-frame analysis. 

Good point. See my latest book- the tally is actually over 70 (!)

12 hours ago, Jamey Flanagan said:

Thanks @Vince Palamara! I'm curious as to your opinion of the splice right there in the Towner film. Do you think something happened there on the turn from Houston onto Elm that they didn't want us to see? Someone commented on one of the YouTube videos of it that even with 7 frames missing that would be less than a second and wouldn't be enough time for even the wide turn by Greer to be edited out. I'm not sure I agree with that but I haven't done the math myself on frames per second and all that. If you think it was purposely edited then do you think it was just eliminating that wide turn or do you think something else happened right there?

I think it is definitely possible that the wide turn---or something else--was spliced out. However, like so much else in the case, we will probably never know for sure.

1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

I think you can watch it all online can't you?

7 hours ago, Stephanie Goldberg said:

Okay, you guys have talked me into finding a copy of this!  

3 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

I've thought since first reading Survivors Guilt, Rowley and Roberts in particular, along with a few others should have been questioned (publicly) in depth by independent investigators.  Pending results, maybe prosecuted, possibly for treason. jmho

Definitely!

5 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Man what a picture.  I mean Ornato and Hill.

Ornato I think is going to be a crucial witness as to the Insurrection as I tried to point out in my Consortium News piece.

As per Hill, what can one say.  Except The Cellar.

Leonnig is at least trying to make that connection in the MSM.  

It should have caught on by now.  I mean its pretty obvious. Here you have a lawless agency.  In the real world, Rowley should have been fired, along with about ten agents. At the very least each one at The Cellar.  The whole excuse about that crazy parade route, which the HSCA exposed as being ersatz should have been flushed out. As well as the motorcycle cut back and formation. VInce is trying for it.

Thanks, Jim!

1 minute ago, David Von Pein said:

Here's a direct MP3 link to Vince's latest Black Op appearance....

https://www.blackopradio.com/pod/black1106.mp3

 

Thanks!

Trump's Secret Service Detail 'Cheered on the Insurrection'—Carol Leonnig (msn.com)

Hello, current Secret Service scandal! Say hello to the older and more infamous Secret Service scandal. In 2017, most of the former Special Agent in Charges (SAICs) of the Presidential Protective Division/White House Detail got together at the White House for one of several reunions through the years. The far left arrow points to Trump’s now “famous” SAIC Tony Ornato—-one of the agents who cheered on the 1/6/21 insurrection and who figures into the deleted texts—-who also became Trump’s Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations (he is currently the Assistant Director, Office of Training)- shades of the first agent who crossed the line, Emory Roberts (who became LBJ’s Appointment Secretary while still an active agent!). The center arrows point to Clint Hill, one of the nine agents who drank the morning of the assassination [like the nine agents who drank and caroused in 2011 in Cartegna, Columbia during a trip with President Obama] (and who went on to be both SAIC for LBJ and Assistant Director), and Richard Keiser, SAIC for part of the Nixon, Ford and Carter eras (and who guarded the JFK limo the night of 11/22/63). @James DiEugenio