Vince Palamara
-
Posts
2,312 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Vince Palamara
-
-
-
The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy: The Final Analysis: Forensic Analysis of the JFK Autopsy X-Rays Proves Two Headshots from the Right Front and One from the Rear
by David W. Mantik M.D., Ph.D. (Author), Jerome R. Corsi Ph.D. (Author), Douglas P. Horne (Introduction)
-
4 hours ago, Pat Speer said:
I started going through the book, and I must agree with you, Vince. It's a good one. Bob is that rare writer who spends most of his time writing about what others believe. It's like he wants the reader to know not just what he thinks but what others think. It's a good/great book for those following the forum who don't feel it's necessary to have an opinion on everything. IOW, the open-minded folks...
It is also a good book for those with an interest in the forensic evidence, but have not had the energy to track down everything written by Aguilar, Mantik, Chesser, Robertson, Thomas, and myself. Bob delineates the differences of opinion among us. He does not hide the skeptic in him--that he is an Oswald did-it guy--and is not convinced by most of our arguments. But he concedes a number of points, and does not resort to the usual insults.
And it's not all rehash. I have already added a number of post-its to its pages, to point out facts I had missed and arguments I should address.
Glad you like it, Pat! I am now three-quarters of the way through, and I am impressed. He is very nice in his tone and concedes many points, despite being a (mostly) lone-nutter. Some of the people on this forum would do well to check this book out and find out you don't have to be so insulting, and you can actually have an open mind to embrace both sides.
-
On 3/8/2024 at 1:30 PM, James DiEugenio said:
BTW, since we will be talking about the book tonight, I just talked to Daniel Jones.
He is the Tampa podcaster who did a two hour interview with me about JFK Revisited.
I wanted him to do one about The JFK Assassinations Chokeholds with Paul Bleau.
He told me that he would rather not since You Tube is suppressing his JFK assassination stuff.
Whew. Did not VInce Palamara make this same complaint on this forum?
You are correct, Jim. Also- JFK REVISITED is the best JFK assassination documentary and The JFK Assassination Chokeholds is also outstanding.
-
30 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:
Thanks, Vince. Now, a related question.
A number of the depositions were televised, and a number of the interviews were recorded. I have compared a few of these recordings (e.g. Baden, Sturdivan, Canning, Finck) against the transcripts of their testimony, and found that the transcripts are at times inaccurate and/or misleading. Does Smith get into those weeds--what was actually said vs. what the transcripts claim was said?
Smith claims to have all the video, audio and transcripts that are available, so I would say "yes." In general, he definitely gets into the weeds a la Walt Brown when it comes to the HSCA. It is an appealing book for the advanced person but not John Q. Citizen.
-
3 hours ago, Pat Speer said:
It's worse than that. I talked to Blakey at the 2014 Bethesda Conference and he said he wanted me to send him some of what I had on Guinn and Canning. He gave me his email address at Cornell. I sent him some prime stuff, including that Guinn changed the number for silver from his HSCA testimony when he moved on to sell his conclusions to his colleagues in forensic journals. Guinn didn't perform new tests--he just changed his number. I also went through Canning's conclusions, step by step, and showed Blakey that Canning concluded JFK was leaning forward when struck in the back, then sat up before being struck in the head.
I never received a response from Blakey, if even to tell me what I sent was unconvincing.
I suspect the man has a hard time admitting he was wrong... Like most of us.
Tim Smith's very detailed 560-plus page book doesn't have an index (!), so I am not 100 percent sure if John Hunt was mentioned, but my first impression after finishing it about a month ago is "no." It is basically Walt Brown's The Warren Omission but done for the HSCA volumes and witnesses.
-
21 hours ago, Pat Speer said:
Just curious. A lot of what we know about the behind the scenes goings on of the HSCA comes from John Hunt. Is he mentioned in the book? Or did Smith just read the testimony, and put his own spin on it, without making note of what others have discovered, including Hunt and myself?
I will check it out again to confirm, but my first impression is that it is a detailed witness-by-witness critique and review. What Walt Brown (a friend and hero of his) did with the Warren Commission, Tim did the same with the HSCA.
-
5 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:
Tim Smith has spent a long, long time studying the House Select Committee public hearings.
He found each witness who testified, and studied what they said. I think this is pretty much unprecedented for a book.
Its really something how much of what they relied upon has been discredited. Or at least brought into question.
And for whatever reason, Odio did not testify. Fonzi worked hard to get her to do so. Was there a more important witness for the public to see?
https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/hidden-in-plain-sight-by-tim-smith
Still, great review and I do recommend Smith's book (to researchers).
-
5 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:
Tim Smith has spent a long, long time studying the House Select Committee public hearings.
He found each witness who testified, and studied what they said. I think this is pretty much unprecedented for a book.
Its really something how much of what they relied upon has been discredited. Or at least brought into question.
And for whatever reason, Odio did not testify. Fonzi worked hard to get her to do so. Was there a more important witness for the public to see?
https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/hidden-in-plain-sight-by-tim-smith
I have mixed feelings about Tim's book. I think he did a masterful job and it is a pretty unique angle (the study of the HSCA in detail). On the other hand, I found it somewhat "dry" and a slog to get through. I cannot imagine a non-researcher (some person off the street/ John Q. Citizen) enjoying the book, sadly. A seasoned researcher definitely would, if they can get past the "dry" text/style.
-
Yes-it is obvious that he holds you, Bill Simpich, John Newman and a couple others in high esteem. This is the FIRST (mostly) lone-nut book that is free of the nasty overtones.
-
13 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:
Ha! What made you check the index? I'm guessing you were reading along and going "Why does this guy keep mentioning Pat?" Well, the truth is I met Bob some years ago at one of Gary Aguilar's get-togethers and have stayed in touch with him ever since. But by that I mean like every three months or so, not very week or so. I knew he was working on a book but had no idea it was coming out anytime soon nor that he would make so many references to my work.
So this comes as a pleasant surprise. I think.
For those not in the know, this is Wagner's second book. While suspecting Oswald acted alone, he finds many CT arguments compelling, and rejects the single-bullet theory, last I checked. He is also quite a nice guy. In fact, I think you met him, Vince. if memory serves I was supposed to accompany Matt Douthit to Dealey Plaza and meet up with you, but I ran late after having lunch with Wagner. I think he came with me to the knoll, afterwards, where I caught up with you, but can't recall for sure. (Those nasty cancer meds!)
In any event, I suspect many CTs could learn a few things from Bob's book, and know many LNs could learn a lot from both his book and example. I mean, Bob is an Oswald-probably-did-it person, but he understands that many of the points made by CTs are legitimate, and not paranoid ramblings.
So he's a different kind of Lone-Nutter, much as you and I are a different kind of Conspiracy Theorist.
OMG I think I DID meet him! I vividly remember meeting you (along with Matt); I even have a photo of it. I will have to check my photos!
Yes---His approach is super refreshing. It is so nice to have someone NOT have the nasty and condescending tone AND concede pro-conspiracy arguments. Bob has a true open mind.
-
(I am on one page)
This lone-nut author Robert Wagner comes across as a nice version of Posner and Bugliosi who DOES concede several things:
-he does not believe in the SBT
-some evidence against Oswald was probably fabricated
-greatly admires the work of John Newman
-and more [I am only about 60 pages in so far but it IS refreshing to see someone from the other side NOT be so nasty]
-
KINDLE-1/11/2024. PAPERBACK- 2/11/2024, today.
-
3 hours ago, Michael Crane said:
Thanks Vince.
It's always nice to see a video that you have not seen yet.
Especially for me on the medical eveidence.
My pleasure!
-
4 hours ago, Pat Speer said:
What??? I have answered that question a hundred times, and people have tried to have me burned at the cross for it.
Outstanding, Pat!!
-
21 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:
OMG. Custer changed his story for money? Or did he, like ALL the supposed back of the head witnesses, tell people largely what they wanted to hear at the time? In Custer's case, he was shown the computer-enhanced and cropped x-rays--which do not look like the original x-rays--and this led him to think something was up. When shown the actual x-rays, however, he recognized his marker and said they were legit.
As far as the head wound location... He told Groden that skull was missing from front to back and pointed this out with this hand. (He was obviously describing the size of the wound once the scalp was peeled back and skull fell to the table.) In any event, Groden took a still from this video of him with Custer's hand at the back of his head, and made out that Custer was describing a blow-out wound low on the back of the head apparent at the beginning of the autopsy. It was a scam. And he made money off of it.
So the question you should be asking yourself is not if Custer was changing his story for money, but if Groden and numerous others were misrepresenting his story for money...
P.S. I just watched the video of Livingstone and Wilson with Custer. THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT SHOULD NEVER HAPPEN. So you are correct about this--Wilson should not have been allowed anywhere near an actual witness, as he was trying to tell them the "truth" as opposed to listening to what they had to say. In any event, it sure looks like Custer is not too impressed with Wilson.
Hi, Pat---you never answer this question: WHERE was the head wound located?
Yes---Wilson was a bad influence on Custer.
-
I interviewed Jerrol Custer twice in person: on 11/22/1991 with Harry Livingstone and Tom Wilson (the interview results are in HIGH TREASON 2 and KILLING THE TRUTH), as well as over two days in March 1998 with author and friend William Matson Law (for his fantastic book IN THE EYE OF HISTORY---I am mentioned several times in the Custer chapter). Here are 3 videos (the 11/22/1991 video is merely an excerpt- Tom Wilson freaked out when he saw I was videotaping and demanded a stop to it):
The definite impression I received was that Jerrol was heavily influenced by Tom Wilson and was starting to change his story because of it (both men lived in Pittsburgh, as do I, but they lived in the very same suburb close by. Ironically, both men would pass away within a very short time of each other in July 2000). As we all know, from roughly the time of the HSCA until the early 1990's, Jerrol was firm on the matter of the back of JFK's head being gone and the x-rays and photos being faked in some way.
By the time of his ARRB interview and his association with Wilson (just beginning in late 1991/early 1992), Jerrol started to change both the position of the head wound and to dramatize his story a tad. It is a sad story of a principal witness changing his story for money and acclaim (NOT from us- he received not a penny, BUT he did receive money from both JFK Lancer and Tom Wilson, not to mention the excitement he had over TWO of his own books he was going to release [they never saw the light of day] and his association with Wilson, who made a splash at the A.S.K. Conference in late November 1991 and on THE MEN WHO KILLED KENNEDY).
-
Excellent! My 2023 appearance is the most popular on their site but they interrupted me like crazy. They let Jim and Paul talk.
-
-
2 hours ago, Cory Santos said:
So did Jay Epstein. Weeks ago.
Yes---Epstein was largely ignored, especially compared to Lifton.
-
-
Thanks for the comment, Pat. Question- I cannot find your specific comment, but you said recently that not one witness saw both a small and a large hole on the back of the head...what about Roy Kellerman?
-
Bonus- Completely overlooked WC reference to Crenshaw's presence on 11/24/63: 21 H 265(report by Parkland Administrator Charles Price)---“Dr. Charles Crenshaw was in the corridor and said they had been alerted. He said, ‘You’re not going to put him [Oswald] in the same room the President was in, are you?’ [I] told him I surely was glad he had thought of it and by all means, not to.”
-
George Hickey also thought the shots were street level: 18 H 761-764: report dated 11/30/63---”After a very short distance I heard a loud report which sounded like a firecracker. It appeared to come from the right and rear and seemed to me to be at ground level...At the moment he was almost sitting erect I heard two reports which I thought were shots and that appeared to me completely different in sound than the first report and were in such rapid succession that there seemed to be practically no time element between them."
The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy: The Final Analysis: Forensic Analysis of the JFK Autopsy X-Rays Proves Two Headshots from the Right Front and One from the Rear
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted
I think this is a new book- not the same one.