Vince Palamara

3 hours ago, Joe Bauer said:

 

The few agents that are left are not friendly toward me now LOL. I am persona non grata with them because of my book(s)

6 hours ago, Matt Allison said:

I'm pretty confident that isn't a Dallas detective either; the tie clip, tie, pocket square and hairstyle are not a good match stylistically for Texas.

And yes, wearing sunglasses inside the hospital, wtf...

you inspired me for this post, Matt-thanks!

18 H 795: Secret Service agent Andy Berger---writes in his SS report that "AN UNIDENTIFIED CIA AGENT" who had "CREDENTIALS" made himself available at Parkland while JFK was there (this is separate from FBI agent Vincent Drain, who identified himself and was sent via Hoover, and an "unidentified FBI agent" who did NOT have credentials!

Unidentified male in sunglasses (inside the hospital wearing sunglasses?) that some people want to believe is a Secret Service agent. I do NOT recognize him at all (and I am much aware of what all the agents from the Dallas field office and White House Detail look like):

[caption created by Linda Zambanini]

-------------------------------------

From https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth184662/

Creation InformationBookmark this section

Dallas Times Herald November 22, 1963.

-----------------------------

Extreme blowup of Stoughton photo depicting Agent Andy Berger driving the hearse containing JFK's body with agent Stu Stout (in shadows) sitting between him and ASAIC Roy Kellerman, 11/22/63

 

 

A- ANDY BERGER

B-FLOYD BORING

8 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

But who is he hanging out with now? 

Who worked on the book with him?

I assume it is those two, but I am also hearing Aynesworth, too!

From his Facebook page: "8 years ago. Wow! Where has the time gone? Got this from Professor Dave’s page today. -bwf"

11 hours ago, Rob Clark said:

Who's excited for this? Will he finally come clean, or will Aynesworth's influence have him towing the company line? He should be used to waiting on steps...😉

My vote for title would be... "A Mile in My Moccasins" 😆

I was excited...until I saw who he has been working with. See above.

30 minutes ago, Denny Zartman said:

Is Aynesworth really part of this project?

2 pillars of virtue and truth: Gus "not Perry" Russo and Dave "not Malcolm" Perry...yuck.

His Facebook page:

https://www.facebook.com/Wheelman1963/

AND when I met him this past November:

19 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

Question:  Why did it take 57 years for the guy who drove Oswald to work to write a book?

I am not thrilled at who he is working on the book with:

And his caption: "July 20, 1990 | The day that started it all with Professor Dave! (From L to R) Gus Russo, myself and Dave Perry!

29 years and 10,701 days... This game joyous and the story behind it is in the book! - BWF

4 hours ago, Rob Couteau said:

Thanks!

Sure!

3 hours ago, Denis Morissette said:

Thanks for your evaluation of my Craig page. Appreciated. I have not logged in the forum since I posted this. I will reply to your comments in a few days when I have an Internet connection at home again. I am not here to debate but to find out the facts. If there are things in the page that I can improve or correct, I certainly will.

Craig used to be me hero in the first years of my research. I was extremely disappointed when I found out that he lied so much. He went from hero to zero.

Denis, your Babushka Lady work is fantastic. That said, I don't see how Roger Craig lied so much. I guess I am not seeing it.

Matthews was so nauseating how he fawned over Hill and Blaine. I remember him laughing at the phony "Ivy League charlatans" claim as if it was genuine; so lame.

In keeping with my discussion below (elsewhere) with regard to interest in the case still remaining relatively strong (under the circumstances of time, etc.), we must keep in mind that so much of our information is RECENT.

MID-LATE 1990's: the ARRB and the millions of file releases.

2017: more file releases.

2011 onward: the vast majority of Kennedy images (still and motion) have only been digitized and available since around 2011 on! If you go back to the previous decade, so much of the visual images of Kennedy were not yet available, as Cecil Stoughton (the White House photographer) was still living and his images were not yet released and public domain. I can personally attest to having discovered thousands of photos since around 2011 (from many sources, not just the JFK library) that were not available before then! 2011 is pretty darn recent: iPhones were around and our last president (Obama) was in office! In fact, the vast majority of my visual materials re: motorcades, etc. I did not have 10 years ago.

Before the ARRB, we had theories and type-written print journals like The Continuing Inquiry and The Third/Fourth Decade. Book releases were few and far between and there was no kindle and NO AMAZON!

ALSO,  there was no internet!

Pre-1994 or so, we lugged around our used copies of Weisberg, Lane, Marrs, etc. and speculated; wrote theory-driven articles; and sources and references were optional (or just secondary sources galore-quoting Meagher, Penn Jones, etc.)

PRIMARY research and all these tools above changed the game...and they are all very recent.

Another thing: I belong to several Facebook JFK groups (about his life, not his death) with thousands of members. Whenever I post photos of Kennedy, I received hundreds of "likes" and positive comments (and shares), not just from members but many of my 4700+ "friends", as well; no "get a life" or negative comments ever. I am only bringing this up to demonstrate the interest in his life (and death) remains.

When I posted several nice photos of Reagan and his wife-crickets. Same with other presidents. Nothing but love and positivity with regard to JFK.

As another aside: our current president aside, I believe LBJ is our most despised president. Whenever I occasionally post a photo of him, there is an avalanche of hate, including from "regular" folks.

1 hour ago, Steve Thomas said:

Vince,

Interest will dwindle and fade into the dim recesses of time.

Look what happened to interest in Lincoln's assassination. How many people never get past John Wilkes Booth?

It's inevitable and part of human nature.

*shrug*

 

Steve Thomas

The only thing that prevents me from giving in to that sentiment is past precedent. As I outlined above, there has been both a feeling of interest and a feeling of "who cares" that has permeated for decades. However, whenever something of note comes around (Stone film, major anniversaries, 2016 Ted Cruz's father story, 2017 file releases), the public is reignited once again.

A couple things separate Lincoln from Kennedy: looks (image matters a lot, whether that is a good thing or bad thing), the fact that the Lincoln case is much older, and, perhaps most importantly, we have countless (color) photos and films of JFK. Also, Caroline is still living, as are the extended Kennedy clan. Finally, there are still millions who were alive when it happened.

Having said that, once we get up to the 75th year threshold, then it is anyone's guess. I do feel the audio/visual side will keep things alive longer, but there will be a natural attrition (of interest) in the case.

Interesting aside: the vast majority of Kennedy images (still and motion) have only been digitized and available since around 2011 on! If you go back to the previous decade, so much of the visual images of Kennedy were not yet available, as Cecil Stoughton (the White House photographer) was still living and his images were not yet released and public domain. I can personally attest to having discovered thousands of photos since around 2011 (from many sources, not just the JFK library) that were not available before then! 2011 is pretty darn recent: iPhones were around and our last president (Obama) was in office! In fact, the vast majority of my visual materials re: motorcades, etc. I did not have 10 years ago.

4 hours ago, Denny Zartman said:

Wow! It sure does sound like your email played a role in the decision not to move forward with the project, Vince. 

thanks- yes, I agree!

2 minutes ago, Joe Bauer said:

Parkland?

A film I actually paid money to see in our local theater with my bored, suffering wife and one other person - a big bellied, bearded, hairy fellow who fell asleep twenty minutes into the film and snored loudly throughout until it's end?

I wouldn't doubt that Tom Hanks has a caveat in his interview appearance contracts that forbids the interviewers from mentioning "Parkland" and his involvement with it.

Seriously, one of the all time lowest ticket sales films in major theater distribution history.

A "bomb" extraordinaire.

Wow!

Yes, indeed- a huge bomb and a truly awful, boring-as-hell film.

One GOOD thing came from it, though- it's horrible box office returns was one major reason why Gerald Blaine's THE KENNEDY DETAIL feature film (with Stephen Gyllenhaal, Jake and Maggie's father, directing) did not come out (they used to have a fancy website with the many technical people involved, including Oscar-winning audio and visual technicians and the Life of Pi co-director). A nice lady sent me a pirated copy of part of the script and (hold back your vomit) there was a scene where Gerald Blaine is crying and saying "Oswald killed our President...and our President killed himself! He ordered us off his car!! He ordered us off his xxxxing car!!"

P.S. The other major reason: me. I got a hold of Gyllenhaal's private e-mail address and sent him bullet points demonstrating that Blaine and Hill were lying. This email coincided with the website being massively trimmed down (all the many technical people disappeared off it within 48 hours!!!) and I was told the film was dead (and that was back in 2012--!). It also led to petty harassment by Blaine's friends, but it was worth it.

P.S. Imagine if PARKLAND would have come out instead of JFK-----yuck!

2 minutes ago, Joe Bauer said:

Vince, your "two cents" is worth the equivalent of two hundred ( aw heck...two thousand ) dollars in my book.

By the way, I too remember "well" my attendance at the first showing of Oliver Stone's "JFK" at one of our local theaters.

And you are exactly correct in describing the raptness of the audience - a packed house.

From the very first second of the film to the last.

This film was made to effect viewers emotional connection to the tragic brutal murder of our 35th president. An event that most American adults in 1992 still had a personal visceral connection to.

The way Stone's JFK was put together was a brilliant achievement in this regards.

It's pacing, switching to black and white, military drum rolls, interjected horror of JFK's head being blown apart etc., etc.

Even the way the shots in Dealey Plaza were injected ... loud, shocking, powerful ... they startled audience members with a jolt as if they were felt in live time!

Stone built up a growing motorcade tension as well as any horror film so that when his JFK head blast scene finally hit, the power of this just shook you. And he knew that the horror and shock and pain felt by Jackie Kennedy had to be a part of this scene as it was truly a great emotional part of the reality of the event.

If not for Stone's JFK, I think the entire story would have been hugely forgotten much more than it has been today.

Thanks, Joe. Very well said.

Yes, Stone's movie achieved (with the general public) what a slew of books did not and could not have ever achieved. Just imagine if it would have been a poorly-made film- that could have been the death knell for the case (no ARRB, no further media interest, etc.)

You are so right about the JFK movie. I am from Pennsylvania and, every time Senator Arlen Specter's name was mentioned, a gasp went throughout the crowded theater (same with the "back and to the left" scene, as well). The fact that former CIA Director George H.W. Bush was president + Jackie, Teddy, JFK Jr. and even the Connallys were still alive loomed large when this was out in theaters. In fact (I have it on my You Tube channel), the Connallys appeared on Larry King and disputed the single bullet theory and conceded that a conspiracy could have taken place.

19 hours ago, Steve Thomas said:

Vince,

I don't think the patrolman Tague talked to was Foster; at least he didn't speak of talking to Tague in his WC testimony, but I won't quibble about that. He could have talked to Tague and just didn't mention it.

I was interested in this little passage in Foster's testimony. The sergeant in question was D.V. Harkness:

https://www.jfk-assassination.eu/warren/wch/vol6/page251.php

 

Mr. Ball. Where did you go from there?

Mr. Foster. Went on around the back side of the bookstore.

Mr. Ball. Immediately?

Mr. Foster. Yes, sir.

Mr. Ball. . Back side? What do you mean by that?

Mr. Foster. Well, I guess you would say the northwest side of it.

Mr. BALL. When you got over to the School Book Depository Building, what did you do?

Mr. Foster. I was standing around in back there to see that no one came out, and the sergeant came and got me and we were going to check the---all the railroad cars down there.

Mr. Ball. Who was that sergeant?

Mr. Foster. Sergeant came up there.

Mr. Ball. Did you search the railroad cars?

Mr. Foster. No; he sent me back down to the inspector. Told me to report back to Inspector Sawyer.

Mr. Ball. Where?

Mr. Foster. At the front of the Book Depository.

Mr. Ball. Did you talk to Sawyer there?

Mr. Foster. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Did you tell your sergeant or Sawyer, either one where you thought the shots came from?

Mr. Foster. Yes, sir.

Mr. Ball. What did you then tell them?

Mr. Foster. Told them it came from that vicinity up around Elm and Houston.

Mr. Ball. Did you tell the sergeant that first, or did you tell that to Sawyer?

Mr. Foster. Told that to Inspector Sawyer.

Mr. Ball. You told that to Sawyer?

Mr. Foster. Yes, sir.

Mr. Ball. Did you tell that to the sergeant?

Mr. Foster. I don't know whether I told the sergeant that or not.

 

If Foster thought that the shots came from the vicinity of Elm and Houston", why wouldn't he have immediately told Harkness?

And, if he and Harkness were all set to search the railroad cars, why did Harkness instead tell Fotster to go see Sawyer in the front of the TSBD?

Why did Harkness change his mind? Foster must have told Harkness where he thought the shots came from. Why else would he have sent Foster to go see Sawyer?

 

Steve Thomas

Interesting, indeed!

I don't think interest will ever truly die with regard to the JFK assassination. Oh, I used to think it would: after Posner's book came out (late 1993/early 1994); when the 20th century gave way to the 21rst century (2000); especially after 9/11/2001; after the 40th anniversary (2003); and after the 50th anniversary (2013).

Then it dawned on me: there have always been periods of inactivity (lulls) in the case, along with ambivalence or worse.

I remember being excited, during the lead up to Oliver Stone's film JFK, to attend my very first conference (as a speaker, too): the June 1991 Third Decade conference with Jerry Rose. Yet, only 60 people attended. In addition, there was a local newspaper story that stated something to the effect that "Roughly 60 interested persons showed up for Prof. Jerry Rose's JFK assassination conference at SUNY Fredonia College, knowing full well that few in the outside world really cared."

Ouch.

Then the Stone film came out- things couldn't be better. And yet, there was still another side of the coin: equally long lines for the children's movie Hook competing with JFK and people giving what I thought were somewhat derisive looks at our line. Then came the avalanche of negative media commentary on the film (actually, this began BEFORE the film even came out!). I also remember a humbling experience for me: I was on a business trip in early 1992. In the midst of a dinner break, I was regaling my group with conspiracy details on the case. Then some guy burst my bubble: he said "You know who I think killed Kennedy? Bullwinkle killed Kennedy!" The rest of them all laughed and changed the subject.

Ouch.

Probably the biggest reality check was the attention--or lack thereof--given to the 1992 film Ruby (starring the recently-departed Danny Aiello as Ruby). After seeing JFK three times in the theater and experiencing standing-room-only attendance and rapt attention to the film (never before or since have I felt such an "electric" feeling from a film), Ruby was quite humbling, to put it mildly: I was one of THREE people in attendance at the premiere (and one guy was certifiably goofy haha). Everyone was packing the adjoining theater to see Basic Instinct! The bloom was definitely off the rose a little.

Also, while the JFK movie spawned many tabloid television show programs on the subject (Geraldo, A Current Affair with Maury Povich, Jenny Jones [!], etc.) and several actual pro-conspiracy specials (with James Earl Jones stumbling and fumbling his narration; Robert Conrad hosting a mafia-did-it show, etc.), there was a for-dramatic-entertainment-only feel to these shows. In addition, while there were whole "JFK assassination" shelves at Walden Books, Borders, and Barnes and Noble, there was a lot of crap reissued and new books with many competing and confusing (to John Q Citizen) theories---an agent accidentally shot JFK (Mortal Error), "Saul" shot JFK (Hugh McDonald's Appointment in Dallas reissued), the Weisberg books (brilliant research, poor writing), etc.

No wonder that it felt like a lot of people were confused, threw up their hands, and seemed to move on.

Then again...

The Stone film created the ARRB---millions of files were released that we are still going through; a tremendous achievement.

Fast-forwarding to 2003, the television ratings for THE MEN WHO KILLED KENNEDY were massive and the sales of the VHS and DVD copies exceeded 50,000 (at 19.95 a pop, too [and, no--I didn't see one dime haha]). Yet, the negative controversy over the Liggett story (part of number 7, the one I was on), Judyth Baker's episode (number 8), and especially the LBJ-did-it episode (number 9), overshadowed the ratings and interest, as all three were buried thanks to the LBJ family and their cronies. NOTE: Newsmax television has aired (and will continue to air into the new year) episodes 7 and 8 (episode 9 apparently is still banned).

Fast-forwarding to 2016, a massive amount of press went towards the notion that Ted Cruz's dad worked with Oswald. Whether silly or not, it drew a lot of attention back to the case. All of a sudden, tabloid magazines began an almost regular circulation of pro-conspiracy cover stories that continues to this day.

2017 brought the "Trump" JFK file releases and, again, the press was massive; even "regular" folks were talking about the case once again!

Finally (keeping in mind the 60 researchers who attended the 1991 pre-Stone movie conference and the negative article that greeted it), roughly 150 researchers attended the Trine Day ("Judyth") conference, while about that many attended the CAPA conference; the plaza was heavy with people, researchers and regular folk alike, 11/22-11/23/19, and a Japanese film crew was there filming a documentary for a major Japan television network.

I guess the moral to the story is: time marches on and cynicism can sometimes overtake us, but I believe interest will never die for this case. Part of the (major) appeal to the case is the still-huge interest in the Kennedys, in general, and JFK, in particular. Also, never underestimate the (fortunate) fact that President Kennedy was our last assassinated president and was "only" ten presidents ago;  not ancient history, at least from an historian's standpoint. Also, look at the massive interest that greeted the 2012 movie Lincoln...and that subject matter is over 150 years ago! It was "deja vu all over again": packed movie houses (I saw it twice in the theater and it is the only movie that rivaled JFK's enraptured feeling), a slate of new Lincoln books and television programs, etc.

Just my two cent's worth.

Vince

1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

Merry Xmas to everyone here.  

Even DVP is he is lurking.

Merry Christmas to you, Jim, as well as everyone on here!

Thank God DVP is gone from here!!!

On 12/23/2019 at 10:45 PM, Rob Couteau said:

Vince, Did you ever find out anything else about Chuck Robertson - was he actually Secret Service; and when did he actually die?

[from my first book]

20 H 410: "A Western Union man who had been with us since we came down from Andrews Air Force Base came into the [Parkland Hospital] office. A nurse asked him about a report that a Secret Service agent had been killed out on the street. HE SAID THAT IT WAS TRUE. This was one of the immediate rumors which sprang up. It took several days for this particular rumor not to be believed in Dallas itself (FELLOW IN JAGGARS-CHILES-STOVALL who got it from a friend who got it from a POSTMAN* supposed to have been at the death scene that the shot and bleeding SS man was in on the plot to kill the President.)" [emphasis added]

*the 1/22/77 issue of "The Continuing Inquiry" contains an article written by Penn Jones and Gary Shaw re: the "dead" agent incident as reported in a letter sent to Jim Garrison during the Clay Shaw trial:
"A Mr. Robertson, Assistant Director of the Dallas or Fort Worth Secret Service office, confided to [friend of writer who requested anonymity] in 1963 that a plot to kill President Kennedy was planned and he did not want any part of it. On November 22, 1963, my friend was in the office of Mr. Robertson when all phones began to ring, about the time Kennedy was arriving at Carswell Air Force Base [in Fort Worth], Mr. Robertson then said, 'Well, this is it' and left the office. Since that time Mr. Robertson's family of seven children and wife have not seen or heard from him, yet his paychecks continue to be mailed to his home."
Jones/ Shaw: "Our 1965 investigation led us to believe Robertson was in Dallas but was posing as a POSTAL INSPECTOR, but it was reported to us that he had left Dallas. We also learned from newsmen that something unusual did happen on Harwood [street] shortly before the turn to Main Street. No one wanted credit for this, but we were told by reliable newsmen that a man jumped in front of Kennedy's car on Harwood shouting, "Stop, I must tell you." The man, according to their report, was promptly wrestled to the ground and hustled away." [emphasis added]

----- To my great surprise, there are three reports that corroborate the above article, in conjunction with the overlooked Kantor report:
The first is the actual LETTER sent to Garrison from an "Amy Britvar" dated 2/21/68 and originating from Turtle Creek Blvd. in Dallas, TX. [thanks go to John Armstrong and Jack White for the copy of this letter]! An internet people search for Britvar drew a blank, although there ARE other Britvars in Texas (further work will be done on locating this person).

The second is a Treasury Department (U.S. Customs Service) document, dated 1/17/80, from Joseph G. Forrester, U.S. Customs, to Attorney General Benjamin R. Civiletti [thanks go to John Armstrong and Ed Sherry for this document]. The letter reads in part:
"My interest in the Kennedy murder started in 1966 when I met an Air Force Master Sergeant at St. Albans Naval Hospital, Queens, New York.
This sergeant, an elderly man, was suffering from terminal cancer. He stated that on November 22,1963 he was attached to Air Force One as an electronics technician. He further stated that after the President was shot a message was received over a military frequency that multiple assassins had attacked the President...a Secret Service agent. Mr. Robertson, stationed in the Dallas-Fort Worth area disappeared on November 22,1963, yet his family still receives his paychecks. The disappearance of an individual is not unusual except that it has been said that Mr. Robertson became aware of an assassins plot against the president. An assassin plot had been unearthed in Chicago a short time before President Kennedy's Dallas trip. Please do not misconstrue this letter. I am not a crank; but I am sincerely interested in this crucial investigation. I am willing to join an investigative team and if that is not possible, will make myself available for an interview by investigative officers."

The third is a lengthy memorandum written by Vince Salandria, dated 1/31/67, regarding an interview with Rita Rollins, a Navy Nurse with an interesting story to tell.---the crucial part in question reads as follows:
"The name of the person in Dallas...is Inez Robertson. CHUCK ROBERTSON, HER HUSBAND, WORKS AT THE POST OFFICE...Inez Robertson, actually saw them [men with guns] make a breakdown of the rifles. This tall man with long grey or white hair[-]he was in the station wagon. There is a luggage rack on the station wagon. It was a Rambler station wagon. This fellow with the mixed grey hair carried them [the armed men] to the airport...This tall man had been around Dallas the day before the assassination...THIS EPISODE HAS CAUSED FRICTION BETWEEN CHUCK ROBERTSON AND INEZ ROBERTSON. HE IS NOT IN DALLAS NOW." [emphasis added]

On 12/22/2019 at 3:42 AM, Steve Thomas said:

Vince,

I don't think so, at least as far as what he told the WC:

https://www.jfk-assassination.eu/warren/wch/vol6/page255.php

Mr. Ball.

What did you do after that?
Mr. WHITE. As soon as the train passed I went over and on the northwest side of the Depository Building. On the northwest side of the book store up there with the rest of the officers and after about 30 minutes they told me to go out and work traffic at Main and Houston, and I stood out there and worked traffic.

 

Steve Thomas

That was off the top of my head. Officer J.W. Foster was the man.

http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg Subject Index Files/S Disk/Skolnick Sherman Part 1/Item 098.pdf