Vince Palamara
-
Posts
2,350 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Vince Palamara
-
-
17 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:
Thanks Vince.
Appreciate it.
Jim~!! It is selling well already in Kindle:
-
3 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:
I was not going to post this until the actual preview was up at Amazon.
Vince did it for me.
But you can pre order it in E book form now.
The paperback will be available I think on the 14th.
Three lawyers helped write the book.
Can't wait! I will get it!
-
-
"The JFK Assassination Chokeholds: That Prove There Was a Conspiracy" by James DiEugenio, Matt Crumpton, Paul Bleau, Andrew Iler, Mark Adamczyk
"In JFK Assassination Chokeholds, readers will find up to date evidence that would have compelled any jury to conclude that Oswald was not guilty beyond reasonable doubt, and that there is clear and convincing evidence of both a conspiracy and obstruction of justice to cover it up.
The approach taken by the contributors in this anthology, three of whom are attorneys complemented by two of the leading authorities in the field, focuses on sixty years of revelations that have been inescapably proven. There is no way around these matters, making them argumentative “chokeholds.”
The next time a historian, teacher, author or Warren Commission backer pushes the lone-nut assassin scenario, the reader will be able to counter with troubling questions, such as: Why was Oswald impersonated? Why did Ruby receive assistance in murdering Oswald? Why do an overwhelming number of investigation insiders not believe the Warren Commission conclusions? How can one explain the scandalous shenanigans around JFK’s brain and the chain of custody for CE 399? And many other inexplicable facts that are a matter of record.
On November 22, 1963, the world took a turn for the worse. JFK and everything he stood for was cruelly taken away from us. Hopefully the truth can help pave the way for a new direction." -
14 hours ago, David Von Pein said:
Vince,
Thanks for the link to your Landis book review.
But I have a big problem with the fact that you have (perhaps unintentionally?) taken a large chunk of my writing and then placed it in your book review as if you had written it yourself. And you've also placed no footnote of any kind after the words that I definitely wrote to indicate the true source of that paragraph.
The paragraph in question (which was originally written by me at this forum on September 12, 2023 -- HERE'S THE E.F. LINK) begins with the words "The reason for why his total silence is not believable". ---- [Click.] *
* Please note that Joe Bauer, in his reply above, obviously thinks that that particular paragraph (which Bauer himself quoted in his post) was, indeed, written by Vincent Palamara, with Mr. Bauer's reply to much of that paragraph being, "Right on Vince!"
I understand that mistakes and "source" oversights can happen. They happen to me in my writings too. And you, Vince, say in your book review (via a source note) that you had the help of K.K. Lane in putting together your list of questions for Paul Landis (with the part that I wrote appearing as your last "bullet point" item on that list in your review). So maybe K.K. Lane provided you with my quote for you to use in your review, and you (perhaps?) thought that the quote was something that Lane himself had written??
Could that be the explanation for why I'm finding a pretty good-sized amount of my written words within an article with only Vince Palamara's name on it??
Anyway, if you, Vince, would simply add a footnote to my quote that goes directly to this EF Forum post (or to this webpage from my blog, which contains the same quote plus lots of other informative stuff about the Landis topic), that would satisfy me. And, btw, I'm pleased and flattered that you would want to use some of my written words in your own review. I just don't think it's right to pass those words off as your own. (As I'm sure you'll agree.)
Thanks, Vince.
Regards,
DVP
Sorry about that, Dave. I didn't realize or I simply forgot that your comments/info were contained in K.K. Lane's inventory. A footnote should be added soon.
-
-
5 hours ago, S.T. Patrick said:
I'm not sure what I think of Landis' story. Ask me again in five years. However, I think what Taibbi wrote is valid and it's illuminating. What I think it shows is that the JFKA community hasn't always been great at the "elevator pitch." We expect people to read a stack documents, multiple websites, and six books if they just have a passing interest in the case. The problem is, I think a vast majority of people only have a passing interest in the case. We are the outliers, the extreme outliers. Mary Moorman and Jean Hill are basic names to everyone here. They are deep, DEEP facts to most Americans who will go to their graves having no idea who they are. We lose sight of this a lot as a community. We are so dismissive of those who don't "care enough." I've actually heard researchers in the self-appointed hierarchy say things like "I'm not going to educate people who know nothing with basic facts." Really? Why not? Were we all not "people who knew nothing" at one point early in our search? There is one researcher/author who gets pissy with people for asking her simple questions about one of these cases: "Read my book!," she demands. But at that point, and with that attitude, she's already lost them and they may even have a sour taste in their mouth about "these Kennedy people." Why couldn't she just answer a simple question for someone casually interested? It would have taken her the same amount of time it took her to write the "Read my book!" response. Ever met a researcher at a conference who looked past you, trying to find someone else more important to talk to? The reality: the hotel staff (average people) has no idea who ANY of them are. They're only stars in their own very small bubbles. Could you pick out Ridley Scott if he walked past you in a mall? Many couldn't. I couldn't. Most people couldn't pick out Oliver Stone, either. Obviously, that's not the case with Stone and this very specialized audience. And he's the most recognizable person in this field to the mainstream.
The point here is that Taibbi and others are almost forced to deal with their passive interest by reading small stories that break on an NBC News website, tweets, segments on 60 Minutes, and maybe a 45-minute History Channel doc, if they have the time. So when we exercise this bad habit of pointing them to books to make a point ("Really, Matt? You should read [this author] and [that author]..."), we're wasting time. It's a passing interest. But for most Americans, it's a passing interest. But passing interests are important. The majority forms lifelong opinions about things with passing interests. Whatever someone thinks about Rasputin or Anne Boleyn or William McKinley or John Wilkes Booth has been formed because they saw something short or heard something brief. It's the media's equivalent of an elevator pitch. We've always been bad at the elevator pitch, demanding people go deeper to be more serious about it - always a failure. There are important subjects in life that WE don't go deeper into because there is only a limited amount of time and resources that we all have. Does that make them unimportant?
So, if Taibbi's mind has been even slightly changed by a story I'm still unconvinced is 100% true, then GREAT! That's something. Landis' elevator pitch moment has been successful, despite those who always reflexively scream "limited hangout!" about every single thing. And, yes, while I realize that most people here would have rather had James Douglass's book turned into a film, the Levinson film may create new groups of those interested in the case - and that's not bad (I'm sure that's a minority opinion, and I'm fine with that). As a community, we've had decades to create content and pass this all down in simpler forms to high school and college students. Some have done this well. As a large group, we failed. Some of our best researchers failed because they continue to care more about impressing their perceived peers in the community than passing it all down to newbies. So, in 25 years when many have passed on, this community becomes the Pearl Harbor community: many are casually interested, some books are sold, but eh, it is what it is. Shrug.
It's good that Taibbi was slightly moved on the case by seeing some elevator pitch version of the Landis story. That's fantastic! Maybe we should all be better with people who are casually interested. Maybe?
This is an excellent comment. Very true, too. The average person "cares" but only so much and for so long- they have bills, families, jobs, kids, etc. to worry about. Facts.
That said, inroads can be made if we keep it (very) simple. In this soundbite age of Tik Toks [my channel does very well, indeed; shockingly so with zero promotion], short You Tube videos, etc., the average person doesn't have the time or doesn't (want to) MAKE the time, so short, sweet and simple works. I always say this is why the silly theory "the driver did it" is so 'sexy' and appealing to people: it "solves" it for them- the dude in the front seat in that there Zapruber [sic] film did it, so we have a name and a film to "prove" it. Going into long esoteric details about files and documents loses them big time.
-
Ok, so it came from The National Inquirer...
-
Johns was one of the good guys- he believed a shot came from the grassy knoll and was adamant that he was never by the knoll. He was on Elm Street very briefly until he hitched a ride in a press car.
I am always weary of photo interpretation(s). Woody Taylor could be wearing one of those keychain squiggly things one wears on their wrist.
-
Because it was a closed sedan and it was thought that it would be faster to get out of the vehicle in case of trouble with the car door already somewhat ajar. The closed sedan presidential follow-up car had agent Don Lawton in a similar situation in Fort Worth that same morning:
VP Secret Service follow-up car earlier in the motorcade:
-
2 hours ago, Vince Palamara said:
That "Vinny" is not me, but I DID just submit a detailed review of Landis book for Kennedys and King/ Jim DiEugenio
@James DiEugenio I sent you my detailed review for Kennedys and King
-
20 hours ago, Tom Gram said:
If anyone’s interested, Vinny from ROKC posted the relevant excerpts from Landis’ book yesterday:
https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t2787-the-landis-bullet
That "Vinny" is not me, but I DID just submit a detailed review of Landis book for Kennedys and King/ Jim DiEugenio
-
2 hours ago, David Von Pein said:
Mr. Landis is now, in 2023, clearly not a person who believes in the Single-Bullet Theory. And as such, I can't help but wonder why the blurb pictured below still occupies space on Landis' book page at Amazon.com?
Landis has stated in some of his interviews this month that he thinks Lee Oswald WAS, indeed, the sole assassin in Dallas. But, as all of us here at The Education Forum know, if the SBT goes down the tubes, then it's almost impossible (barring some kind of miracle) for there to have been only one shooter in Dealey Plaza.
Which means that Mr. Landis is simply not very well-informed when it comes to certain things relating to the assassination (e.g., the timing of the gunshots and analysis of the Zapruder Film).
Or....
Perhaps Mr. Landis has another "bombshell" waiting for us when his book is released on October 10th, 2023, and perhaps he's going to tell us how (in his opinion) Lee Harvey Oswald was able to assassinate JFK all by himself but WITHOUT the Single-Bullet Theory being a part of the equation.
Because without some sort of explanation to logically and reasonably explain to his readers how the Lone Assassin scenario is still valid (even without the SBT), then this blurb below doesn't make much sense at all....
David- I am starting to wonder if the whole bullet business was a late edition to the manuscript and the book WAS going to be an Oswald-did-it book...then Landis realized he needed something "sexy" (for lack of a better word) to help sell the book, as it languished in the 500K range in pre-order will zero buzz. When I posted about his upcoming book months ago, there were "crickets" LOL- no one seemed to care.
This reminds me of the dubious "I-almost-shot-LBJ" pre-order hype for Blaine's book that was EVERYWHERE and definitely helped that book in pre-order: a "sexy" story that cannot be proven or disproven (it would seem). Otherwise, without it, Blaine was an unknown agent and a first time author. At least Landis is known to a certain extent, although his book was pretty much "dead" for months until the bullet story became all the rage.
-
12 hours ago, David Josephs said:
@Vince Palamara @James DiEugenio
At 1:10 of this video we are treated to crystal clear tv coverage of the ER entrance at Parkland...
Vince, if we can find the rest of that coverage it should help with the windshield bullet strike since it seems to me the most clear image at Parkland I've seen.
Can't seem to find the whole clip though... is this old news?
Hi! Old news (this is the Thomas Atkins film; pretty commonly used in documentaries). This is all there is.
-
Just now, Cliff Varnell said:
And that’s exactly what Gaeton Fonzi and Vincent Salandria gave us — The Bullet Holes in the Clothes are Too Low.
It’s a collective failure.
I most definitely see where you are coming from and I agree, but the non-researcher, John Q. Citizen out there just want to know "who killed Kennedy?" If you can't specify it with some very-easy-to-understand proof, they lose interest like ice on a hot stove.
-
1 hour ago, Cliff Varnell said:
Belief in JFKA conspiracy peaked circa 2000 at 80%. After 17 years it dropped to 61%. I attribute the drop to Internet Parlor Game Players who’ve spent the last couple decades disputing the T3 back wound — the best evidence of conspiracy— in order to inflate the significance of their own research.
I think there are two things at play here for the NON-RESEARCHER regular folk out there:
a) time has NOT been a friend (all the principal people who have passed on, going on 60 years later: fatigue has set in).
b) We are unable to answer or prove who did it, while the other side can merely say "Oswald did it." THIS is why the inane/insane Greer-shot-Kennedy theory is so attractive to the uninformed public- it "answers" who did it for them.
We live in a sound bite world, now even more so thanks to social media and smart phones. People want succinct and quick answers. And again, fatigue and time are factors.
One more thing: during the height of Trump mania (2015-2019 or so), I saw during this time people actually attacking JFK's memory and saying things like "who cares? He was a scum Demorat [Democrat]." Luckily, the nutty QANON and the years since has stemmed the tide there and the vast majority of comments I see hold Kennedy in high esteem again as the public did in the pre-2015 era.
Lastly, people are more concerned about their finances and jobs than JFK; sad but true. Gone forever are the heady days of 1988-1998 when there were television programs galore (including Geraldo, A Current Affair, Maury Povich and even Jenny Jones with Mark Lane!) and the "JFK" movie delighted the regular folks out there. Also, Jackie, Teddy, JFK Jr. and a score of other principals were still with us and it was "only" 25-35 years later, the equivalent of what 1998 and 1988 are to us now.
That said, Dave Perry said it best: audiences were amazed at the "JFK" movie, but, as they marched out of the theater, they were saying "so who plays tomorrow in the NFL and what time does the game start?" Never underestimate the fickle interest of John Q. Citizen.
-
-
8 hours ago, Paul Jolliffe said:
Vince,
When did you first post this interview? Was it right around 11/22/2013?
If so, your reputation as an expert on the Secret Service may well have been known to Paul Landis at that time, and he may have watched your interview with Sam Kinney's friend.
So yes, I agree that your (tacit) thesis is certainly worth consideration - Landis' story today is based on this interview from ten years ago.
Hi! The original version of this video was posted in 2013 and there were several national articles about Sam Kinney and this specific Gary Loucks story during the 50th anniversary that briefly created quite a splash. Loucks and Phyllis Hall (the Parkland Nurse who also came forward in 2013 and created a brief splash about a bullet she saw) both died earlier this year.
What I find mighty strange is the fact that the AMAZON book hype makes one consider Landis book to be a LONE NUT book, yet the MEDIA book hype gives the polar opposite conclusion. One wonders if Landis saw either the Loucks story and/or the Hall story (he is very much familiar with me) and (perhaps as an extra- knowing they were now deceased) added the bullet detail at the eleventh hour to his book to sell massive quantities of his book in pre-order which is what the bullet story achieved. Before the media hype, the pre-sales were very modest. In fact, for a while I felt like I was the only person who knew about his upcoming book! I posted about it here months ago to very little fanfare, comments, or interest...now look!
-
2 hours ago, Joe Bauer said:
I would more trust Landis's earliest recollection account of finding a "fragment" versus his decades later recounting that is was a "bullet."
Same here!
-
On 9/15/2023 at 9:05 AM, Michael Griffith said:
As chance would have it, while I was re-reading your book Survivor's Guilt yesterday, I came across the section on Pool and saw that I had highlighted large parts of it the first time I read it. Great stuff.
Pool's description of the stretcher bullet as pointed matches O. P. Wright's description. Ah, I can hear WC apologists now: They were both "mistaken."
Thanks!
-
13 hours ago, Joe Bauer said:
Vince P.
Did Kinney ever talk about any of his Secret Service agents feeling any animosity toward JFK because of his perceived more sympathetic stance on the issue of segregation and black citizen equal rights?
The September 30th/October 1st 1962 Oxford Mississippi University integration incident ( The Battle Of Oxford ) received massive news coverage and millions of Americans reviled JFK and RFK for taking the response path they did.
They even had extreme right wing JBS retired Army General Edwin Walker arrested and placed in a mental ward for weeks due to his instigation of the violence there.
Abe Bolden told us that we were never informed of the deep animosity toward JFK by many of the SS agents who were segregationist sympathetic on a personal level.
No, although JFK agents Tim McIntire (rode on the follow-up car), Tony Sherman, Larry Newman and Joe Paolella told ABC News on camera in December 1997 of their anger over Kennedy's private life.
-
16 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:
I really haven't the slightest idea, Vince.
Mr. Landis certainly gives the appearance of being a very forthright and truthful person. And I certainly don't relish the notion of calling him an outright teller of deliberate falsehoods. But the fact remains: He changed his story significantly over these last 40 years. I don't think there can be any question about that fact after you take a look at the two newspaper clippings I again provided above in my last post.
Perhaps his advanced age has taken its toll on his memory and his ability to be able to recall things clearly and correctly. But when we've got TWO different interviews from the 1980s (when Mr. Landis was a much younger man) which are verifying BOTH of the key elements of his "bullet" story --- i.e., it was a bullet "fragment" he saw/handled and "gave to somebody" --- then it seems pretty clear what the truth really is when it comes to Mr. Landis' 11/22/63 involvement with any type of "bullets" or "fragments" in the limo.
Mr. Landis, IMO, needs to be confronted with BOTH of the above newspaper articles at the same time, which each say the very same thing concerning the matter of the "bullet fragment".
I'd be interested to know if Landis thinks he was misquoted in both of those articles, five years apart.
1983, 1988 and 2010 (Blaine's book- Landis was interviewed and took part in the television documentary):
-
2 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:
Nope. That's not possible (unless you want to believe the very same TWO mistakes/assumptions about the "bullet fragment" and "gave to somebody" occurred in both 1983 and again in 1988), because five years, in November 1988 later a different reporter quoted Landis saying this:
"I distinctly remember there was a bullet fragment on the seat which I picked up and handed to somebody."
1983:
-Tribune-Nov-20-1983%20(Ex-Secret%20Service%20Agent%20Witnessed%20Assassination).jpg)
1988:
David, what do you think Landis' motive is? To sell books? My enthusiasm over his book is in the toilet and it isn't even released yet! What a difference a few days makes.
-
Dale Myers Article on Mark Lane
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted
Wow- that was a real piece of garbage. Then again, I would expect nothing else from Dale Myers.