Vince Palamara

Almost every message I received was something to the effect of "That Hickey should be indicted" or some such nonsense; sad

My book "Survivor's Guilt" NOW IN KINDLE: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00GF2MVMW/ref=docs-os-doi_0 ALSO- I received 82 messages from "regular folk" about Hickey and my blogs all went up massively in views last night. I take it the ratings on that "JFK: The Smoking Gun" were huge??? Geez

I saw another poll a few weeks back that claimed only 59 percent believed in a conspiracy. The 59 percent poll must have been a Fox News or Rasmussen poll ) THIS poll is more like what I would have expected: 70-80 percent

That is surprising! He seems to be a big fan of Hugh Aynesworth

THANKS ALOT- much appreciated!

Yes- my publisher said THIS COMING WEEK ) And a Nook version

http://www.amazon.com/Survivors-Guilt-Service-Failure-President/dp/1937584607/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1373914997&sr=8-1&keywords=vince+Palamara Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #1,880 in Books (See Top 100 in Books) #9 in Books > Politics & Social Sciences > Social Sciences > Communication & Media Studies #53 in Books > History > Americas > United States > 20th Century 19 5-STAR REVIEWS (including ones by former Secret Service agents Abe Bolden and John Carman+ co-authors Mike Colapietro [Roger Stone] and David Wayne ["Hit List", Dead Wrong", and Jesse Ventura's new book] 3 of 3 people found the following review helpful 5.0 out of 5 stars Incredibly Sourced Myth-Balistics: We See the Gestation of the Big Lie, October 25, 2013 By Boyce Hart "bubblegum" (nyc) - See all my reviews (VINE VOICE) Amazon Verified Purchase(What's this?) This review is from: Survivor's Guilt: The Secret Service and the Failure to Protect President Kennedy (Paperback) This is a preliminary review. Time is of the essence because of all the BS books that are given access to the Corporate ,... I mean public airwaves. More later. I have finished the first chapter and the sourcing is incredible. The author addresses the allegation that JFK ordered agents off the back of the limo. The number of sources is as incredible as the analysis of their caveats. The sourcing is so thorough and the chronology so precise that we can actually see the gestation of the Big Lie-- that JFK "ordered" the agents off the limo-- as a necessity in the evolving cover story. The sourcing in the main text is dense. That's a good thing when you get to material as contentious as this. Then there are the footnotes. Even more sources, each one analyzed in terms of the what other agents said. This book will never be reviewed in the corporate press. It has too many footnotes. It is published at an exceptionally important time. The widely reviewed book JFK's Last Hundred Days, for example, acknowledges JFK's true Vietnam policies which is a real shift for MSM books. On the other hand, this admission is counterbalanced by the book's wholesale adaption of the JFK Deathwish mantra that Survivor's Guilt so thoroughly rebukes. Compare the sourcing of these two books. The New York Times, we can bet farms, certainly will not. For some topics, empiricism is just too vulgar, There is simply too much at stake, including the credibility of grey ladies and Tina Brown tea parties in the tooth-free suits of The New Yorker.

Judging by BOOK sales*, the case will never die:O) Judging by "Parkland", it already has ( -------------- *books on JFK's life (as with Lincoln, etc) will always do well....books on his death should do ok but nowhere near as good as between 1988-2013. If you didn't get your book out by now you missed the boat Then again, I think WE have ALWAYS cared more than the average movie goer who saw "JFK" (then saw "Basic Instinct" a few months later, then "Forrest Gump","Titanic", etc). I think the mistake is in EVER thinking the average Joe really cares about this case more than just as dramatic entertainment. Vince

Good comments, everyone. I think I know what the REAL story is: most people view this as dramatic entertainment; nothing more, nothing less (think of the millions who saw "Titanic" and "Lincoln"). Another personal story: a non-researcher from my area, barely an acquaintance, purchased an early edition (1994) of my book straight from me at my old apartment door. He showed up and paid me cash- during the transaction, I asked him what his take on the case was. His answer: "I don't really care, I just love to read about it." Sad but true. I think the moral to the story is this: what WE get up in arms about in this case concerns US but the average Joe doesn't give a rat's behind. Perhaps THAT is why stupid theories like Greer shooting JFK appeal so strongly to novices (non-researchers): it "solves" the case in a non-Oswald fashion. In the past twenty+ years, THE two inquiries I field the most from the "average Joes" out there: "do you think Marilyn Monroe got it on with JFK?" and "do you think the driver shot Kennedy?" Again, sad but true. I remember thinking, after all the mass hoopla of the "JFK" movie, with the pinch-me-I'm-dreaming television coverage, programs, and whole bookshelves of new books on the case (many of dubious quality), we were due for a letdown or even a backlash...then came JAMA (1992) Posner (1993) and Mailer (1994) [bugliosi and Blaine messed up- they appeared on "off" years when the case wasn't red hot (2007 and 2010). Blaine's mistake is to my supreme benefit- I get to answer his propaganda in a huge anniversary year] We need to remember: there are experienced authors and researchers (us), the novices (well-meaning readers of books only), then the "average Joes": the well-meaning couch potatoes who "believe" there was a conspiracy, then burp and ask "Are the Cowboys playin' tonight?" Reality at its finest (or worst). Vince

Addendum/ postscript: I always knew you can take a large segment of the population with a grain of salt (as to their real interest in anything beyond the borders of their front and back yards)- two examples come to mind: Mark Lane gave an impassioned and moving speech about the case in February 1992 at the local Borders in Pittsburgh, PA. When he was done, some 20-something stood up and said "I think Bullwinkle killed Kennedy" to gales of laughter...yet those SAME people had his book in their hands for purchase and autographs! A bearded researcher (who shall remain anonymous) appeared on a cable access program and, likewise, gave a stirring presentation on the case for conspiracy. The host took the first caller on the phone lines. The caller giggled and said "are you still a virgin?" and hung up. People may buy a product, but do they truly BUY it?

I do think we have always lived in parallel universes and have never fully appreciated the paradox. On the one hand, the "JFK" movie was a huge box office hit and created the JFK Records Act and the ARRB...yet, on the other hand, I remember seeing articles chastising those with an interest in the case ("few on the outside world care"- the reaction from the press to the June 1991 Fredonia Third Decade conference that had about 60 participants tops). On the one hand, JFK is frequently at or near the top of public opinion polls...yet historians frequently place him in the "average" to "slightly above average" category. On the one hand, books on JFK's life are huge best-sellers (Dallek, Matthews, Alford, Hill, etc)...yet, on the other hand, JFK is marginalized in a lot of circles for his womanizing and the alleged connection to Marilyn Monroe. Continuing on this trend: on the one hand, JFK assassination books (this 50th anniversary) are selling like crazy- huge pre-order sales for multiple titles and several are already best-sellers ("Hit List", Ventura's new book, Corsi's new book)...yet, on the other hand (and this can be attached to all the prior points), the average person is lost in their own world in the 21rst century in the year 2013, worried about the economy, their own personal life, etc., "tuned-in-turned-on-dropped-out" with their iPhones and their ear buds, and doesn't really care...at least, no where near as much as we do (or wish they did). The fact that the latest opinion poll "only" shows a 57-59 percent PRO conspiracy belief is alarming- it used to be 75-90 percent. The advent of time has a lot to do with this. If we can acknowledge that this is an HISTORICAL topic and that the average Joe only has so much interest in the case, we will have our heads on straight and not lose perspective. To answer the question directly (finally!): they will never do so because to make that leap is to acknowledge that this is NOT the country we were promised...people may BELIEVE there was a conspiracy but they do not (want to) KNOW it; big difference. Groden is fond of the saying "It may be too late for justice in this case [it is], but it is never too late for the truth"... Now, maybe it is. I wrote my book (coming out 10/22/13) for the historical record and the truth, sure...but I KNOW there is a powerful mental block from the media and the public (let alone the government) to acknowledge that "the good guys" (the Secret Service) could have been responsible, either thru "just" negligence or worse. Look how Clint Hill is deified by many- 'nuff said. Vince

Re: conferences... The moral of the story is: what works in a paper or BOOK does NOT necessarily work in a SPEAKING situation. People can read an academic paper on their OWN time! EXCITE them, fascinate them...move them. Too much esoteric, junky stuff at these conferences and not enough "meat and potatoes" issues (i.e. the straightforward medical evidence aspects- back of head, entry wound [tally of witnesses]; Secret Service aspects; Oswald's actions before, during and after the shooting) SBT---overdone; Z-film-is-altered---makes us look like loony tunes; arcane and esoteric issues---ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ I really think the age of the internet has done away with the need FOR conferences anyway. Do what I do: stay at home and sell tons of books, film television documentaries (yep- two in the works), and do numerous radio shows... Conferences are so word processor/ CompuServe/ print journal/ 1992 era LOL Vince

Not a problem re: Secret Service aspect of case: I have that covered I'm not going to the conference: pretty insulting that an author of a major book coming out who is an alumni of the college and from the same city wasn't asked to speak. I really don't care (honest LOL), but it's the principal of the thing. I MAY---MAY---go the area to meet old friends outside of the conference....I'll be damned if I am going to pay 40 bucks when I should have been a part of the panel. The conference from 2003 was a snooze fest- COPA 1995, 1996 and Lancer 1997 were much better. Too much esoteric stuff and not enough "meat and potatoes", exciting material. It's the old boys network: same ole same ole talking heads...we need new blood. When I presented at conferences I was a(THE) big hit. Why? Exciting, between the eyes, direct, audio/ visual...not some boring guy standing there at the lectern analyzing Oswald's bowel movements in Russia LOL. Not to be critical... Vince P.S. Yeah, yeah, yeah, there were 1200+ people at the 2003 conference in Pittsburgh. Fine print: the vast majority were students shipped in from local schools LOL...the rest were the choir (the usual suspects) preaching to each other. Pennsylvania Cable News (PCN) broadcast large segments of the conference: embarrassingly, many audience shots depicted sleeping and yawning people. My friends and family were all saying "How come YOU didn't get an invite? You were just on the History Channel?" The song remains the same...

The lack of their presence near the rear of the limo, the recall at Love Field, and the lack of motorcycle coverage, among others items- have to watch it back

Vince's research mentioned by JESSE VENTURA ON CNN'S PIERS MORGAN 10/1/13 fantastic!! Jesse brought up some of my Secret Service talking points (without naming me) on Piers Morgan!! rebroadcast at midnight. I am on several pages of what is already a best-seller: http://www.amazon.com/They-Killed-Our-President-Assassinate/dp/1626361398/ref=pd_sim_b_10 Judging by MY pre-order sales and ranking and the rankings of other books, this is going to be a monster anniversary for books/ sales. The kindle age has really helped, as well- in days of old (pre-net/ Amazon and especially pre-kindle), if you were on a small publisher, you didn't exist...no longer!!!

Sorrels was involved in the initial possession of the Zapruder film for the Secret Service. I neve heard of that person Ewald Peters

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMdELC_UnpQ JFK Secret Service Agent Sam Kinney, driver of follow-up car in Tampa, Dallas, etc Authorized interview with former Secret Service agent Sam Kinney conducted on 3/5/94 (I interviewed Sam three different times: 10/19/92; 3/5/94; 4/15/94. I also corresponded with his wife Hazel) [sam passed away 7/21/97] ~an excerpt from this interview appears elsewhere (as with Gerald Behn, Floyd Boring, Don Lawton, John Norris, and several others, Sam agreed to have the conversation recorded)~ A note on methodology: sometimes I had to play the naïve and agreeable "student", so to speak, in order to keep the conversation going and not offend Sam. It is what it is. That said, I think this is a very good interview. Sam also agreed to be recorded on 4/15/94 and both of these interviews are in the National Archives. These are cassette-to-cd-to-dvdr transfers and I was shuttling back and forth between Ohio and PA a lot of the time AND the cheap recorder I used would sometimes malfunction, but this is 95-99 percent of the actual interview (the transfer runs out at the end). OTHER topics were covered on the other two interview dates- see my book "Survivor's Guilt: The Secret Service and the Failure to Protect President Kennedy" for the details. Sam adamantly denounces the notion that JFK ordered the agents off the limo OR ordered them to do anything (thus debunking colleague Gerald Blaine's future book "The Kennedy Detail"); Sam debunks William Manchester and, in one instance, Jim Bishop, as well as the book "Mortal Error"; Sam was adamant, as he was in all my interviews with him, that he was solely responsible for the removal of the bubbletop on 11/22/63, thus debunking Jim Lehrer's book on the subject; Sam's windshield hit with blood and brain matter during assassination (after head shot); Sam had the piece of the rear of JFK's skull and said it WAS indeed from the back of President Kennedy's head; Sam saw all three shots hit without acknowledging a missed shot; Sam believes there was a conspiracy (although Oswald was the lone shooter, he felt); etc Note: Sam was not interviewed by the Warren Commission. Sam was interviewed by William Manchester but his transcript will not be released until 2067. Sam was also interviewed by the HSCA- the staff interview report was only released in the late 1990's, right around the time Sam passed away. Sam's only tv interview was a short human interest segment on the "Today" show in 1993 (see another video on my channel for that clip) http://www.amazon.com/Survivors-Guilt-Service-Failure-President/dp/1937584607/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1373914997&sr=8-1&keywords=vince+palamara

I just saw the older thread about this (and all the many comparison photos). Seems you are right. In any event, the video is compelling

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTFXIudM2ek see also http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M92-bI4SaX8 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O6dA6xBHRtA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQ8NJwq58Fg EXTENDED; BETTER QUALITY http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-a2iLZLjhCM Dr. Robert R. Shaw, Connally's attending physician, said the Governor ''seems to have been struck by just one bullet, which entered the back of his chest and moved outward, taking out and fragmenting a portion of a rib. The bullet is still in the leg. It hasn't been removed. see also: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-a2iLZLjhCM [i originally thought that was Dr Shires next to Dr Shaw---DVP corrected me (I just perused the pertinent thread)]

Robert Prudhomme graciously shared this with me (thanks, Robert!) ====================================================================== Robert, The man isn't Bush or Rose. Bush was in Tyler according to witnesses and he could not have traveled to Dallas in time to be photographed at the TSBD. Gus Rose was off duty at home and went to DPD HQ as soon as he heard what had happened, probably arriving between 1:30 and two The picture was taken before the tramps' arrest, which was about 2:15. Gary Mack

I agree, Robert.

Mark Pommier: "It makes perfect sense that it's Rose. He uncuffed Oswald and found the Hidell id. Detective status would have him in a suit, and on location."

So much for that theory. The Poppy information is STILL tantalizing...but the photo is not.

Yep- credit goes to researcher Mark Pommier for this one. He posted a photo of Detective Gus Rose (as he appeared on the 1988 episode of "The Men Who Killed Kennedy") and he has convinced me that Rose is the "George H.W. Bush" in the photo right outside the TSBD