Vince Bugliosi's book

[Vince Palamara]

"Reclaiming History: The Assassination of President John F.

Kennedy" (2007) by Vincent Bugliosi:

Six pages (inc. the Bibliography) in Talbot's fine book and (book #42-- in) in Bugliosi's new massive tome (at 14 pages, inc. the Bibliography). Vince was suprisingly pretty nice to me---oh, don't get me wrong: he DOES criticize me, but he was far kinder than I could have ever imagined (esp. compared to Groden et al); only Aguilar and Tink seem to have fared better in the

"conspiracy crowd," so to speak. I guess because the bottom line is this: OSWALD OR NO OSWALD, CONSPIRACY OR NO

CONSPIRACY, THE SECRET SERVICE FAILED AND JFK WAS KILLED...which is why ***my*** work holds up, either way. But, like I said, despite my troubled feelings, I am still on your side and I haven't converted!!!

pages XV [page 3, endnotes disc] "One should not confuse the literally thousands of conspiracy buffs---who, it must be said, here and there have come up with worthwhile information overlooked by the authorities, but who desperately want there to be a conspiracy and are allergic to anthing that points away from one---with the much smaller number of assassination researchers, serious students of the assassination whose primary agenda (though many are fervently hoping to find a conspiracy) is to ferret out the truth." Among names such as Paul Hoch, Josiah Thompson, Drs. Aguilar & Mantik, and Walt Brown: Vince Palamara.

page146 [source notes disc]: 3 references, including my work in "Murder In Dealey Plaza", my book, and my Sept 1997 "Fourth Decade" article

page 403 footnote: credits my letter to Dr. Donald Seldin (see also the index, page 1599)

page 404: nicely credits my original research on Dr. William Zedelitz (see also the final page in his book, page 1612 index)

page 408: credits my letter to Dr. Ronald Coy Jones

page 711 [endnotes disc] "no index or even page numbers: In 2005, Vincent Palamara put out a revised edition of his book with page numbers and changed the title to Survivor's Guilt: The Secret Service and the Failure to Protect the President."

page 998 footnote: I am one of the select few noted as one of the "new wave" of researchers and, when speaking of Fetzer, Bugliosi states that he "wisely gathered the best technical minds of the conspiracy community to write scholarly essays in the books that he edits"...and, as we know, I have TWO chapters in MIDP [plus favorable mentions in several of the other essays](and several sentences, here and there, in his other two books).

pages 1242-1243: mentions my work--- "Only one book I am aware of, Vince Palamara's "Third Alternative- Survivor's Guilt: The Secret Service & The JFK Murder", is devoted solely to the Secret Service's role in the case. From his EXHAUSTIVE

INVESTIGATION [my emphasis], Palamara ENDS UP FINDING THE SECRET SERVICE GUILTY OF INCOMPETENCE [my emphasis], not complicity in the murder. Although Palamara SEEMS HONEST AND INTELLIGENT [my emphasis--- thanks, Vince also-of-Italian-heritage-who-has-8-letters- in-his-last name lol], and his 1993 book IS REASONABLY WELL RESEACHED [my

emphasis---thanks, again; high praise, indeed]..."Vince B. goes on to say that my book was difficult to read and had no page

numbers [again, he recieved a 'special' 1998 'deluxe' edition, largely a compilation of articles (shoe-string budget and sacrificed

form for content)...still better than the even-slimmer 1993 version: yuk! (see page 711, above) ]. He lists some of my areas of contention and ends with "and so on"...all his criticisms are addressed and refuted, in detail, in my ***2005*** book. Also, among several former Secret Service agents who AGREE with my take on the bubbletop, another can now be added to the list:

William Carter ["I assume your theory on the bubbletop was that had it been on the car it was not bullet proof. True, however, I contend at the angle of the shot it would have altered the course of the bullet... I did the advance with Win Lawson in Little Rock 6 weeks prior to Dallas and I had complete confidence in him and considered him one of our best agents."---4/6/07 e-mail from Carter to Palamara]

Vince B. then writes: "Palamara, moving almost exclusively in the world of conspiracy theorists...PROCEEDED REASONALY WELL IN HIS ASSASSINATION RESEARCH [my emphasis; again, thanks, Vince; I am a saint compared to what he thinks of Groden, Horne, Lifton et al LOL]..." then mentions SAIC of the Miami office John Marshall [former WHD agent, friend of Floyd Boring since PA State Trooper days!] STATEMENT TO THE HSCA THAT, FOR ALL HE KNEW, SOMEONE IN THE SECRET SERVICE COULD HAVE BEEN INVOLVED [AS I DULY NOTE IN MY WORK]!!!! Vince B.'s conclusion????---

"Could have, schmood have."---?!?!?!

So, needless to say, I am delighted with my treatment.

page 1276: (rightly) criticizes my lack of specific source for walkie- talkie statement, a hazard of the original, inferior 1993

Kinko's self- published Cliff Notes version (although Bugliosi had a SLIGHTLY better "deluxe"--for the time [1998]---version to work with, which he called Andy and purchased by request, much to my bemused delight back then lol)...THE SOURCE IS "CROSSFIRE", PAGE 250, since noted from 2000 onward [bugliosi DOES note, on page 711 of his source note disc, that I came out with a page-numbered [!!!], updated version of my book-- with different title---in 2005];

page 1529 (Bibliography): lists my book

page1592 (index)-me

page 1603 (index)---one title of my book

page 1604 (index)---other title of my book

Also:

page 59 note: while buying the 'official' notion that JFK ordered the agents off the car [!], Bugliosi notes "the agent standing on the

RIGHT REAR [his emphasis] step would have blocked Oswald's sight on Kennedy's head," once again proving my point

His small Secret Service chapter (pages 1239-1247)--- page 1241:

offers the caveat "even if it could be shown that the Secret Service WAS [my emphasis] responsible for selection of

luncheon site and motorcade route," what would be their motive?---see my work

vince palamara

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vince_Palamara

[Michael Hogan]

Bugliosi will appear on C-Span2 on Sunday, November 4. Viewers are encouraged to email questions. The program is scheduled to last three hours.

http://www.booktv.org/program.aspx?Program...mp;PlayMedia=No

[Christopher Hall]

Bugliosi will appear on C-Span2 on Sunday, November 4. Viewers are encouraged to email questions. The program is scheduled to last three hours.

http://www.booktv.org/program.aspx?Program...mp;PlayMedia=No

Thanks a lot for the tip.

I will try to see when it airs locally.

I watched a couple of these 3 hour sessions a few weeks ago, and it is a good way to give a book and author adequate scholarly treatment.

I didn't plan on buying and reading this long-winded 1,600 page book anyway.

Watching VB for 3 hours should be one of the challenges in Survivor.

[Michael Hogan]

Each year an organization called the Mystery Writers of America holds their annual Edgar Awards (in honor of Edgar Allan Poe).

One of this year's (2007) nominees in the category of Fact Crime is Reclaiming History by Vince Bugliosi.

The 62nd Annual Edgar® Awards banquet will be held on Thursday May 1, 2008 at the Grand Hyatt Hotel in New York City.

http://www.theedgars.com/nominees2.html#fact

[David G. Healy]

Bugliosi will appear on C-Span2 on Sunday, November 4. Viewers are encouraged to email questions. The program is scheduled to last three hours.

http://www.booktv.org/program.aspx?Program...mp;PlayMedia=No

he needs ALL the help he can get..... a huge literary failure...

[David G. Healy]

Each year an organization called the Mystery Writers of America holds their annual Edgar Awards (in honor of Edgar Allan Poe).

One of this year's (2007) nominees in the category of Fact Crime is Reclaiming History by Vince Bugliosi.

The 62nd Annual Edgar® Awards banquet will be held on Thursday May 1, 2008 at the Grand Hyatt Hotel in New York City.

http://www.theedgars.com/nominees2.html#fact

anything to bolster the Lone Nut image... such a waste!

I'm reminded of #18 in the disinfo list of tricks:

18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents. If you can't do

anything else, chide and taunt your opponents and draw them into

emotional responses which will tend to make them look foolish and

overly motivated, and generally render their material somewhat less

coherent. Not only will you avoid discussing the issues in the first

instance, but even if their emotional response addresses the issue,

you can further avoid the issues by then focusing on how "sensitive

they are to criticism".

to the best of my knowledge Bugliosi has not confronted one of Reclaiming History's critics, yet.....