Vince Palamara Posted June 25, 2007 Share Posted June 25, 2007 --- Abraham W Bolden wrote: > Vince: > > I am sure that you are familiar with Bugliosi's > book that was published in May. Although I have not > read the book, I have heard and watched a video > advertising the book at > http://www.reclaiminghistory.com/. > > He is 100% behind the findings of the Warren > Commission. What do you think of his findings. He > claims to have proven everything that he contends in > the book (Also, does he mention your work at all?). > > If you get a chance, let me know what you think > about it. My publisher asked me the same question. > > Thanks > > > Abraham W. Bolden, Sr. Dear Abraham: Yes, very familiar with Bugliosi's book; in fact, I amreading it now up to page 1112 out of 1612, not including the additional disc clocking in at 954 pages!). I will say this: 1) It is THE best Oswald-did-it book EVER, replacing the Warren report, Posner, etc. Very well written, witty, sometimes funny (in a good way), and very thorough (for the most part); 2) It is the best prosecutor's brief ever (on the case); 3) It has the best bio of Oswald ever (approx.300 pages, a book in itself); 4) It has the best summary (extremely detailed, though) of the four dark days in November ever (approx. 300 pages); 5) The intro. is outstanding; 6) He successfully debunks all the stupid theories and several prominent authors/ researchers like Mark Lane, Robert Groden, etc.; 7) At first glance, it is extremely compelling (especially to the LAYMAN, I am sure), that Oswald acted alone, as did Ruby; 8) HBO is going to do a 10-part mini-series on the book; 9) Time magazine just came out with a piece on the book; 10) It is THE longest and most incredibly researched book ever on the case (Bugliosi states thta, at a normal font and including the massive sourcenotes and endnotes disc), the book would be 13 volumes!!!!; 11) Bugliosi (along with Dale Myers) does prove that Oswald killed Tippit, that Oswald was a chronic xxxx and wife beater, and that he couldnt hold a job to save his life (a loser of sorts), hardly the heroic, innocent patsy many view him as (i.e. Garrison). It seems hard to dispute that Oswald was indeed INVOLVED... Now, for the "bad" news (for Bugliosi): a) Bugliosi calmly states (and lists) many of the Parkland and Bethesda witnesses who stated that JFK was shot from the front and/ or that the right rear of the head was missing and/ or the throat wound was an exit wound, yet doesn't supply a decisive reason to debunk the majority; Bugliosi states that the majority of the Dealey Plaza witnesses did indeed believe the shots came from the grassy knoll, yet dismisses them all by stating that the evidence from the 6th floor negates them (as no gun/ bullets were found at the knoll) and that the witnesses were caught in an echo chamber and, thus, could not truly state with conviction where the shots really came from---hmmm...; c) Bugliosi deals, but not in exhaustive detail (ALL the witnesses), with the notion of a puff of smoke by the knoll by dismissing it as exhaust from an overturned motorcycle...yet doesn't deal with those who SMELLED GUNPOWDER ON/ NEAR THE KNOLL and, again, the totality of the witnesses and the specific area(s) on the knoll they saw the puff of smoke; d) in a related matter, Bugliosi dismisses the "hyperbole" of those who said hundreds of footprints were behind the picket fence, yet Holland, Dodd, and others ALSO said there was mud on bumper(s) of the car (s)...and what about the TRUNKS OF THE CARS as a hiding place???? e) Bugliosi doesn not satisfactorily dismiss the notion that Ruby was mob connected--a good job, but not a through,covering-all-the-bases job; f) NO ONE in the research community is even as impressed as I am with his book (!), already writing rebuttals (more to follow, I am sure): SEE VERY BOTTOM OF E-MAIL FOR REVIEWS SO FAR Here are the instances he talks about me: "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.(IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Howard Posted June 25, 2007 Share Posted June 25, 2007 --- Abraham W Bolden wrote:> Vince: > > I am sure that you are familiar with Bugliosi's > book that was published in May. Although I have not > read the book, I have heard and watched a video > advertising the book at > http://www.reclaiminghistory.com/. > > He is 100% behind the findings of the Warren > Commission. What do you think of his findings. He > claims to have proven everything that he contends in > the book (Also, does he mention your work at all?). > > If you get a chance, let me know what you think > about it. My publisher asked me the same question. > > Thanks > > > Abraham W. Bolden, Sr. Dear Abraham: Yes, very familiar with Bugliosi's book; in fact, I amreading it now up to page 1112 out of 1612, not including the additional disc clocking in at 954 pages!). I will say this: 1) It is THE best Oswald-did-it book EVER, replacing the Warren report, Posner, etc. Very well written, witty, sometimes funny (in a good way), and very thorough (for the most part); 2) It is the best prosecutor's brief ever (on the case); 3) It has the best bio of Oswald ever (approx.300 pages, a book in itself); 4) It has the best summary (extremely detailed, though) of the four dark days in November ever (approx. 300 pages); 5) The intro. is outstanding; 6) He successfully debunks all the stupid theories and several prominent authors/ researchers like Mark Lane, Robert Groden, etc.; 7) At first glance, it is extremely compelling (especially to the LAYMAN, I am sure), that Oswald acted alone, as did Ruby; 8) HBO is going to do a 10-part mini-series on the book; 9) Time magazine just came out with a piece on the book; 10) It is THE longest and most incredibly researched book ever on the case (Bugliosi states thta, at a normal font and including the massive sourcenotes and endnotes disc), the book would be 13 volumes!!!!; 11) Bugliosi (along with Dale Myers) does prove that Oswald killed Tippit, that Oswald was a chronic xxxx and wife beater, and that he couldnt hold a job to save his life (a loser of sorts), hardly the heroic, innocent patsy many view him as (i.e. Garrison). It seems hard to dispute that Oswald was indeed INVOLVED... Now, for the "bad" news (for Bugliosi): a) Bugliosi calmly states (and lists) many of the Parkland and Bethesda witnesses who stated that JFK was shot from the front and/ or that the right rear of the head was missing and/ or the throat wound was an exit wound, yet doesn't supply a decisive reason to debunk the majority; Bugliosi states that the majority of the Dealey Plaza witnesses did indeed believe the shots came from the grassy knoll, yet dismisses them all by stating that the evidence from the 6th floor negates them (as no gun/ bullets were found at the knoll) and that the witnesses were caught in an echo chamber and, thus, could not truly state with conviction where the shots really came from---hmmm...; c) Bugliosi deals, but not in exhaustive detail (ALL the witnesses), with the notion of a puff of smoke by the knoll by dismissing it as exhaust from an overturned motorcycle...yet doesn't deal with those who SMELLED GUNPOWDER ON/ NEAR THE KNOLL and, again, the totality of the witnesses and the specific area(s) on the knoll they saw the puff of smoke; d) in a related matter, Bugliosi dismisses the "hyperbole" of those who said hundreds of footprints were behind the picket fence, yet Holland, Dodd, and others ALSO said there was mud on bumper(s) of the car (s)...and what about the TRUNKS OF THE CARS as a hiding place???? e) Bugliosi doesn not satisfactorily dismiss the notion that Ruby was mob connected--a good job, but not a through,covering-all-the-bases job; f) NO ONE in the research community is even as impressed as I am with his book (!), already writing rebuttals (more to follow, I am sure): SEE VERY BOTTOM OF E-MAIL FOR REVIEWS SO FAR Here are the instances he talks about me: "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.(IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) 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 Vince, As an active researcher it would be illogical for me to read Bugliosi's tome, I will save that very important job, [no sarcasm intended] to those who have the expertise to do so..... But.....taking a look at the big picture, The Achilles Heel in any "Oswald did it" scenario, is that nobody can place Lee Oswald on the sixth floor when the shots were fired; Howard Brennan was eventually exposed as not being able to factually ID Ozzie as he described the all too important "sequence of events", and there is also the inconvenient truth that even if he had been, he [Oswald] would have had to pass Victoria Adams and Sandra Styles going down the stairs, in the very critical "sequence of events" in the immediate seconds after the shots were fired. If that can't be established beyond a shadow of a doubt, the whole packaged story is built on quicksand, is it not? Unless of course, Oswald was beamed down before Baker and Truly saw him. Posner and Fuhrman make the alleged FACT that Oswald was indeed at the window, the very warp and woof of their hack job's. So, no doubt Bugliosi did too, isn't that, what's the word I'm looking for a WEAKNESS.. in the 3 tome's of their respective Verdict's of History..? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now