Vince Palamara now believes Oswald did it

[Michael Hogan]

I received this YouTube link from a researcher who got it from Len Osanic: http://youtube.com/watch?v=qeKbExfoXM8

Edited May 24, 2008 by Michael Hogan

[Don Jeffries]

Michael,

You just beat me to it. I must be on the same mailing list as you....

This is really sad. I truly respected Vince's fine work, which established the Secret Service's culpability beyond any doubt. Maybe he'll end up at the Sixth Floor Museum, or perhaps now the large publishers will ask him to write a book.

The bottom line is... there is no way that Vince Palamara actually believes Oswald shot JFK. Neither does Bugliosi, or Gary Mack, or Todd Vaughn, or Dale Myers, or any other "former conspiracy theorist" who has gone over to the dark side in recent years. I doubt that Vince will show up again on the forum to defend his alleged new view on the assassination.

I'm still waiting for that first former lone nutter to be converted to a belief in conspiracy.

[William Kelly]

I received this YouTube link from a researcher who got it from Len Osanic: http://youtube.com/watch?v=qeKbExfoXM8

It's too late Vince, you should have believed Oswald did it alone when you started out and you would have gotten more cooperation from the living SS agents.

Too bad you never got to the most important Secret Service Agent involved in the assassination, John W. Rice, the Special Agent In Charge of the New Orleans office of the SS.

VP's oral history reports with SS agents re:JFK assassination are important, but it is ashame he never really got it.

BK

[Pat Speer]

I received this YouTube link from a researcher who got it from Len Osanic: http://youtube.com/watch?v=qeKbExfoXM8

It's too late Vince, you should have believed Oswald did it alone when you started out and you would have gotten more cooperation from the living SS agents.

Too bad you never got to the most important Secret Service Agent involved in the assassination, John W. Rice, the Special Agent In Charge of the New Orleans office of the SS.

VP's oral history reports with SS agents re:JFK assassination are important, but it is ashame he never really got it.

BK

I saw something written by Palamara a few months ago where he claimed that Bugliosi converted him. He needs to do his homework on Bugliosi's book. It's a carefully crafted deception. Of course it's conclusions could still be true. But one shouldn't base one's conversion on a deliberate deception.

Edited May 24, 2008 by Pat Speer

[J. Raymond Carroll]

The bottom line is... there is no way that Vince Palamara actually believes Oswald shot JFK.

I have known Vince for for a long time and if that is what he NOW says, then that is what he NOW believes. Vincent Michael Palamara is an honest man.

I would remind my young friend Vince of Peirce's injunction that all our theories must be held ON PROBATION. Belief has no place in any inquiry until Virtually EVERY SERIOUS inquirer is in agreement. History tells us that in every field of inquiry, once the truth finally is discovered, it becomes self-evident to everyone. That has not happened in this case despite the many versions of the Warren Report foisted upon us, with Bugliosi's just the latest and the greatest and most long-winded. My local Borders is selling Bugliosi's great masterpiece at TEN DOLLARS a pop. In a free and fair country, with a free and fair market, the true value of any given thing is eventually determined.

I'm still waiting for that first former lone nutter to be converted to a belief in conspiracy.

When my good friend Vince finally recovers from his BUGLIOSI BRAINWASHING, your waiting will be over.

[Cliff Varnell]

I saw something written by Palamara a few months ago where he claimed that Bugliosi converted him. He needs to do his homework on Bugliosi's book. It's a carefully crafted deception. Of course it's conclusions could still be true. But one shouldn't base one's conversion on a deliberate deception.

It's conclusions could still be true?

Are you joking, Pat?

[Pat Speer]

I saw something written by Palamara a few months ago where he claimed that Bugliosi converted him. He needs to do his homework on Bugliosi's book. It's a carefully crafted deception. Of course it's conclusions could still be true. But one shouldn't base one's conversion on a deliberate deception.

It's conclusions could still be true?

Are you joking, Pat?

I agree with you that Oswald didn't act alone. I agree with you that the hole in Kennedy's shirt--all by its lonesome--should be enough to convince someone that the single-bullet theory is hoo-ha, and that there was most likely another shooter. What I was trying to communicate about Palamara's "conversion" is that, even if one were to conclude Oswald acted alone, one should realize there are significant problems with Bugliosi's book, and that his book all by its lonesome should not conVince one of anything. It's clearly a prosecutor's brief. He arbitrarily picks witnesses like Charles Givens and Howard Brennan that we should trust, and arbitrarily decides that we should not trust people like Eddie Piper and Nellie Connally, whose only crimes were that they failed to record the TRUTH as Bugliosi sees it, or rather NEEDS it to be, lest his whole world will collapse.

Bugliosi is at his best when he admits he doesn't know something--like when he discusses the Odio incident and admits she's credible. When he acts like he knows something--such as the non-fact "fact" that the first shot missed--he almost always twists and distorts the record, EXACTLY like Posner, whom he critizes for...twisting and distorting the record. Reclaiming History may not be the WORST book ever written on the Kennedy assassination, but it is easily the most self-righteous and hypocritical. I know of no other book on the assassination, or elsewhere, where the writer spends half the book telling you you should trust him because he WORSHIPS the historical record, and the other half misrepresenting the historical record. I suspect that by the time HBO's 100 million dollar movie comes out, the book, and Bugliosi, will be largely discredited. Ironically this will not be so much because the lies and distortions of Reclaiming History, which, despite its obvious failings, has received a free pass from the watchdogs of the media, but because his new book has the gall to accuse George W. Bush of murder.

[Cliff Varnell]

I agree with you that Oswald didn't act alone. I agree with you that the hole in Kennedy's shirt--all by its lonesome--should be enough to convince someone that the single-bullet theory is hoo-ha, and that there was most likely another shooter.

Excellent!

My work here is done...carry on, Pat...

[Jack White]

The bottom line is... there is no way that Vince Palamara actually believes Oswald shot JFK.

I have known Vince for for a long time and if that is what he NOW says, then that is what he NOW believes. Vincent Michael Palamara is an honest man.

I would remind my young friend Vince of Peirce's injunction that all our theories must be held ON PROBATION. Belief has no place in any inquiry until Virtually EVERY SERIOUS inquirer is in agreement. History tells us that in every field of inquiry, once the truth finally is discovered, it becomes self-evident to everyone. That has not happened in this case despite the many versions of the Warren Report foisted upon us, with Bugliosi's just the latest and the greatest and most long-winded. My local Borders is selling Bugliosi's great masterpiece at TEN DOLLARS a pop. In a free and fair country, with a free and fair market, the true value of any given thing is eventually determined.

I'm still waiting for that first former lone nutter to be converted to a belief in conspiracy.

When my good friend Vince finally recovers from his BUGLIOSI BRAINWASHING, your waiting will be over.

Either he has some sort of emotional crisis or is in desperate need of money.

This is unlike the Vince who corresponded with me for years before he became

well known, who was passionate about SS involvement.

Jack

[Ron Ecker]

I'm definitely not going to read Bugliosi's book now. I don't want to become a lone nutter. Been there, done that.

[Dawn Meredith]

He did not strike me as being overly perceptive on this U-tube presentation. Rather full of himself. Anyone would could be taken in by the Bug wasn't on the side of the angels to begin with, imho.

Dawn

[Nathaniel Heidenheimer]

He did not strike me as being overly perceptive on this U-tube presentation. Rather full of himself. Anyone would could be taken in by the Bug wasn't on the side of the angels to begin with, imho.

Dawn

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

I have read several reviews of his on Amazon. They all turn into references to his own work. Here he seems to have pondered, if he could salvage the veracity of his own research with an acceptance of Bugs views. This seems to have been of primary importance. Someone tell Vince Cilenium is good for modesty.

[Don Jeffries]

There is no honest way anyone who has studied this case in depth, and thus logically come to the conclusion the official story is impossible, can be "converted" to lone nutterism by Bugliosi or anyone else. As Vincent Salandria has said, the cover up was purposefully amateurish. That is why I refuse to believe in the legitimacy of any of these "conversions" to lone nutterism, which are apparently all the rage now.

Unless Bugliosi or anyone else can demonstrate that: the clothing purportedly worn by JFK during the shooting was bogus, and thus explain away the incontrovertible evidence of the bullet holes in them; the "magic bullet" was actually damaged to a degree that any other bullet ever fired into human bone has been, and thus CE399 is not the real piece of "evidence" we've treated it as; the test results, using more favorable conditions in every way, for all the expert riflemen the government employed to "prove" Oswald could have got off 3 shots, with 2 hits, in the alloted time, were recorded incorrectly, and actually proved that this "easy shot" could be accomplished; Palamara himself was wrong, and his exhaustive investigation into the Secret Service performance during the assassination, as well as all film from that day, actually reveals that the agents behaved in a normal, competent way; every one of the doctors and nurses in Dallas who described an identical, massive wound in the same area on the back of JFK's head actually meant to describe the wounds as shown in the pictures and x-rays and were all misunderstood; all the witnesses who heard gunfire from the knoll/railroad track area and ran there afterwards, were actually responding to shots from the TSBD and were all fooled by "echoes" (although the ones who reported shots came from the TSBD were not fooled by these "echoes"); the Warren Commission called totally irrelevant witnesses, and somehow overlooked some of the most important ones, and questioned every witness about totally irrelevant matters, while often overlooking crucial points, because that is how the best and brightest legal minds are taught to run investigations; the unconnected witnesses who reported being threatened by the police, FBI or other government authorities, or claimed their Warren Commission testimony didn't accurately reflect what they'd said, or died unnatural deaths in great numbers, were all lying, didn't actually die or had their stories misrepresented by Mark Lane. I could go on and on, but I think you get the point.

Charles Drago had a quote about all this- I'm sure you all remember it.

Vince Palamara knows full well that there was a conspiracy.

[Maggie Hansen]

He did not strike me as being overly perceptive on this U-tube presentation. Rather full of himself. Anyone would could be taken in by the Bug wasn't on the side of the angels to begin with, imho.

Dawn

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

I have read several reviews of his on Amazon. They all turn into references to his own work. Here he seems to have pondered, if he could salvage the veracity of his own research with an acceptance of Bugs views. This seems to have been of primary importance. Someone tell Vince Cilenium is good for modesty.

I noticed that too Dawn. Another thing I found odd is that he said a few times something about 'an open mind'... anyone who reads Bugliosi with an open mind will come to the same conclusion or some such. While having an open mind may be a good idea in some situations I think perhaps a critical mind is a better tool for the researcher to have.

[Don Jeffries]

Another curious thing is that Palamara originally said, in his online version of "Survivor's Guilt," that he actually believed Oswald had shot Tippit. However, in an earlier post on this forum, while giving a pretty kind review to Bugliosi's book, he mentioned that Bugliosi had convinced him that Oswald shot Tippit. How could that be, if he already allegedly believed that?

One thing about that early review here- Palamara was clearly impressed with the way Bugliosi seemed to single his work out for commendation. Palamara's ego was definitely massaged by this treatment, as is evident in the way he fondly quoted each reference to him in Bugliosi's book.

Palamara's work on the Secret Service was very important, and will remain a great resource for researchers. That said, I have lost all respect for him with his "conversion."