Jump to content
The Education Forum

Vince Palamara on Vince Bugliosi...and Vince Palamara!


Recommended Posts

Hello everyone:

All I can say is "wow" [or OMG in computer-speak]: I cannot believe the number of e-mails, forum messages, YouTube comments/ messages, etc. I have received regarding my comments on Bugliosi's book. I don't know where exactly to begin, so, typical of my chaotic writing style, I will start from wherever and finish somewhere LOL.

First of all, I have to say this forecefully: I am still your friend (even if you don't care to be mine); no nasty rejoinders, comments, or anything like that from me, trust me. My goal is to surpass Richard Trask as the nicest "lone-nutter" in the research community (he is virtually the only one from the "dark" side CTers still like and respect, to a great extent)! Second, as Gil Jesus will back me up on this one (I e-mailed him the following) and, what's more, it's even in the YouTube message: I STILL STRONGLY BELIEVE THERE WERE MORTAL THREATS AND CONSPIRACIES (PLURAL) TO KILL JFK THAT WERE BREWING/ IN MOTION JUST BEFORE/ CONCURRENT WITH 11/22/63...just that, as much as it pains me to admit (trust me, it does), Oswald beat everyone to the punch. So, in THAT regard, I am hardly a lone nutter, per se. To make an analogy: several groups were planning to rob the First National Bank of Boston, but some lone individual pulled off the caper before they got the chance to enact their nefarious schemes. Third, I (OBVIOUSLY) STILL STRONGLY BELIEVE THAT THE SECRET SERVICE'S GROSS NEGLIGENCE LED TO THE DEATH OF JFK *AND* THERE INEPT HANDLING OF PRE-11/22/63 THREATS TO JFK AIDED AND ABETTED BOTH OSWALD *AND* THE POTENTIAL (SEPARATE) CONSPIRATORS WHO WERE, FOR VARIOUS REASONS, UNABLE TO SEE THEIR GOAL COME TO FRUITION (BUT LOVED THE FACT THAT OSWALD DID THEIR DIRTY WORK). Fourth, I REALLY AND TRULY READ VINCE BUGLIOSI'S BOOK: EVERY WORD, EVERY SOURCE NOTE, FOOTNOTE...EVERY DETAIL...DID YOU???? Or did you dismiss it out of hand, skim it, or rely on just the nasty CT book reviews for your, ahem, "reading" of his book? Well (answer truthfully)? From 1978 to April 2007, I adamantly and forcefully believed there was a conspiracy in DALLAS and that Oswald, if he acted at all (which I highly doubted), did NOT act alone. I don't know what my friend Jack White was referring to earlier: limited hangout???? From me???? I am on record, many times on the net, in conference appearances, e-mails, etc. as espousing a firm belief that there was a conspiracy in DALLAS...and, in a strong way, I AM STILL ESPOUSING ONE---AGAIN, I STILL STRONGLY BELIEVE THERE WERE MORTAL THREATS AND CONSPIRACIES (PLURAL) TO KILL JFK THAT WERE BREWING/ IN MOTION JUST BEFORE/ CONCURRENT WITH 11/22/63...but Oswald "took the rap" for them by doing the deed by himself. Am I guilty of trying to have it both ways? Guilty as charged---but it's a sincere belief on my part.

I firmly believe THAT is the rub (to quote my cheesy YouTube video: hey, I ain't Speilberg LOL): all the seeming evidence of a conspiracy/ prior threats...yet all the damning evidence that Oswald did it by himself.

Have there been government cover-ups and conspiracies? Obviously, yes; you don't need me to tell you that. After all, in the final analysis, I am just one man with an opinion, that's all: aren't we a country filled with diversity, different cultures, backgrounds, beliefs, political party affiliations (Democrat, Republican, Independent, etc.)? Why get so up in arms about myself? Remember: I am on record, several times (Murder In Dealey Plaza, COPA '95, SRU 3/22/07, my book, etc) as giving out a caveat---whether one views the JFK assassination as the act of a lone nut (Oswald) or the act of a deadly conspiracy, my work holds up either way.

I work a day job, I am hardly rich (far from it), and have lost $ on the pursuit of this case/ my research (any very modest $$$ I have made through sale of books, etc. has been greatly countered by the costs of production, time, etc). My access to all of those retired Secret Service agents came through normal, over-the-counter ingenuity: access to a phone and a directory, e-mail, their addresses, etc. that anyone WHO CARED TO DO SO could have obtained relatively easily on their own...I was just fortunate that I tapped into a relatively unexplored area of the case.

It is as simple as this: I read the Warren Report, the HSCA Report, David Belin's books, Jim Moore, and Gerald Posner, and, while I was disturbed, I was not ultimately swayed because they left many holes for us to plug, so to speak. I came to Vince Bugliosi's book EXTREMELY skeptical, to put it mildly...but the book won me over (again, to a point: I STILL STRONGLY BELIEVE THERE WERE MORTAL THREATS AND CONSPIRACIES (PLURAL) TO KILL JFK THAT WERE BREWING/ IN MOTION JUST BEFORE/ CONCURRENT WITH 11/22/63...just that Oswald beat everyone to the punch). I have always been blessed with an OPEN mind. DO I WANT AND WISH FOR OSWALD TO NOT BE THE SOLE SHOOTER AND FOR THERE TO HAVE BEEN A CONSPIRACY IN ***DALLAS***? You bet; absolutely (so, yes: I wish I could still believe that LOL).

Is Bugliosi's book (or ANY book) perfect or error-free? No (i.e. I disagree with Bugliosi on his whole take on JFK's alleged desires to not have the agents on the car). But, again, I read the book, I came, I saw, and I was conquered.

Thanks for your time...let the vitriol begin!!! :rolleyes:

Vince Palamara

a.k.a. Scumbag, Judas, the traitor, the mole, the limited-hangout dude, etc.

P.S. To answer any (future) inquiries:

"What made you change your mind, you *&^%&^ Vince????"

Answer: I read Bugliosi's book.

It is what it is.

Edited by Vince Palamara
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 58
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Hey, I'm not that young: 41 going on 42 (it's hereditary: my mom is 70 and looks 55) ;-)

You wrote:

"my question is: have you read the better books on the 'other side' and if not, why not?" Yes, I have read---and own---them all.

"Fasten [y]our seatbelt, as I think you're about to hit some turbulance from many who once thought highly of your work." It has already begun LOL. Still, I have yet to see one researcher divorcing themselves from my work based on my latest opinions (i,.e. Most everyone takes information of value from Trask, The WR, the HSCA Report, etc. regardless of their disagreement on the ultimate conclusions of the works in question)

Vince Palamara

As you know I don't know you as a person, nor you me. I find your 'explanation' rather hard to swallow after haveing read your great work in the SS.

You said, "It is as simple as this: I read the Warren Report, the HSCA Report, David Belin's books, Jim Moore, and Gerald Posner, and, while I was disturbed, I was not ultimately swayed because they left many holes for us to plug, so to speak. I came to Vince Bugliosi's book EXTREMELY skeptical, to put it mildly...but the book won me over..." 

Rather than make a statement at this point, my question is: have you read the better books on the 'other side' and if not, why not?

Jan is correct on VB's error about Manson [not to mention IMO, totally wrong about Dallas]. Posner wrote a book about Mengele before his many on Dallas and it was also an apologia for the CIA.....your in very strange company, young man. Best to you. Fasten our seatbelt, as I think you're about to hit some turbulance from many who once thought highly of your work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But, again, I read the book, I came, I saw, and I was conquered.

Hi Vince:

A number of people have observed that, in endorsing Bugliosi's (i.e. the Warren Commission's) theory, you made no comment on what it was precisely in Bugliosi's book that influenced your opinion.

Bugliosi produced no new evidence that I can think of, and in fact he makes a complete fool of himself on the NAA/bullet lead issue, so inquiring minds are wondering if you could identify one or two key issues where you felt that Bugliosi has, after 45 years of confusion, clinched the case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But, again, I read the book, I came, I saw, and I was conquered.

Hi Vince:

Hi Vince:

I have been puzzled for some time about Lee ordering a 36" Mannlicher-Carcano from Klein's, but that a 40" MC was found on the 6th floor on 22 Nov. :rolleyes:

This may suggest some possible problems with Lee being the LN.

What is your take or thoughts on this?

Thanks

Miles

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi, Ray:

Boy, if it were only that easy LOL. It was not one, two, or 14 things that swayed me...it was the totality (quality and quantity) of Bugliosi's book (text/ source notes...I checked 'em all). If we held every conspiracy book to the same rigid standard some are applying to Bugliosi's book, I wonder how many would hold up.

Since 1995, I have offered my "caveat" that "Oswald or no Oswald", my work holds up...the same exact way people find value in lone-nutter Trask's work, I know they feel the same way about my work. Although more forcefully stated recently, the groundwork for my 'turnaround' was there 13 years ago...and, once again, I am not entirely a lone-nutter (there were conspiracies and threats to JFK...it's just that Oswald beat them to the punch)

Vince :rolleyes:

But, again, I read the book, I came, I saw, and I was conquered.

Hi Vince:

A number of people have observed that, in endorsing Bugliosi's (i.e. the Warren Commission's) theory, you made no comment on what it was precisely in Bugliosi's book that influenced your opinion.

Bugliosi produced no new evidence that I can think of, and in fact he makes a complete fool of himself on the NAA/bullet lead issue, so inquiring minds are wondering if you could identify one or two key issues where you felt that Bugliosi has, after 45 years of confusion, clinched the case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Vince,

I attended a Bugliosi book promotion in San Diego.

I even approached him with the document supplied here. CE 875 Ask him if he remember's.

He looked at it, and wanted to know where I got it from.

I told him on-line at History-Matters.com. That it was a W/C document.

It's a website with the entire electronic version of the Warren Commission publication.

Once I told him it came from a website, he then proceeded to try and belittle me in front of the mostly naive audience. In other words, gave the audience

the impression that this was a document created by someone with zero value.

Asked him if he knew who Robert West was. He didn't. Do you?

Bugliosi might have written a huge book, with a lot of information in it, but how pertinent is it.

Take a look at the document, and when you figure out that West was the LAND SURVEYOR used in the W/C fiasco, might want to ask yourself why it was determined the last shot which struck Kennedy in the head was down near Altgen's, not at 313.

But I'm sure he covered this in his book, right?

chris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Still, I have yet to see one researcher divorcing themselves from my work based on my latest opinions (i,.e. Most everyone takes information of value from Trask, The WR, the HSCA Report, etc. regardless of their disagreement on the ultimate conclusions of the works in question)

Vince Palamara

Your work never amounted to a hill of beans as far as I am concerned. I've always pegged you as some kind of plant, which you can scoff at and say, "Golly! Me? A plant? Can you explain that?"

I'm not going to explain it. I've got the goods on who killed JFK and why, and I've got the goods on Secret Service/CIA complicity.

I'm not the least bit surprised by your "epiphany" that you've "seen the light."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi, Ray:

Boy, if it were only that easy LOL. It was not one, two, or 14 things that swayed me...it was the totality (quality and quantity) of Bugliosi's book (text/ source notes...I checked 'em all). If we held every conspiracy book to the same rigid standard some are applying to Bugliosi's book, I wonder how many would hold up.

Since 1995, I have offered my "caveat" that "Oswald or no Oswald", my work holds up...the same exact way people find value in lone-nutter Trask's work, I know they feel the same way about my work. Although more forcefully stated recently, the groundwork for my 'turnaround' was there 13 years ago...and, once again, I am not entirely a lone-nutter (there were conspiracies and threats to JFK...it's just that Oswald beat them to the punch)

Vince :rolleyes:

But, again, I read the book, I came, I saw, and I was conquered.

Hi Vince:

A number of people have observed that, in endorsing Bugliosi's (i.e. the Warren Commission's) theory, you made no comment on what it was precisely in Bugliosi's book that influenced your opinion.

Bugliosi produced no new evidence that I can think of, and in fact he makes a complete fool of himself on the NAA/bullet lead issue, so inquiring minds are wondering if you could identify one or two key issues where you felt that Bugliosi has, after 45 years of confusion, clinched the case.

Hey Vince,

everyone is entitled to his or her opinion.

Regardless if we ever heard from each others or not, I would like you to know that,

you did outstanding work IMO in the past, and maybe will do the same in the future also.

Don't let yourself get distracted from doing or believing whatever you see as right for yourself,

and I do not think you should appologize or explain at all why you have reached that

believe or opinion.

What happens to you now, can be seen on every forum or larger circles of researchers.

Voicing the "wrong" opinion makes you the outsider, the hated one, the traitor. the mole

in the eye of the narrow minded ( no pun intented).

Just look around here or on other forums, you will find the same useless fights about

theories,and that is what 99,99% of them are,

Ultimately these things lead to nothing else than personal hatred between people not

knowing each others at all.

This is wrong, and it is damaging.

Rest assured, this unimportant member does not have this cultish reaction written in his

book of life.

You are allowed to believe in whatever you like, according to weaver-

2 experts 3 opinions, as we use to say here in germany.

Doubt it helps, but hey, it is my opinion, and I wish you nothing but sunny days in your life.

Edited by Dave Weaver
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vince,

I will always appreciate the excellent work you did on the Secret Service, but your conversion sounds all too identical to the conversions of former conspiracy believers like Gary Mack, Todd Vaughn, Dave Reitzes, Dave Perry, etc.

If you understood the evidence in this case (which I think you obviously did), and were suddenly swayed by Bugliosi's book, you ought to be able to cite a few important examples of evidence that pushed you over the edge. "The totality" of his work isn't specific enough to satisfy anyone; if you are going to brand Oswald guilty in the court of public opinion, you should be able to come up with the same kind of evidence that you'd need to provide in an actual courtroom. As you must know, as far back as 1965, citizen researchers like Sylvia Meagher and Harold Weisberg had cast strong doubts about every piece of the "evidence" against Oswald. Every bit of it is tainted beyond any reasonable doubt, to put it nicely- what did Bugliosi come up with to explain the following:

- Bullet holes (that align with each other perfectly) in JFK's coat and shirt, app. 5-6 inches down on his back. This is the exact location where the back wound was shown in Dr. Boswell's original autopsy face sheet and where it was located by Dr. Burkley, JFK's personal physician, and FBI agents Sibert and O'Neill. "Bunched coat" theories don't explain that. How did Bugliosi persuade you that this strongly documented back location was actually high enough to permit a shot from six floors above (and thus on a downward angle) to exit through JFK's neck?

- CE 399, the so-called "magic bullet," was found in nearly pristine condition. Identical ammunition was test fired into a few different substances, including cotton wadding and the wrist of a human cadaver. These tests were done at the behest of the official "investigation" and the results were published in the Warren Commission's Hearings and Exhibits. Have you seen those photos? How does Bugliosi explain the condition of the bullet fired into the wrist bone, which is damaged to a far more substantial degree than CE 399, which shattered a human wrist during its magical journey?

- How did Bugliosi demonstrate that all of the medical personnel in Dallas were wrong, in the exact same way, about describing a huge gaping wound, in the exact same location, on the back of JFK's head?

- Why did the FBI, Secret Service, CIA, Warren Commission, Dallas Police, etc. engage in an obvious cover up, and why was any evidence ever withheld from public view, if this crime was the result of one demented individual, with no rational motive, acting on his own?

I could go on and on, but I'll just ask you one question about your own important research, and how you reconcile it with your improbable position that there were "conspiracies" out there, but Oswald simply "beat them to the punch." To sum it up in a nutshell; if your work still holds up, why do you think the Secret Service would have, for all intents and purposes, stood down on November 22, 1963, unless they were acting at the behest of conspirators? Did Emory Roberts order Henry Rybka to stay at Love Field, and later order the agents to stay on the running board of the follow up car, instead of rushing to JFK's aid, because he was trying to assist a "lone nut" in assassinating his boss? If you actually believe JFK was shot by a lone nut, then you owe Roberts, Bill Greer and all the others an apology for casting aspersions on their demonstrably unusual and suspicious behavior on the day of the assassination. They would have no motive for slowing the car down, or failing to react whatsoever to the sound of gunfire, under your new premise. In that case, all your research was for naught, and does not hold up any longer, contrary to what you say.

If I sound disappointed, I am. So are a lot of others who deeply respected your work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will back you up on that Vince. You DID e-mail me that exact position.

But that position requires a belief in a "Coincidence Theory", if you will. It requires in a belief that Oswald killed JFK:

On a day when the SS just happened to remove the motorcycle escorts from the side of the car.

On a day when the SS just happened to remove the general from the front seat of the car.

On a day when the SS just happened to leave the agent who would have been in the front of the running board on the President's side of the car at the airport.

On a day when the SS just happened to stay up all the previous night drinking and carousing with hookers.

On a day when the SS just happened to stay off of the rear bumper of the limo.

On a day when the SS just happened to move the motorcycle escorts to the back of the limo and then to tell the Dallas motorcycle officers at Love Field to "hold your position no matter what happens."

On a day when the SS just happened to order their agents not to move when the shooting started.

On a day when the SS just happened to slow the limo down when the shooting started.

On a day when the SS just happened to "casually look around" when the shooting started.

Too many coincidences here, my friend, for me to buy into that kind of a theory.

And I haven't even started touching on the inconsistencies in the "evidence".

I suppose that's where we differ: what you see as negligence and perhaps even as gross negligence, I see as criminal.

Because I believe that a couple could be "coincidences", but when you put all of them together, there's no way that all of these occurances could have happened without being planned.

Watch Groden's video of the entire motorcade, Vince. Watch how far away from the President's limo the lead police car is. Watch how far back from the follow-up car Lyndon Johnson's convertible is before it turns onto Houston street, near the end of the motorcade.

Kennedy's limo and the followup car are all by themselves. Like they were out on an island and no one around.

Funny how that didn't happen in Tampa.

Funny how that didn't happen in Berlin.

When I first saw that, I KNEW that they were expecting something to happen. They stayed as far away from those two cars as they could for as long as they could.

They led this guy into an ambush and although they didn't pull the trigger, they made it much easier for the party or parties who did.

That, is complicity.

The people who were responsible for the murder of John Kennedy were people who preferred Lyndon Johnson as President and Hoover as head of the FBI. I have no doubt that some of those people were employed by the USSS.

And for saving Hoover's job, Hoover made sure that the real perpetrators would never come to justice. And Johnson's "commission"'s purpose was to rubber-stamp Hoover's investigation, affirming the

conclusion that Hoover had come to before any of the evidence was even examined by the FBI.

Let me thank you for all the help (and prodding) you've given me over the years.

Thank you for your honesty and generosity in using your material.

Few people would write a book and then put it on line for the research community to use for free.

And although I may not agree with your new position, I respect your right to have it and to change it anytime you want to.

And most importantly, I look forward to your continuing friendship.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"It's hard to believe that little Pippsqueak took out the President..." Vince Palamara

It's not enough to just believe that President John F. Kennedy was killed by one sniper, one assassin, for a Lone Nut conversion to be complete, the world class sniper must also be a loner, a nut, a homicidal maniac, a loser who couldn't hold a job, beat his wife and was, in Vince's word, a Pippsqueak.

The President's assassin was not killed by the best assassin world history, but by a little Pippsqueak.

I object to people calling Vince a Judas, turncoat, scumbag, but I also object to the characterization of the successful assassin as a Little Pippsqueak.

Bill Kelly

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since 1995, I have offered my "caveat" that "Oswald or no Oswald", my work holds up...the same exact way people find value in lone-nutter Trask's work, I know they feel the same way about my work.

Thank you, Vince. I'll buy that as an honest answer to my question. Richard Trask, whose work is (almost) as universally respected as your own, is indeed a good analogy.

In PICTURES OF THE PAIN Trask states his conclusion (Oswald did it) at the outset, but it is only after finishing the book that it becomes clear that Trask has not cited ANY PHOTOGRAPHIC EVIDENCE IMPLICATING LEE OSWALD IN THE ASSASSINATON. Trask's opinion on Lee Oswald's guilt is not based on his own area of expertise, he is simply relying on the AUTHORITY of others, and you are in the same boat.

Guys like you and Trask are absolutely essential to this inquiry. Your value to the rest of us depends on the scientific impartiality of your outlook in your particular area of expertise, and not on your other opinions.

SURVIVOR"S GUILT holds up whether its author prefers ULTIMATE SACRIFICE over RECLAIMING HISTORY, or vice-versa.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. Palamara:

The phone call that Jack Ruby made to Dallas police dispatcher Billy Grammer approximately nine or ten hours before he killed Oswald demonstrates that Ruby had been ordered or pressured to kill Oswald and was looking for a way out. That fact alone proves there was a conspiracy. But you won't find the Grammer incident noted in any of the 2,500 or so pages VB wrote, even though the incident is reported in two of the books VB claims to have read.

That is just one of the facts peoving a conspiracy that VB simply ignores.

VB is an excellent attorney and rhetorician but, respectfully, he has duped you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"What made you change your mind, you *&^%&^ Vince????"

Answer: I read Bugliosi's book.

It is what it is.

No where in Bugliosi's book does it mention that the bullet defects in JFK's clothing are about 3 inches below the "back of the neck" location required by the SBT.

Here's what Bugliosi wrote in the CD accompanying the book:

A point that conspiracy theorists have raised over and over in their books is that

the entrance holes in the president's coat and shirt were more than 2 inches lower

in the back than the actual entrance wound in his body. But even if there wasn't

an explanation for this, so what?

The physical evidence doesn't fit the official scenario -- so what?

So what, Vince?

The holes in the clothes match the T3 wound location recorded in the

only back wound medical evidence executed according to proper

autopsy protocol -- Burkley's death certificate and the autopsy face

sheet diagram.

So what?

The photographic evidence proves beyond doubt that JFK's jacket

dropped in Dealey Plaza?

http://www.occamsrazorjfk.net/

So what, Vince?

Care to explain how a tailored jacket and a tucked in custom made dress shirt

dropped into an elevated position, Vince?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vince,

I respect your decision to "convert." But I remain continually surprised that people see Bugliosi's book as the death knell for the CT. I am not as down on the book as others, but I happen to think that, because Bugliosi was more even-handed than he is given credit for, that the book leaves huge loopholes for those who advocate a conspiracy. Let me, for instance, ask you one thing: do you agree with Bugliosi that the Odio incident likely happened the way Sylvia described it?

If your answer is yes, and you are willing to keep an open-mind, I think I can do a fairly good job at convincing you that the Odio incident alone is reason enough to at least be agnostic about a conspiracy (and I will be doing so by staying faithful to what Bugliosi claims/says about the incident.)

Regards,

Stu Wexler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...