Jump to content
The Education Forum

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


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 58
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

"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

Right on, Bill!

FBI agent James Hosty wrote up a report on Oswald on September 10, 1963, stating that, according to the apartment manager where Oswald had been living from November 1962 to March 3, 1963, “They had considerable difficulty with Mr. Oswald who apparently drank to excess and beat his wife on numerous occasions. They had numerous complaints from the other tenants due to Oswald’s drinking and beating his wife.”

On February 17, 1963, two weeks before the Oswalds moved out of the apartment, Oswald’s wife Marina wrote to the Soviet Embassy stating, “I beg your assistance to help me return to the Homeland in the USSR . . . . I am requesting you to extend to me a possible material aid for the trip . . . . My husband remains here, since he is an American by nationality. I beg you once more not to refuse my request.”

One month later, on March 17, 1963, Marina made an official “Declaration” to the Soviet Ambassador, stating, “I am applying for a visa for entry into the USSR and beg you not to deny my request. My husband remains in the U.S.A.”

The Soviet Embassy replied to Marina on April 18, 1963, stating she would have to “come to Washington in order to visit the Consulate Section of our Embassy,” and if it was “difficult” for her to do that, she would have to write a letter stating why she requested “this permission for entering the USSR for permanent residence.”

The Soviet Embassy sent another letter to Marina on June 4, 1963, telling her once again, “If it is difficult for you to visit us we request you to advise us by letter concerning reasons which made you request this permission for entering the USSR for permanent residence.”

An undated letter from Marina to the Embassy states that her “long silence” on getting back to them was due to “certain family problems” that “stood in the way.” She also says that her “main reason” for wanting to return to the Soviet Union was “homesickness” and that she was expecting her second child in October. And she states, “My husband is often unemployed . . . . We have no money to enable me to come to the Embassy.”

The Soviet Embassy wrote to Marina on August 5, 1963, and told her that her “request for entering the Soviet Union for permanent residence has been forwarded to Moscow for processing. As soon as we receive the answer we will at once advise you.”

And let us not forget the cheap Italian rifle manufactured for the Italian army in 1940 and left over from World War II.

According to a CIA dispatch on December 31, 1963, the rifle was among 100,000 Mannlicher-Carcanos that Adam Consolidated Industries imported into the United States in 1960, two years after “Italian military authorities” decided to “eliminate” them and declare them “obsolete.” Adam Consolidated purchased them “at an average price of $2.20 for serviceable 6.5 rifles” and “$1.10 for unserviceable 6.5 rifles.”

“The first lot of 7,000 rifles that Adam put on the American market had disastrous results. Many of them burst, with frequently fatal results, and many didn’t fire. This forced Adam to withdraw all the rifles from sale and check them before putting them back on the market.”

A March 17, 1964, FBI report states that the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle that was allegedly used to kill President Kennedy, with serial number C 2766, was among “a lot of 5,200” Mannlicher-Carcanos shipped to Adam Consolidated by an Italian machine shop in 1960. It also states that Adam Consolidated said that the rifles in this particular batch were “defective” and refused to pay for them. According to the FBI report, the machine shop was engaged in “legal proceedings” to force Adam Consolidated to pay for the rifles.

William J. Waldman, who was vice president of Klein’s Sporting Goods, the mail order company that sold the Mannlicher-Carcano allegedly used in the assassination, testified to the Warren Commission that the rifle cost $19.95 with a scope, plus $1.50 postage and handling, and that without a scope, it would have cost only $12.95. He further testified that a gunsmith who worked for Klein’s attached a scope to the rifle after drilling holes into it.

He was then asked if the gunsmith or “anyone else” had done “boresighting” (which involves using a sight-aligning tool and aligning the crosshairs) “or actual firing with the sight” to check and see how accurately the sight was aligned with the rifle.

Waldman replied, “No; it’s very unlikely in an inexpensive rifle of this sort that he would do anything other than roughly align the scope with the rifle.”

In a letter to the Warren Commission, the FBI reported, “No indication was found that the telescopic sight was remounted. Its position on the rifle, the mounting screws, and the screw holes show no evidence of having been altered.”

Ronald Simmons, Chief of the Infantry Weapons Evaluation Branch of the Ballistics Research Laboratory of the Department of the Army, who was in charge of test firing the Mannlicher-Carcano, was asked by the Warren Commission if the personnel who ran the test “had any difficulties with sighting the weapon.”

His reply was that “they could not sight the weapon” and had to “adjust the telescopic sight” by having “a machinist in one of our machine shops” add three shims to the telescopic sight.

FBI Special Agent Robert Frazier, with the FBI Laboratory in Washington, D.C., testified to the Warren Commission that adjusting a telescopic sight entails “putting shims under the front of the scope and over the back of the scope to tip the scope in the mount itself, to bring it into alignment.” He also testified that there were no shims in the rifle when the FBI Laboratory first received it, but there were shims “mounted in the rifle” when the Army Ballistics Lab returned it to them.

After it was determined where the rifle was purchased and how much it cost, FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover spoke to President Johnson by phone on November 23, 1963, and said, “It seems almost impossible to think that for $21.00 you could kill the President of the United States.”

Colonel Allison Folsom, who examined Oswald’s Marine Corps records for the Warren Commission, testified that Oswald’s record showed that his marksmanship was “not good” and that his average score over a two-day period was 36 when “people should get a score of between 48 and 50.” The record also showed that Oswald scored at the bottom in classification and aptitude tests when he entered the Marine Corps in 1956, that he was court-martialed twice, and that he had been demoted from private first class to private.

In addition to his testimony, Colonel Folsom sent a letter to the Warren Commission on June 8, 1964, regarding Oswald’s marksmanship. It states that a Marine would qualify as an Expert with a minimum score of 220, would qualify as a Sharpshooter with a minimum score of 210, and would qualify at the lowest ranking of Marksman with a minimum score of 190.

Folsom stated that according to Oswald’s Marine Corps record, on December 21, 1956, two months after Oswald joined the Marines and received his initial Marine Corps training, he received a score of 212, two points above the minimum for sharpshooter, while firing at a stationary target with a Marine-issued M-1 rifle on a Marine Corps rifle range. On May 6, 1959, four months before his defection to the Soviet Union, his score was 191, one point above the bare minimum to qualify as a Marksman.

Folsom also stated, “A low Marksman qualification indicates a rather poor shot and a Sharpshooter qualification indicates a fairly good shot.”

Colonel Folsom’s information shows clearly that after Oswald’s first two months of intensive Marine Corps training, he managed to qualify at the low end of being a “fairly good shot.” But two and a half years later, with a score that was one point above the bare minimum to qualify as a Marksman, Oswald was nowhere near a “fairly good shot.” He was most definitely a “rather poor shot,” even though he was still firing at a stationary target with a Marine-issued M-1 rifle on a Marine Corps rifle range.

Oswald’s ability to pull off even one precision shot would have not only been hampered by his total lack of competence and his poor marksmanship, but it would have been rendered completely impossible by shooting at a moving target with a cheap rifle that had a scope that was in no way aligned with the rifle.

On November 22, 1963, President Kennedy was assassinated, allegedly by a neurotic malcontent who happened to have been working as a stock clerk for five weeks in a building along the President’s motorcade route, a man who allegedly, when he heard where the motorcade route was, decided to bring a decrepit rifle to work three days later and assassinate the President of the United States with no problem whatsoever, because this neurotic malcontent, while not very good at anything else, had supposedly become a phenomenal marksman and could fire two of three shots accurately in five to eight seconds using a cheap bolt-action rifle that could not possibly have been used for that purpose.

Unfortunately, the neurotic malcontent was killed two days later.

Vince Palamara is not stupid. Therefore, he has to be a plant.

Edited by Tony Frank
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vince Palamara is not stupid. Therefore, he has to be a plant.

That's exactly the kind of thinking that drives people like Vince to "the other side". This exclusionary--my way or the highway--attitude is counter-productive and leads many who refuse to drink the "vast conspiracy" kool-aid to become lone-nutters.

We've got dueling dogmas here. When one side of the issue becomes too over-bearing, people flee to the other side.

Now, the important question is, beyond Vince's blind faith in Bugliosi--the biggest hypocrite in print--what else led to his conversion? Does he really embrace the single-bullet theory?

If so, Vince, can you please explain it to us? I've got several chapters at patspeer.com where I look at this theory, and every depiction of the theory I've studied has been a deliberate deception. Is there one in particular you found convincing?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my opinion the Odio incident has nothing to do with the plot to kill JFK. Fonzi and others who say it is proof of the plot are, to put it simply, wrong.

Simply wrong that three men show up at Odio's door in Dallas, two latins seeking support for an anti-Castro Cuban group and one who appears to be Oswald on a day after leaving New Orleans for Mexico, who is said to be an ex-Marine who shoot the President?

The same ex-Marine accused of killing the President two months later?

Unconnected.

And those who see a connection are simply wrong?

While that's not my strongest proof of the plot, I think Fonzi and Russell and others who have followed this line of inquiry are onto something.

BK

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vince Palamara is not stupid. Therefore, he has to be a plant.

That's exactly the kind of thinking that drives people like Vince to "the other side". This exclusionary--my way or the highway--attitude is counter-productive and leads many who refuse to drink the "vast conspiracy" kool-aid to become lone-nutters.

We've got dueling dogmas here. When one side of the issue becomes too over-bearing, people flee to the other side.

Now, the important question is, beyond Vince's blind faith in Bugliosi--the biggest hypocrite in print--what else led to his conversion? Does he really embrace the single-bullet theory?

If so, Vince, can you please explain it to us? I've got several chapters at patspeer.com where I look at this theory, and every depiction of the theory I've studied has been a deliberate deception. Is there one in particular you found convincing?

OK. Palamara could simply be an "unwitting" asset.

And if you think that he is going to start explaining himself, then perhaps you should think again.

Edited by Tony Frank
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my opinion the Odio incident has nothing to do with the plot to kill JFK. Fonzi and others who say it is proof of the plot are, to put it simply, wrong.

I would agree with you Tim that the primary purpose of the Odio incident was a sincere effort to get Oswald into Cuba to participate in a get Castro plot. But the reference to killing Kennedy is fraught with too many implications for me to dismiss it as a sign of what was to eventually come. At the very least, short of a genuine identification of Angel and Leopoldo, and a genuine investigation of who they were connected to and what, if anything, they were doing in Nov 63, I know of no rational person who would eliminate the possibility of a conspiracy if they subscribed to the Odio story.

-Stu

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A few years ago, as I recall, I tried to get you interested in interviewing Kenneth V.. My reasons for thinking of you were that you were knowledgeable on the medical evidence and good at contacting people and getting them to talk. If you had done that I don't think you would be a lone nutter, because a shot from the front is not consistent with Oswald from the rear, obviously. What do you say you follow up on this lead now, before you switch sides.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A few years ago, as I recall, I tried to get you interested in interviewing Kenneth V.. My reasons for thinking of you were that you were knowledgeable on the medical evidence and good at contacting people and getting them to talk. If you had done that I don't think you would be a lone nutter, because a shot from the front is not consistent with Oswald from the rear, obviously. What do you say you follow up on this lead now, before you switch sides.

Gary,

Who might Kenneth V. be?

-Stu

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my opinion the Odio incident has nothing to do with the plot to kill JFK. Fonzi and others who say it is proof of the plot are, to put it simply, wrong.

I would agree with you Tim that the primary purpose of the Odio incident was a sincere effort to get Oswald into Cuba to participate in a get Castro plot. But the reference to killing Kennedy is fraught with too many implications for me to dismiss it as a sign of what was to eventually come. At the very least, short of a genuine identification of Angel and Leopoldo, and a genuine investigation of who they were connected to and what, if anything, they were doing in Nov 63, I know of no rational person who would eliminate the possibility of a conspiracy if they subscribed to the Odio story.

-Stu

Actually Stu!

A thorough study of how a good ole S. Mississippi squirrel runs through the forest jumping on many different trees in order to "leave his scent here"; "leave his scent there"; "leave his scent everywhere" would be more in order.

Just as LHO went down and "rubbed" his scent all over McKeown and just as he did in New Orleans with the FPCC and the DRE, as well as with the ACLU and the American Communist Party.

Squirrels do it to confuse and misdirect a predator.

One can only take an educated guess as to exactly who LHO was attempting to confuse and misdirect, as well as lead any predator away from.

Repetition of various actions often brings into the "light" that a common ground cause exists for these actions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was on holiday when this discussion began and only caught up with the news yesterday. I do not know Vince and my only contact with him as been via email and has mainly concerned my web page on him. This is understandable as it is ranked number one at Google if you type in “Vince Palamara”.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKpalamara.htm

Vince is clearly concerned with his image as an author and rock musician. This is reflected in his Wikipedia biography that is ranked in third place. This has clearly been written by Vince and provides details of the 45 times his research has been used by authors of books on the JFK assassination. For example, this is what he has to say about one recently published book on the assassination:

"RECLAIMING HISTORY: THE ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY" by Vincent Bugliosi (2007)--- pages XV [page 3, endnotes disc], 146 [source notes disc], 347 [endnotes disc], 403, 404, 408, 691 [endnotes disc], 711 [endnotes disc], 998, 1242-1243, 1276, 1529 (Bibliography), 1592 (index), 1603 (index), & 1604 (index); "

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

Now, I have never seen a biography on Wikipedia that spends so much time on the subject of references in other books. It is clearly very important for him to be recognised in this way. One might even go as far to say that he is obsessed by this subject.

Mike Hogan has pointed out his favourable reviews of other conspiracy books by Larry Hancock, James Douglass and David Talbot on Amazon. However, as Nathaniel Heidenheimer has pointed out: “They all turn into references to his own work”.

I find it impossible to believe that he has been converted from a conspiracy theorist to a lone-nutter just by reading Vincent Bugliosi. How for example, does Bugliosi deal with all the questions raised by Larry Hancock’s book?

However, nor do I believe that Vince is some sort of “limited hangout mole” as claimed by Jack White’s friend. Can you really imagine the CIA paying Vince to changing his mind on the assassination? Especially, as a result of reading Bugliosi’s book. By doing this he has lost all credibility with the JFK research community and will have no influence on anyone who has studied this case in any depth.

To understand this mystery you need to look at other possible motives. According to the Wikipedia biography: “Palamara is currently in the process of having his book entitled Survivor's Guilt: The Secret Service & The Failure To Protect The President published”. I wonder how long he has been trying to get this book published? It is indeed not easy getting "conspiracy books" published. Maybe someone has told him that he would have more chance if he abandoned his conspiracy beliefs. Maybe, Bugliosi has promised to help him get the book published if he states publicly that he was converted by that very special book, Reclaiming History.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To Stu:

It is my OPINION that the Odio incident had nothing to do with the Kennedy assassination.

Since there are at least several non-sinister explanations for what happened there, it cannot be considered evidence of a conspiracy. Therefore, those who argue the Odio incident is "prrof of the plot" are wrong.

To Bill:

So do you think the Odio incident was an attempt to link Oswald to anti-Castro Cubans? If so, perhaps the men at Odio's doors were in fact Castro agents pretending to be anti-Castro exiles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vince is clearly concerned with his image as an author and rock musician... it is clearly very important for him to be recognised in this way. One might even go as far to say that he is obsessed by this subject.

A friend of mine is a very successful in his field, and he likes to regale his friends and clients with stories of his (undoubted) successes. Whenever I chide him for this "obsession," he grins and says "some of us like to blow our own trumpets, and some of us like to bring a brass band."

No one has ever accused Vince of false modesty, but here in America there is a saying that "It ain't braggin' if its true."

I find it impossible to believe that he has been converted from a conspiracy theorist to a lone-nutter just by reading Vincent Bugliosi.... Maybe, Bugliosi has promised to help him get the book published if he states publicly that he was converted by that very special book, Reclaiming History.

This seems to be a variation on the "He's only in it for the money" insinuation that the La Fontaine's leveled against David Lifton. That was unfair to Lifton, and it is equally unfair to Palamara.

Palamara surprised some researchers a few years back when he declared that Dale Myers had convinced him that Lee Oswald murdered J.D. Tippit. I happen to think that the case against Lee Oswald in the Tippit murder is quite flimsy, but I did not decide to dismiss BEST EVIDENCE when David Lifton told me that he too believed the official account of the Tippit murder.

By doing this he has lost all credibility with the JFK research community and will have no influence on anyone who has studied this case in any depth.

This is only true of people who believe in throwing out the baby with the bath water.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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).

Yes, Bugliosi's footnotes are impressive. In fact, his treatment of the Tippit murder is really impressive, since it is conducted ALMOST ENTIRELY IN THE FOOTNOTES.

Imagine a universe in which someone writes a book that would total 11 (ELEVEN) volumes of normal book size which sets out to solve and explain 3 murders, yet this author thinks the murder of policeman Tippit is not important enough to merit even a chapter of its own.

If you can imagine such a universe, you would surely agree that it should be named ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKOO"S NEST.

Now Vince, while we have you on the forum, please humor an old pal by answering one last question about SURVIVOR"S GUILT.

AMong the REVELATIONS in SURVIVOR"S GUILT are these 2:

Gross negligence and, in some instances, seeming culpability on the part of members of the Secret Service, sworn to protect the life of John F. Kennedy, is detailed with many disturbing ramifications re-vealed

So we have some "seeming culpability" going on here among certain persons employed by the Secret Service. Some things go beyond the grossest negligence into the realm of INTENTIONAL action.

One important area of this seeming culpability was explored in considerable detail by David Lifton in his 1980's bestseller BEST EVIDENCE, so I was surprised

to find that SURVIVOR"S GUILT does not devote AT LEAST a chapter to rebutting Lifton's theory.

Since you now adhere to the Bugliosi Doctrine, I take it that you are now abandoning any inference of INTENTIONAL SSA malfeasance. Before you can hope to convince JFK researchers that you are right, you will AT A MINIMUM have to deal head-on with Lifton's accusations and the evidence he has marshalled in support. Not even the great Harry Livingstone has debunked Lifton's theory, so now it is up to you.

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.

BEST EVIDENCE is one.

I am not entirely a lone-nutter (there were conspiracies and threats to JFK...it's just that Oswald beat them to the punch)

Here's my question Vince: Was there an SSA conspiracy to remove the Presidents body from Dallas in order to tamper with the BEST EVIDENCE? l

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... 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. ...
Can you say "8th Avenue estate?" How about "Jack was no more upset than the average guy ... crying like a baby?" Or my favorite: "We got married, now she can't testify against me?"

:tomatoes

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...