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

[Duke Lane]

Hello everyone: ...

... 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.

... 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.

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

Answer: I read Bugliosi's book.

It is what it is.

I understand perfectly ... and disagree completely.

I, too, have read the books and came away "convinced," not only those cited above, but many with a conspiracy bent as well. (Add to the list of WC, HSCA, Belin, etc., Dale Myers' With Malice as well ... but not VB's as yet.) They are all well-written, convincing monologues, stating facts (tho' seldom all the facts) and drawing seemingly reasonable conclusions that appear to make absolute sense.

They are, however - as my "namesake" once charged - little more than prosecutors' briefs ... and prosecutors successfully convict innocent people virtually every day, even with adversarial proceedings!

They are true and accurate accounts of events as they took place ... as long as nobody argues with them, or brings up contrary facts, or alternative conclusions that make just as much sense.

Despite my own strong opinions on the Tippit murder, for example, when I put down Myers' book, I found myself wondering just what had I been thinking before?!? He said that he'd contacted Charlie Davis who claimed not to know what she'd been thinking when she had testified and implied that Tippit had "lived" two doors away from her. Oh. So much for that, then, I thought; there was nothing to it.

I even bit on the explanation Dale had put forth that, when both Tippit and RC Nelson were ordered into central Oak Cliff that, despite Nelson's having skirted along the eastern edge of Oak Cliff going north on Marsalis, and thence to the south end of the Houston Street viaduct and thence into downtown and Dealey Plaza, that - like Dale had said - Nelson had actually "followed orders" and gone into "central Oak Cliff" because he wasn't far from it! I mean, he'd crossed Jefferson Boulevard, after all, so ...?

Case Closed ... a pun, that, because I came away thinking the same way when I'd put down Posner's rather convincing work. Both of these relatively recent works (as compared with the WCR, HSCA, Belin, etc., anyway ... tho' the later of the two is 10 years old, now) tell their stories in a wholly convincing way, and I fully expect Reclaiming History will do the same.

But convincing stories are not necessarily true facts. Jim Marrs' Crossfire is likewise a very convincing book ... as long as you take in every word that it says, don't question its contents, and promise never to look deeply into it, for it, too, is fully of holes and errors.

Point being: anyone can assemble enough facts and present them in such a light to lead convincingly toward the conclusions the author wishes. Just because it's scripture being quoted doesn't mean it's not the devil doing the quoting!

Anyone realizing that there were multiple assassination scenarios going down in various cities throughout the country at the time and assumes that some "little pipsqueak" with no motive other than impressing his wife - a dubious one at best - and who, despite that, denied having done the deed that was going to make him some sort of hero to someone, somewhere, beat the "pros" to the punch (and presumably was killed in a fit of pique for pre-empting them?) is deluding their own good self.

Even a relatively simple conspiracy would not have allowed the actual shooters to have been abducted and would have ensured that "all the damning evidence" would, in fact, point away from themselves and toward a fall-guy. What does Vince expect: that had the "pros" gotten to JFK before Oswald snookered them, that someone else who actually pulled a trigger would've been caught, possibly with smoking gun still in hand? It would've gone down exactly the way it did, which only goes to show that "all the damning evidence" machts nichts.

Vince really should stop smoking that stuff and go back to his own dope. In the end, though, his opinion likewise machts nichts, as all the wishful thinking, all the vacillation, all the successful conversions, breastbeating and YouTube confessions in the world aren't going to change the facts, but only the opinions of the few people who don't hold very strong ones. Ain't nobody going to be saying "wow, I always thought there was a conspiracy, but if Vince Palamara (gasp!) has been 'converted,' then I guess I must've been wrong all along!"

[Chris Brown]

Right on, Bill!

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.

Tony.

I’ve always believed that LHO’s alleged shooting performance was impossible. Your information regarding the condition of the alleged assassination rifle, which I have read about before is compelling evidence on its own. Add to that the question mark against LHO’s shooting ability and the difficulty of the official view of the assassination, would all in my view raise questions in any fair minded jury on the likelihood of one person pulling it off.

As far as I’m aware, Frazier’s team of expert riflemen could not duplicate LHO’s alleged shooting performance. (2 out of 3 hits in 6 seconds WITH THEIR FIRST ATEMPT) and nobody has duplicated it since then.

Chris Brown.

[Wim Dankbaar]

Vince, busy thread, lots of attention.

Congrats from Wim, the "zany millionaire". (See page 512 of Bugliosi's book)

PS: I DO like Ritchie Blackmore, so we still have something in common

[Kathleen Collins]

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

If Oswald was the assassin, then which one did it, Harvey or Lee (as per John Armstrong)? What was Oswald's motive? If Oswald wanted this kind of infamy, why did he deny shooting anybody in front of TV cameras? Wouldn't he be gloating?

Kathy Collins

[Stuart Wexler]

Tim I think the incident was primarily an attempt to get someone who had connections to the Cuban underground (Sylvia, through her father) to help Oswald if he got into Cuba, as part of a plot against Castro.

I also think Leopoldo telegraphed the intentions to kill JFK if that failed; perhaps this an example of the vaunted indiscretion of the Cuban exile community.

I think Castro is a possibility as having ben behind this but I think it is much more likely that these were right-wing exiles who either had to pose as left-wing exiles (JURE) to manipulate Oswald and/or who wanted to implicate a left-wing group in either assassination. This would then, under either assassination scenario, preclude JURE from having a role in a post-Castro government. In the hardline exile community, and there are documents that attest to this, JURE was viewed as Cuban Communism Without Castro.

-Stu

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.

[J. Raymond Carroll]

I think Castro is a possibility as having ben behind this but I think it is much more likely that these were right-wing exiles who either had to pose as left-wing exiles (JURE) to manipulate Oswald and/or who wanted to implicate a left-wing group in either assassination. This would then, under either assassination scenario, preclude JURE from having a role in a post-Castro government. In the hardline exile community, and there are documents that attest to this, JURE was viewed as Cuban Communism Without Castro.

-Stu

And as husband to my grandmother,

I am my own grandpa

It sounds funny I know,

But it really is so

'Cause I'M MY OWN GRANDPA

[Tony Frank]

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.

John,

What makes you think that Vince P wasn't a plant to begin with? Maybe he never "changed his mind on the assassination" because he never really was a CT. The guy comes along and claims that he's an "expert" on the USSS, but what motivated him to amass information on the USSS in the first place?

And if he wasn't a CIA plant, then maybe he was Bugliosi's man from the beginning. Bugliosi wanted as much information on "conspiracy theories" as he could get. Maybe Vince P has been helping Bugliosi with that all these years.

And maybe Bugliosi was acting on behalf of the CIA in the first place.

Let's look at the CIA trying to get people to believe the WC report.

A September 22, 1964, CIA Bulletin titled “Propaganda Notes” reports the State Department’s plan to send copies of the soon-to-be-released Warren Commission Report to “American Diplomatic Posts” for “selective presentation to ‘editors, jurists, Government officials, and other opinion leaders.’”

The Bulletin also states that CIA Headquarters is going to send “copies of this Government Printing Office edition” to CIA “field stations,” where “covert assets should explain the tragedy wherever it is genuinely misunderstood and counter all efforts to misconstrue it . . . . Divisions should make bulk purchases for filed use through regular channels.”

By January 1967, a little more than two years after the Propaganda Notes Bulletin, the CIA was so concerned about people not believing the Warren Commission Report that it issued a thirteen-page dispatch on the subject of “Countering Criticism of the Warren Report.”

The dispatch states that the “speculation about the responsibility” for President Kennedy’s assassination had been “stemmed by the Warren Commission report, which appeared at the end of September 1964.”

The dispatch continues, “Various writers have now had time to scan the Commission’s published report and documents . . . . There has been a new wave of books and articles criticizing the Commission’s findings . . . . Conspiracy theories have frequently thrown suspicion on our organization.”

Under “Action,” the dispatch instructs CIA officers to “discuss the publicity problem with liaison and friendly elite contacts, especially politicians and editors” and tell these “friendly” contacts that “the charges of the critics are without serious foundation.” The dispatch also instructs the agents to “urge” their contacts to “use their influence” to assist in countering criticism of the Warren Report.

CIA officers were told to use “propaganda assets to answer and refute the attacks of the critics. Book reviews and feature articles are particularly appropriate for this purpose.”

Dating back to 1964, the CIA consistently wrote up reports anytime there was criticism of the Warren Commission or the Warren Commission Report in the United States or abroad. The CIA detailed who the critics were and what they had to say. They also cast aspersions on the people criticizing the Warren Report and went into detail to refute the points that the critic had made.

And how about the CIA and Garrison's investigation?

David Ferrie got plowed under as soon as Garrison's investigation became public, and an abundance of CIA memorandums and communications reveal top-level CIA officials addressing the Garrison investigation.

An April 26, 1967, CIA memo states there are “loads of possible concern to CIA because of what may be an intent to involve the Agency directly or indirectly in the proceedings.”

A June 1967 CIA memo written after Garrison made his charge about the CIA and anti-Castro Cubans states, “The activity of District Attorney James C. Garrison of New Orleans shows no signs of abating . . . . We shall continue to study all available information about the New Orleans investigation.”

The memo states that in an effort to “keep our reporting from growing too exhaustive,” the CIA would focus on two categories of people, one of which was “those directly involved in the probe and known to have, or to have had, a direct association with CIA.”

A September 7, 1967, CIA memorandum states, “Since the Garrison investigation was first publicized in February 1967, we have kept book on all persons in the case: 139 to date.”

The CIA even established the “Garrison Group,” consisting of some of the senior-most officials in the CIA: the Executive Director, the Deputy Director for Plans, the Deputy Director of Support, the Director of Security, and Raymond Rocca, the Chief of the Counterintelligence Division’s Research and Analysis section.

A CIA memo on the first meeting of the “Garrison Group” on September 20, 1967, states, “Rocca felt that Garrison would, indeed, obtain a conviction of Shaw for conspiring to assassinate President Kennedy.”

The memo also quotes the CIA’s Executive Director as having said, “The possibility of Agency action should be examined from the timing of what can be done before the trial, and what might be feasible during and after the trial.”

A January 1968 CIA memo states that eight people who were part of Garrison’s investigation “have or had DDP ties,” which would be ties to the CIA’s Directorate of Plans, and “eight more were DCS contacts,” which would be contacts with the CIA’s “Domestic Contact Services,” or more precisely, the CIA’s Domestic Operations Division. Of the eight who were DDP contacts, “three have, or had, some contact with the Domestic Contact Services as well.”

Five months earlier, a CIA memorandum of July 10, 1967, stated one of Garrison’s investigators had gone to the National Archives and obtained “the list of CIA classified documents made available to the Warren Commission.” The CIA officer who wrote the memorandum stated he “visited Dr. Robert Bahmer, Archivist of the United States,” on July 7 and informed him that a New Orleans newspaper had published “the list of CIA classified documents . . . . Dr. Bahmer said that the list never should have been shown to Garrison’s investigator or any other researcher in its present form.”

The CIA officer also wrote, “We became aware of the problem late in May and took steps to correct it,” which would be was immediately after Jim Garrison exposed the CIA’s information that anti-Castro Cubans had killed President Kennedy.

Another memorandum stated there was an “original unexpurgated list of all Warren Commission material held by the National Archives,” and “a new list without CIA titles was prepared by Archives at our request.”

The July 10, 1967, memorandum quotes Dr. Bahmer as saying that even though the original list would “no longer” be available to researchers, “It was like closing the barn door after the horse escaped.”

The CIA sent a dispatch to its stations and bases around the world in July 1968 containing a nineteen-page article that made disparaging remarks about Garrison and his investigation, and the dispatch stated, “You may use the article to brief interested contacts, especially government and other political leaders.” It also stated the article should be used to demonstrate “that there is no hard evidence of any such conspiracy.”

© 2008

DESTROYING AMERICA:

A Dossier on the CIA’s Quest to Control the United States Government

Anthony R. Frank. All rights reserved.

By the 1980s, people still didn't believe the WC report. The CIA needed someone like Bugliosi. Maybe he began his research and writing for RECLAIMING HISTORY because the CIA enlisted him as a contract agent. And if Bugliosi was a contract agent, then Vince P could easily be one too.

[Pat Speer]

By the 1980s, people still didn't believe the WC report. The CIA needed someone like Bugliosi. Maybe he began his research and writing for RECLAIMING HISTORY because the CIA enlisted him as a contract agent. And if Bugliosi was a contract agent, then Vince P could easily be one too.

Except they're not. There is virtually no evidence that the CIA has undertook or is capable of undertaking 20-year plans to deceive future generations. They work in the here and now. Until VB's book, a book twisting facts to create a fiction, and a product of a fevered mind, came along, VP was a thorn in the side of the U.S. Government, using the words of SS agents to cast aspersions on the official story that the government wasn't involved. Holding that this was all part of some grand scheme or limited hang-out is utter foolishness, IMO.

The guy changed his mind. People do that. Sometimes it's based upon new facts that come to their attention. More often it's based upon their circumstances changing. There's that old expression that you can't trust a young conservative or an old liberal.

It wouldn't surprise me that, as Vince has gotten older, he has become a little more desirous of recognition and respect from mainstream America, and has realized that his work as a CT is a hindrance to his gaining that respect. He's at a point where he wonders if it was all worth it. And then along comes Bugliosi asking Vince if he'll give him a quote for his book. "Sure" thinks Vince P, that way I can make a public divorce from CT-land, and maybe get some attention for my book. Maybe now I can get it published. It could be as simple as that.

[Tony Frank]

By the 1980s, people still didn't believe the WC report. The CIA needed someone like Bugliosi. Maybe he began his research and writing for RECLAIMING HISTORY because the CIA enlisted him as a contract agent. And if Bugliosi was a contract agent, then Vince P could easily be one too.

Except they're not. There is virtually no evidence that the CIA has undertook or is capable of undertaking 20-year plans to deceive future generations. They work in the here and now. Until VB's book, a book twisting facts to create a fiction, and a product of a fevered mind, came along, VP was a thorn in the side of the U.S. Government, using the words of SS agents to cast aspersions on the official story that the government wasn't involved. Holding that this was all part of some grand scheme or limited hang-out is utter foolishness, IMO.

The guy changed his mind. People do that. Sometimes it's based upon new facts that come to their attention. More often it's based upon their circumstances changing. There's that old expression that you can't trust a young conservative or an old liberal.

It wouldn't surprise me that, as Vince has gotten older, he has become a little more desirous of recognition and respect from mainstream America, and has realized that his work as a CT is a hindrance to his gaining that respect. He's at a point where he wonders if it was all worth it. And then along comes Bugliosi asking Vince if he'll give him a quote for his book. "Sure" thinks Vince P, that way I can make a public divorce from CT-land, and maybe get some attention for my book. Maybe now I can get it published. It could be as simple as that.

I think Tony's take is not far off the mark with the title of his book and interesting comments above - although I don't feel the 'CIA' is the entire problem - only a part of it - and the CIA, for the most part, are not rogue, but work for a certain Secret and Deep Governmental Structure - that has little in common with the public one covered in the news [also controlled by the Secret and Deep Governmental Structure]. That said, I think Pat may be right on VP [my guess], but it could also be more along the lines Tony said and wouldn't be out of the realm of possibility. We don't know and likely won't for a long time. We can all speculate, but lets not flog him in case he is only naive or selling-out for fame or publication or some such. It is a disappointment, for sure, but doesn't effect the rest of us. His 'karma' to deal with whatever the verdict turns out to be. VB is a much more public figure and there I think Tony's speculation might bear some thought - it certainly seems to me to be true with Pozner - so no doubt many others, as well.

I appreciate your perspective, Peter.

As far as I'm concerned, VB and VP are non-issues. The things I found out in 1984 would make it very important for certain rogue elements of the CIA to embark on a long-term venture to get people to accept the WCR.

Discounting what the CIA would do is a big mistake. Who would think that they were putting LSD into the food of “unsuspecting subjects between 1953 and 1963”?

Who would think that the CIA was running rampant domestically conducting break-ins and wiretapping and intercepting mail?

Who would think that the CIA had been infiltrated by subversive elements and that those elements assassinated JFK?

Let’s not forget the Regis Blahut incident.

Blahut was a CIA officer who had been detailed to “assist” the HSCA and he broke into a safe at the Committee’s offices. The break-in was reported in the news several months after the HSCA disbanded.

The Washington Post reported: “The safe was reserved for physical evidence of President Kennedy’s assassination, including the autopsy photos, X-rays, and other articles, such as the so-called ‘magic bullet’ that wounded both Kennedy and Texas Governor John B. Connally.”

“Autopsy photos of the headshot that killed Kennedy had been taken out of their cases and were left in disarray inside the three drawer safe . . . . There was no doubt that the files in the safe had been tampered with . . . . ‘It looked as though someone had just run out.’”

Blahut’s fingerprints “were all over the place, on the photos, inside the safe, and on all sorts of different packages.”

“The CIA acknowledged that it has dismissed the individual in question. ‘We’re satisfied it was just a matter of curiosity,’ said CIA spokesman Herbert Hetu.”

If the CIA spokesman were to be believed, what he was really saying was, “Yes, the agent we assigned to assist the HSCA broke into their safe, but that’s only because he was curious. In fact, we fired him. We’re satisfied.”

According to official CIA documents, Blahut was there because the CIA had its own safe in the HSCA offices in which the CIA kept documents relating to the assassination. The HSCA also had a safe, with which the CIA was not supposed to be concerned, and Blahut broke into that safe.

In a document dated May 10, 1979, Blahut is referred to as a “former agency employee,” but that didn’t seem to be the case when the break-in was finally publicized, and Blahut was interviewed five weeks later for a front-page story in the Washington Post on June 18, 1979.

“In a telephone interview with the Washington Post, Blahut denied any wrongdoing. He insisted that there was an innocent explanation. He refused, however, to say what that was.”

Blahut said he worked for the CIA’s Office of Security and stated, “There’s other things that are involved that are detrimental to other things,” and he refused to elaborate when asked what he meant by that.

Blahut went on to say, “I signed an oath of secrecy. I cannot discuss it any further . . . . I’ve already defended myself to my employers. As far as I’m concerned, that’s all cleared up.” He also claimed to have passed a CIA lie detector test over the matter.

Blahut had obviously not been fired.

The CIA’s documents state that when CIA Director Stansfield Turner and the CIA’s Deputy Director met with Committee General Counsel Robert Blakey in July 1978, almost a year before the break-in was publicized, the Director “alluded” to Blahut’s lie detector test, and the CIA Director himself claimed that the lie detector test “confirmed the veracity of Blahut’s story.”

It's possible that VB and his book were not CIA orchestrated, and it's possible that VP was not a plant. It's possible that those in the CIA who know the CIA was infiltrated and know that the subversive elements killed JFK have been sitting back thinking, "This book by Bugliosi is great for us! And we couldn't ask for much more than Vince Palamara, the expert on the USSS, being persuaded that Bugliosi is right!"

But I doubt these "possibilities."

[J. Raymond Carroll]

It's possible that VB and his book were not CIA orchestrated, and it's possible that VP was not a plant. It's possible that those in the CIA who know the CIA was infiltrated and know that the subversive elements killed JFK have been sitting back thinking, "This book by Bugliosi is great for us! And we couldn't ask for much more than Vince Palamara, the expert on the USSS, being persuaded that Bugliosi is right!"

But I doubt these "possibilities."

I think I've finally got it. You're saying that

Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean TWO VINNIES are not out to get you.

[John Simkin]

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.

John,

What makes you think that Vince P wasn't a plant to begin with? Maybe he never "changed his mind on the assassination" because he never really was a CT. The guy comes along and claims that he's an "expert" on the USSS, but what motivated him to amass information on the USSS in the first place?

And if he wasn't a CIA plant, then maybe he was Bugliosi's man from the beginning. Bugliosi wanted as much information on "conspiracy theories" as he could get. Maybe Vince P has been helping Bugliosi with that all these years.

And maybe Bugliosi was acting on behalf of the CIA in the first place.

Let's look at the CIA trying to get people to believe the WC report.

A September 22, 1964, CIA Bulletin titled “Propaganda Notes” reports the State Department’s plan to send copies of the soon-to-be-released Warren Commission Report to “American Diplomatic Posts” for “selective presentation to ‘editors, jurists, Government officials, and other opinion leaders.’”

The Bulletin also states that CIA Headquarters is going to send “copies of this Government Printing Office edition” to CIA “field stations,” where “covert assets should explain the tragedy wherever it is genuinely misunderstood and counter all efforts to misconstrue it . . . . Divisions should make bulk purchases for filed use through regular channels.”

By January 1967, a little more than two years after the Propaganda Notes Bulletin, the CIA was so concerned about people not believing the Warren Commission Report that it issued a thirteen-page dispatch on the subject of “Countering Criticism of the Warren Report.”

The dispatch states that the “speculation about the responsibility” for President Kennedy’s assassination had been “stemmed by the Warren Commission report, which appeared at the end of September 1964.”

The dispatch continues, “Various writers have now had time to scan the Commission’s published report and documents . . . . There has been a new wave of books and articles criticizing the Commission’s findings . . . . Conspiracy theories have frequently thrown suspicion on our organization.”

Under “Action,” the dispatch instructs CIA officers to “discuss the publicity problem with liaison and friendly elite contacts, especially politicians and editors” and tell these “friendly” contacts that “the charges of the critics are without serious foundation.” The dispatch also instructs the agents to “urge” their contacts to “use their influence” to assist in countering criticism of the Warren Report.

CIA officers were told to use “propaganda assets to answer and refute the attacks of the critics. Book reviews and feature articles are particularly appropriate for this purpose.”

Dating back to 1964, the CIA consistently wrote up reports anytime there was criticism of the Warren Commission or the Warren Commission Report in the United States or abroad. The CIA detailed who the critics were and what they had to say. They also cast aspersions on the people criticizing the Warren Report and went into detail to refute the points that the critic had made.

And how about the CIA and Garrison's investigation?

David Ferrie got plowed under as soon as Garrison's investigation became public, and an abundance of CIA memorandums and communications reveal top-level CIA officials addressing the Garrison investigation.

An April 26, 1967, CIA memo states there are “loads of possible concern to CIA because of what may be an intent to involve the Agency directly or indirectly in the proceedings.”

A June 1967 CIA memo written after Garrison made his charge about the CIA and anti-Castro Cubans states, “The activity of District Attorney James C. Garrison of New Orleans shows no signs of abating . . . . We shall continue to study all available information about the New Orleans investigation.”

The memo states that in an effort to “keep our reporting from growing too exhaustive,” the CIA would focus on two categories of people, one of which was “those directly involved in the probe and known to have, or to have had, a direct association with CIA.”

A September 7, 1967, CIA memorandum states, “Since the Garrison investigation was first publicized in February 1967, we have kept book on all persons in the case: 139 to date.”

The CIA even established the “Garrison Group,” consisting of some of the senior-most officials in the CIA: the Executive Director, the Deputy Director for Plans, the Deputy Director of Support, the Director of Security, and Raymond Rocca, the Chief of the Counterintelligence Division’s Research and Analysis section.

A CIA memo on the first meeting of the “Garrison Group” on September 20, 1967, states, “Rocca felt that Garrison would, indeed, obtain a conviction of Shaw for conspiring to assassinate President Kennedy.”

The memo also quotes the CIA’s Executive Director as having said, “The possibility of Agency action should be examined from the timing of what can be done before the trial, and what might be feasible during and after the trial.”

A January 1968 CIA memo states that eight people who were part of Garrison’s investigation “have or had DDP ties,” which would be ties to the CIA’s Directorate of Plans, and “eight more were DCS contacts,” which would be contacts with the CIA’s “Domestic Contact Services,” or more precisely, the CIA’s Domestic Operations Division. Of the eight who were DDP contacts, “three have, or had, some contact with the Domestic Contact Services as well.”

Five months earlier, a CIA memorandum of July 10, 1967, stated one of Garrison’s investigators had gone to the National Archives and obtained “the list of CIA classified documents made available to the Warren Commission.” The CIA officer who wrote the memorandum stated he “visited Dr. Robert Bahmer, Archivist of the United States,” on July 7 and informed him that a New Orleans newspaper had published “the list of CIA classified documents . . . . Dr. Bahmer said that the list never should have been shown to Garrison’s investigator or any other researcher in its present form.”

The CIA officer also wrote, “We became aware of the problem late in May and took steps to correct it,” which would be was immediately after Jim Garrison exposed the CIA’s information that anti-Castro Cubans had killed President Kennedy.

Another memorandum stated there was an “original unexpurgated list of all Warren Commission material held by the National Archives,” and “a new list without CIA titles was prepared by Archives at our request.”

The July 10, 1967, memorandum quotes Dr. Bahmer as saying that even though the original list would “no longer” be available to researchers, “It was like closing the barn door after the horse escaped.”

The CIA sent a dispatch to its stations and bases around the world in July 1968 containing a nineteen-page article that made disparaging remarks about Garrison and his investigation, and the dispatch stated, “You may use the article to brief interested contacts, especially government and other political leaders.” It also stated the article should be used to demonstrate “that there is no hard evidence of any such conspiracy.”

© 2008

DESTROYING AMERICA:

A Dossier on the CIA’s Quest to Control the United States Government

Anthony R. Frank. All rights reserved.

By the 1980s, people still didn't believe the WC report. The CIA needed someone like Bugliosi. Maybe he began his research and writing for RECLAIMING HISTORY because the CIA enlisted him as a contract agent. And if Bugliosi was a contract agent, then Vince P could easily be one too.

I fully accept that in the years following the assassination the CIA did what they could about its involvement with Oswald and related issues. However, I do not believe that they spend too much money, resources, etc. on the case today. I definitely do not see them thinking it is worth bothering turning people like Vince Palamara.

[Tony Frank]

I fully accept that in the years following the assassination the CIA did what they could about its involvement with Oswald and related issues. However, I do not believe that they spend too much money, resources, etc. on the case today. I definitely do not see them thinking it is worth bothering turning people like Vince Palamara.

What about the CIA getting rid of DeMohrenschildt in 1977 and Regis Blahut breaking into the HSCA safe in 1978? How long after that did Bugliosi start researching his book?

It would certainly not be a huge agency operation, but certain elements of the CIA could have easily enlisted Bugliosi and Palamara. It certainly would not cost much and would require almost no resources. Besides, it would provide job security for someone if they could convince a superior that it is needed. And maybe Palamara didn't need to be turned; maybe he was a plant all along.

I'm not saying it has to be true. I'm saying that it's a possibility.

Edited June 6, 2008 by Tony Frank

[Tony Frank]

I'm inclined here to side more with Tony. I think the CIA's apparent low-level of activity and energy expenditure is only because they think, for now, they have the situtation well under control for the population, in general. [do recall, however, they are refusing on the release of the Joannides documents quite actively!] Should that control perception change, they'd be very busy little beavers again, IMO. Additionally, a source, with connections to know, tells me they maintain a very high level of interest and monitor what is going as they always did and Tony has pointed out - as have others on this forum. It would be interesting to know when VB did get the JFK 'bug' and to follow it up with his work against Bush is an interesting duality or split rational perspective [or psyop]. IMO.

To quote Bugliosi from the Introduction to his book, "My professional interest in the Kennedy assassination dates back to March of 1986 when I was approached by a British Production Company, London Weekend Television, to prosecute Lee Harvey Oswald....."

This was the infamous "mock" trial in which Gerry Spence was the defense attorney.

It makes me wonder when and why "London Weekend Television" come up with the idea of prosecuting Oswald.

[Pat Speer]

I'm inclined here to side more with Tony. I think the CIA's apparent low-level of activity and energy expenditure is only because they think, for now, they have the situtation well under control for the population, in general. [do recall, however, they are refusing on the release of the Joannides documents quite actively!] Should that control perception change, they'd be very busy little beavers again, IMO. Additionally, a source, with connections to know, tells me they maintain a very high level of interest and monitor what is going as they always did and Tony has pointed out - as have others on this forum. It would be interesting to know when VB did get the JFK 'bug' and to follow it up with his work against Bush is an interesting duality or split rational perspective [or psyop]. IMO.

To quote Bugliosi from the Introduction to his book, "My professional interest in the Kennedy assassination dates back to March of 1986 when I was approached by a British Production Company, London Weekend Television, to prosecute Lee Harvey Oswald....."

This was the infamous "mock" trial in which Gerry Spence was the defense attorney.

It makes me wonder when and why "London Weekend Television" come up with the idea of prosecuting Oswald.

uggghh...could it be they thought it was an interesting project?

The program shown overseas was much longer than the drastically edited version shown in the states. Even so, one of the witnesses making it onto U.S. TV was Eddie Lopez, an HSCA investigator who concluded the CIA had been involved in impersonating Oswald in Mexico. He comes across as honest, but not bedrock. When watching his testimony, however, you can sense that his testimony was not too pleasing to certain people. This may account for this no doubt very costly program's never making it onto video or DVD, and only being shown a few times in the states (and not once after the release oif JFK, as far as I can tell). Every version in circulation that I am aware of was taped off someone's TV.

NOW, if you want to claim the CIA was involved in the overseas distribution of Beyond Conspiracy, we can talk. It seems more than coincidence that this fairly crappy program has been re-edited with replacement Peter Jennings' for international distribution. That's exactly the kind of thing the CIA would be involved in. It doesn't even violate their charter.

BTW, I read that Vince Palamara took his video off of Youtube. Evidently, he came to believe it was embarrassing. Hardly the behavior of a CIA mole.

[Tony Frank]

I'm inclined here to side more with Tony. I think the CIA's apparent low-level of activity and energy expenditure is only because they think, for now, they have the situtation well under control for the population, in general. [do recall, however, they are refusing on the release of the Joannides documents quite actively!] Should that control perception change, they'd be very busy little beavers again, IMO. Additionally, a source, with connections to know, tells me they maintain a very high level of interest and monitor what is going as they always did and Tony has pointed out - as have others on this forum. It would be interesting to know when VB did get the JFK 'bug' and to follow it up with his work against Bush is an interesting duality or split rational perspective [or psyop]. IMO.

To quote Bugliosi from the Introduction to his book, "My professional interest in the Kennedy assassination dates back to March of 1986 when I was approached by a British Production Company, London Weekend Television, to prosecute Lee Harvey Oswald....."

This was the infamous "mock" trial in which Gerry Spence was the defense attorney.

It makes me wonder when and why "London Weekend Television" come up with the idea of prosecuting Oswald.

uggghh...could it be they thought it was an interesting project?

The program shown overseas was much longer than the drastically edited version shown in the states. Even so, one of the witnesses making it onto U.S. TV was Eddie Lopez, an HSCA investigator who concluded the CIA had been involved in impersonating Oswald in Mexico. He comes across as honest, but not bedrock. When watching his testimony, however, you can sense that his testimony was not too pleasing to certain people. This may account for this no doubt very costly program's never making it onto video or DVD, and only being shown a few times in the states (and not once after the release oif JFK, as far as I can tell). Every version in circulation that I am aware of was taped off someone's TV.

NOW, if you want to claim the CIA was involved in the overseas distribution of Beyond Conspiracy, we can talk. It seems more than coincidence that this fairly crappy program has been re-edited with replacement Peter Jennings' for international distribution. That's exactly the kind of thing the CIA would be involved in. It doesn't even violate their charter.

BTW, I read that Vince Palamara took his video off of Youtube. Evidently, he came to believe it was embarrassing. Hardly the behavior of a CIA mole.

If Vince Palamara was a plant, he did what he was supposed to do and now he's made his exit from the stage. I would hardly call him a "mole" for the mundane task of amassing information on the USSS and then claiming Bugliosi has shown him the light regarding the assassination.