New article at KENNEDYS & KING: JFK Secret Service Agent Paul Landis Makes a Big Splash In 2023...But How Credible Is He?

[Vince Palamara]

JFK Secret Service Agent Paul Landis Makes a Big Splash In 2023 Ahead of the 60th Anniversary of the Kennedy Assassination, But How Credible Is He? (kennedysandking.com)

[Joe Bauer]

Fascinating essay.

Covers so many unanswered questions with well researched facts and well reasoned thoughts and contemplation.

Typically well documented.

Best review of Landis' book.

May I quote a section?

I'll erase this if there is any problem.

• Did the trauma overwhelm him for six decades?
• The reason for why his total silence is not believable (or "understandable") is because at the time Landis did what he said he did with that bullet,
•  
• >>> he had absolutely no knowledge or information about any of the details concerning the assassination.<<<
•  
• >>> He had no idea who Oswald was at that time, and he had no idea if a conspiracy might be involved. He knew nothing at that point.<<<
•  
• >>>And yet he tells NOBODY about finding and moving an important piece of evidence like a bullet?! <<<
•  
• >>> Such dead silence by a member of the U.S. Secret Service (or anyone in law enforcement) in such a situation is completely beyond belief, not to mention totally irresponsible on Landis' part. <<<

Right on Vince!

•  
• And, in my opinion, even if it had been days or weeks or months later that he had somehow come across a piece of new evidence connected with JFK's death, it still would not be at all "perfectly understandable" that he would just keep completely silent about encountering such a piece of potentially vital evidence in the case of a murdered President.
•  
• Vince, I think it is possible Landis was overwhelmed by it all. Only 26 years old. He had not seen combat or even death from what I have read.
• He mentioned he was afraid to look at JFK exploded head out of a fear it would make him sick.
• Still, you hit on such a coherent point.
• Landis didn't know anything about anything during those first minutes of the shooting and the following Parkland chaos.
• As shook up as he may have been, imo someone of his young duty experience would just act on a "following orders" instincts and not question what was right or wrong in his actions that day.
• From his book story he feared his actions may have in some way made him vulnerable to wrong doing questioning?
• So he pockets the bullet he finds, surreptitiously plants it on a stretcher and tells no one of his actions for years afterwards?         
• He explained motives for not telling anyone about finding and planting the bullet don't make sense. Like he feared his own agency more than anyone else?   

 

 

Edited November 2, 2023 by Joe Bauer

[David Von Pein]

On 11/1/2023 at 10:01 PM, Vince Palamara said:

JFK Secret Service Agent Paul Landis Makes a Big Splash In 2023 Ahead of the 60th Anniversary of the Kennedy Assassination, But How Credible Is He? (kennedysandking.com)

Vince,

Thanks for the link to your Landis book review.

But I have a big problem with the fact that you have (perhaps unintentionally?) taken a large chunk of my writing and then placed it in your book review as if you had written it yourself. And you've also placed no footnote of any kind after the words that I definitely wrote to indicate the true source of that paragraph.

The paragraph in question (which was originally written by me at this forum on September 12, 2023 -- HERE'S THE E.F. LINK) begins with the words "The reason for why his total silence is not believable". ---- [Click.] *

* Please note that Joe Bauer, in his reply above, obviously thinks that that particular paragraph (which Bauer himself quoted in his post) was, indeed, written by Vincent Palamara, with Mr. Bauer's reply to much of that paragraph being, "Right on Vince!"

I understand that mistakes and "source" oversights can happen. They happen to me in my writings too. And you, Vince, say in your book review (via a source note) that you had the help of K.K. Lane in putting together your list of questions for Paul Landis (with the part that I wrote appearing as your last "bullet point" item on that list in your review). So maybe K.K. Lane provided you with my quote for you to use in your review, and you (perhaps?) thought that the quote was something that Lane himself had written??

Could that be the explanation for why I'm finding a pretty good-sized amount of my written words within an article with only Vince Palamara's name on it??

Anyway, if you, Vince, would simply add a footnote to my quote that goes directly to this EF Forum post (or to this webpage from my blog, which contains the same quote plus lots of other informative stuff about the Landis topic), that would satisfy me. And, btw, I'm pleased and flattered that you would want to use some of my written words in your own review. I just don't think it's right to pass those words off as your own. (As I'm sure you'll agree.)

Thanks, Vince.

Regards,

DVP

[FEB. 2024 EDIT --- As of February 21, 2024, Palamara's article hasn't been changed or edited to reflect the fact that I wrote a portion of it. I can only shrug and wonder why this is so.]

 

Edited February 22 by David Von Pein

[Greg Doudna]

I am struck by the detail (i have not seen the book, am going by Palamara's report on it in the review) that Landis was at the Cellar the night before and says he got no sleep. Not just inadequate sleep but goes on duty to protect the president on no sleep the night before. That should have been a stand-alone firing offense, and this is not meant to not acknowledge that Landis himself may have felt deep remorse in the years since over that and other things, and if he is now coming forth with delayed truth on some things that is good for history.  

Other comments: to me what Landis thinks or doesn't think about front or rear shots or who killed JFK is not too interesting. Everybody was guessing anyway about who killed JFK and relying on other reporting on that, who cares what Landis's theory was, all that matters is what Landis said he saw or heard personally, specifically concerning the bullet.

Its hard to tell but it seems to me ca. 50% favorable that Landis's bullet story hangs together and could be true, which isn't very comfortable because the human mind hates that kind of uncertainty and wants to fall one way or the other, like a quantum collapse, uncertainty is unstable. He says the reason he picked it up and put it in his pocket is he was afraid of other people around taking that precious evidence as a souvenir if he just left it there out in the open, which has a certain ring of plausibility to it as far as that goes. He was inexperienced in the sense that was his first time on a presidential security detail (although had been through training courses). He says he could not find anyone around to whom to give it or tell him what to do, and even if Kellerman was there in some photos in the confusion maybe not available at the moment Landis wanted to find him or check with him? Could this be a picture of a frightened (not to mention sleep-deprived) newbie on the Secret Service detail winging it moment-by-moment, fearful of getting in trouble for having done the wrong thing, later "minimizing" what he did by calling it a "fragment" instead of a "bullet"? 

The one major red flag in the story to me is if the bullet story was true I can imagine Landis in the confusion doing what he did and maybe even not initially reporting it out of fear or knowledge that he had made mistakes. But what I find hard to imagine is he would not in the coming weeks at some point realize overwhelmingly that he must tell someone about it, how important it was that he must tell what had happened.

On the other hand if he saw the bullet had been recovered and entered into evidence, he might reason that they had the evidence and did not need his story which would get him into big, big trouble if he were to tell it, basically suicidal to his career and reputation--both for the content of his story (his actions and the broken chain of custody issues) and the delay in telling and failure to disclose earlier when he should have, even worse.

So the scenario would be of an insecure new agent, sleep deprived and inexperienced who in the heat of circumstances made some wrong decisions and acts in the moment, may have covered that up or failed to disclose out of self-interest ... told versions of the truth in the years going forward ... like a deathbed confession tells the full truth in his final years, today.

But, how is it known Landis did not actually tell someone else, or others, early on, even if he does not say that in his book? Imagine if he had, say, a couple of weeks later, in trepidation told someone higher up in the Secret Service chain of command, confessed everything? How would that have played out, hypothetically? We would hope the Secret Service would have reported it to the FBI and Warren Commission. But think about it: it wasn't just Landis that reflected badly on, it was the Secret Service itself. An alternative possibility is Landis had his ears blistered by how much damage he threatened to cause the Secret Service, how they could do xyz with criminal charges against him, the works, and was allowed to resign quietly six months later if he did not publicize it (since the FBI by that time already had the bullet, reasoning "no harm done"). But if something like that scenario had run out, Landis's "deathbed confession" of the current book one would think ought to have told that too, which it does not (from any reports of it). So, who knows what the full truth is. 

Edited November 2, 2023 by Greg Doudna

[Vince Palamara]

14 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

Vince,

Thanks for the link to your Landis book review.

But I have a big problem with the fact that you have (perhaps unintentionally?) taken a large chunk of my writing and then placed it in your book review as if you had written it yourself. And you've also placed no footnote of any kind after the words that I definitely wrote to indicate the true source of that paragraph.

The paragraph in question (which was originally written by me at this forum on September 12, 2023 -- HERE'S THE E.F. LINK) begins with the words "The reason for why his total silence is not believable". ---- [Click.] *

* Please note that Joe Bauer, in his reply above, obviously thinks that that particular paragraph (which Bauer himself quoted in his post) was, indeed, written by Vincent Palamara, with Mr. Bauer's reply to much of that paragraph being, "Right on Vince!"

I understand that mistakes and "source" oversights can happen. They happen to me in my writings too. And you, Vince, say in your book review (via a source note) that you had the help of K.K. Lane in putting together your list of questions for Paul Landis (with the part that I wrote appearing as your last "bullet point" item on that list in your review). So maybe K.K. Lane provided you with my quote for you to use in your review, and you (perhaps?) thought that the quote was something that Lane himself had written??

Could that be the explanation for why I'm finding a pretty good-sized amount of my written words within an article with only Vince Palamara's name on it??

Anyway, if you, Vince, would simply add a footnote to my quote that goes directly to this EF Forum post (or to this webpage from my blog, which contains the same quote plus lots of other informative stuff about the Landis topic), that would satisfy me. And, btw, I'm pleased and flattered that you would want to use some of my written words in your own review. I just don't think it's right to pass those words off as your own. (As I'm sure you'll agree.)

Thanks, Vince.

Regards,

DVP

 

Sorry about that, Dave. I didn't realize or I simply forgot that your comments/info were contained in K.K. Lane's inventory. A footnote should be added soon.

Edited November 2, 2023 by Vince Palamara

[Ron Bulman]

Landis is full of horse dooky.  AIC Emory Roberts ordered them all "not to move".  Clint Hill disobeyed.  Agent John Ready on the right of Agent in Charge Roberts, riding shotgun in the follow up car stepped off to run to JFK but was told by Roberts to get back on the running board.  The kid, 26 year old Landis standing behind Ready, never left the running board.

Tell me if I'm wrong Vince, please, others as well.

[Benjamin Cole]

Jim Robenalt, who was not a LN'er, says he finds Paul Landis credible, and believes him. He has been working with Landis on the book, and has socialized with Landis. 

Obviously, Robenalt knows Landis much better than anyone in EF-JFKA. 

Robenalt, a well-regarded lawyer, even hosted a forum in 2013 featuring Howard Willens and Burt Griffin, and was very cordial to them (they are staunch WC supporters). 

If the back wound in JFK did not transit the body, and was in fact shallow...that may explain the slug found by Paul Landis. 

It is interesting that one of the three WC 6.5 cartridges found in the TSBD had very minor dent in the lip (nose) of the cartridge. 

I am early on researching this, but such minor deformation is consistent with "hand-loading" of a cartridge. LHO (or other party) evidently only had four cartridges. Perhaps short on ammo, a cartridge was hand-loaded amateurishly, and thus under-powered. 

There were gun shops, even in the Dallas area, that hand-loaded the WC 6.5 ammo. Hand-loading is a thing with target-shooters and others, to save money. 

So, the "dented" cartridge, aka shell, hull, could have been a defective hand-loaded round, that fired off about ~600-700 fps (less than one-third normal muzzle velocity), striking JFK at 50-60 yards and penetrating only an inch or two. 

The slug then popped out when JFK was struck again, and a shock wave passed through JFK's body. The WC 6.5 slug is one-and-one quarter inch long. 

At this point, I am leaning towards believing Landis' recollection. 

 

 

[Cliff Varnell]

2 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

So, the "dented" cartridge, aka shell, hull, could have been a defective hand-loaded round, that fired off about ~600-700 fps (less than one-third normal muzzle velocity), striking JFK at 50-60 yards and penetrating only an inch or two. 

The slug then popped out when JFK was struck again, and a shock wave passed through JFK's body. The WC 6.5 slug is one-and-one quarter inch long. 

Ben Cole is determined to ignore the fact that JFK reacted to the throat shot first, and according to SSA Glen Bennett’s well corroborated contemporaneous account the back shot immediately preceded the head shot, around 90 yards away.

Ben routinely ignores evidence he can’t spin to fit his pet theories.

 

Edited November 3, 2023 by Cliff Varnell

[David Von Pein]

7 hours ago, Vince Palamara said:

Sorry about that, Dave. I didn't realize or I simply forgot that your comments/info were contained in K.K. Lane's inventory. A footnote should be added soon.

Thank you, Vince.

 

[Benjamin Cole]

1 hour ago, Cliff Varnell said:

Ben Cole is determined to ignore the fact that JFK reacted to the throat shot first, and according to SSA Glen Bennett’s well corroborated contemporaneous account the back shot immediately preceded the head shot, around 90 yards away.

Ben routinely ignores evidence he can’t spin to fit his pet theories.

 

CV-

We are on different pages on this one. 

The EF-JFKA would welcome your exposition on the events of 11/22, and how the Landis revelations play out in them. 

I gather we disagree, but so it goes. 

[Greg Doudna]

Another theoretical possibility: might Landis have opportunistically surreptitiously taken that bullet as a souvenir item himself (with a flash in mind of how significant or monetarily valuable it might be?), then overwhelmed by second thoughts (knowing that was wrong) minutes later slipped the bullet on to the stretcher (where it was found to become CE 399)? Under that scenario, that could account for his not telling any other agent at the time? Or reporting it in his written reports? 

[Cliff Varnell]

1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:

CV-

We are on different pages on this one.

No Ben, it doesn’t come down to a difference of opinion.  You make a claim — first shot/back shot — contradicted by the evidence: The Zfilm shows JFK responding to a throat shot first; Bennett placed the back wound right before the headshot — 90 yards away, not 50 -60.

You don’t get to make stuff up and insist it’s true without getting called on it.

 

Edited November 3, 2023 by Cliff Varnell

[Benjamin Cole]

27 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

No Ben, it doesn’t come down to a difference of opinion.  You make a claim — first shot/back shot — contradicted by the evidence: The Zfilm shows JFK responding to a throat shot first; Bennett placed the back wound right before the headshot — 90 yards away, not 50 -60.

You don’t get to make stuff up and insist it’s true without getting called on it.

 

CV-

I am presenting my view, and respecting the view of others. 

Not that numbers make right, but many JFKA researchers and witnesses agree with this 11/22 chain of events: JFK shot, JBC shot, then, quickly, JFK again. 

You may disagree with that chain of events. That is fine. Let us know your views. 

You should try for a cordial, collegial tone. 

[Cliff Varnell]

2 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

CV-

I am presenting my view, and respecting the view of others. 

I don’t respect people making things up.

2 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Not that numbers make right, but many JFKA researchers and witnesses agree with this 11/22 chain of events: JFK shot, JBC shot, then, quickly, JFK again. 

JFK shot in the throat, JBC shot, JFK shot in the back, then the head.  You insist the first shot hit his back but the Zfilm and Bennett’s account prove otherwise.

2 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

You may disagree with that chain of events. That is fine. Let us know your views. 

I’ve repeatedly cited the evidence debunking your claim and you continue to ignore it.  Why should you get a pass?

2 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

You should try for a cordial, collegial tone. 

You should try and get your facts straight.

[Benjamin Cole]

7 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

I don’t respect people making things up.

JFK shot in the throat, JBC shot, JFK shot in the back, then the head.  You insist the first shot hit his back but the Zfilm and Bennett’s account prove otherwise.

I’ve repeatedly cited the evidence debunking your claim and you continue to ignore it.  Why should you get a pass?

You should try and get your facts straight.

That's your view, and you are entitled to it. 

You have the last word.