Vince "But Enough About Me -- What Do You Think of My Hair?" Palamara is now touting touting touting his upcoming book all over The Swamp -- a/k/a/ the EF.
Come on over to Deep Politics Forum, Vince. You have the privilege to start a thread here on which an open discussion of you and your work can take place.
C'mon, man. Take a mega-dose of Growacet and have at it!
What have you got to hide?
If you don't speak for yourself, I'll speak for you ...
Where are you, man?
Bueller ... Bueller ... Bueller ...
Charles Drago Wrote:Peter Lemkin Wrote:Charles Drago Wrote:Nicely put, Peter.
So would I.
I should mention that when Palamara was in the throes of writing the first iteration of his book, George Michael Evica took it upon himself to offer and deliver very significant assistance. Palamara even added G.M.'s "third alternative" construction to the title of the book.
Palamara has stabbed George Michael in the back.
Come forward, Palamara. You will be given free and full access to DPF to make your case and to clarify your positions.
Come forward. Speak for yourself.
Bueller ... Bueller ... Bueller ...
At the time you mention Palamara was a very young.....there is all too much parallel with the strange case of Mark Zaid....were they both trained as the same kind of kiddie-infiltrators of the JFK-Truth Camp? While I take nothing away from your statement of VP stabbing GME in the back, I believe many of us, in fact all of us have been so stabbed, as well......
Agreed again, Peter. "Kiddie-infiltrators" indeed.
The Zaid comparison is particularly apt.
(Wasn't it a kick in the head to see Zaid all over Mohammed al Fayed in the immediate aftermath of the Diana hit?)
Yes, we've all been stabbed by Palamara. But now it's our turn.
Is this the same Mark Zaid?
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Mark_S._Zaid
The quotes from Vince Palamara regarding his conversion to lone nutterism are several years old. I recall how upset most of us were when he claimed to have been persuaded by Bugliosi's magnus ridiculotus, and I never believed he truly thought Oswald had done it. Regardless, he has repudiated what he said then, and has returned from his brief flirtation with the dark side.
I can't pretend to understand why he did what he did, but Vince has always been very helpful to other researchers. He shared his work for free online for many years. His research on the Secret Service was enormously important, and showed quite clearly that JFK never interfered with the agents in any way, let alone ordered them off the back of the limousine. He certainly strongly criticized the self-serving fluffery produced in the past few years by "authors" Gerald Blaine and Clint Hill. He may not have intended to do so, but his interviews revealed that those who were sworn to protect JFK were complicit in the crime.
I think he's wrong to claim that the agent waving at Love Field was Donald Lawton- I'm quite certain it was Henry Rybka. However, no matter what his own conclusions may be, his work on the Secret Service has been of invaluable assistance to all of us. Unless he pulls another switch and promotes the idea that Oswald acted alone again, or does a dramatic editing job, I think we should all celebrate the publication of his book.
Quote:Is this the same Mark Zaid?
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Mark_S._Zaid
Yes, Magda...that Zaid, who came to the yearly JFK conventions playing the role of those trying to expose the horrible lie of the WC and official version, et al..... I believe i remember him 'thinking up' legal challenges to help free up documents etc. [none of which he carried through on]. Then when he finished law school, he was working, essentially, for the other side - and rose suspiciously fast into a big law firm handling high-profile cases - often on National Security matters where he almost always supported/sided with the Government and its agencies against revealing state secrets etc. Many of us felt not so much that he had turned, but that he was an infiltrator all along...but only Mark knows...and he's not talking..he 'lawyered up'.:popworm: He came a few years I was there...he was very young and acted sincerely interested in exposing the Big Lie...which he now makes Big Money supporting.
There were many strange things going on those years...one year in the same hotel...in an adjoining ballroom former SS men were having a 'reunion'.
Also, a very high profile National Security related Aviation expert befriended me at the Convention under a false name. As we lived somewhat near each other and had become friends during the Convention, he gave me a contact phone number. I did eventually go many times to his home and even into one of this production plants [though I hadn't the security clearance to do so].....he had a genuine interest in the JFK case and had had several of the living suspects at his home at times [Gordon Novel was a regular]...along with a few researchers such as I. I've never revealed his name - yet...as it is a very famous one. One night after spending the day looking at a top secret drone, and spending the night at his lovely home, he left in the morning for D.C. for a top-secret meeting with Military 'brass'. It was a bit odd. All I know is though he seemed to be my friend, when the shit hit the fan and all my money and property were seized [on a phony trumped-up civil case; but really because of my JFK work] he refused to even answer my calls for help [how did he know it was me? - these were land line phones in the days before mobiles! He had his wife lie and say he was in Argentina, hiding, due to his association with me - he was not.] The time will come. The time will come.
Don Jeffries Wrote:The quotes from Vince Palamara regarding his conversion to lone nutterism are several years old. I recall how upset most of us were when he claimed to have been persuaded by Bugliosi's magnus ridiculotus, and I never believed he truly thought Oswald had done it. Regardless, he has repudiated what he said then, and has returned from his brief flirtation with the dark side.
I can't pretend to understand why he did what he did, but Vince has always been very helpful to other researchers. He shared his work for free online for many years. His research on the Secret Service was enormously important, and showed quite clearly that JFK never interfered with the agents in any way, let alone ordered them off the back of the limousine. He certainly strongly criticized the self-serving fluffery produced in the past few years by "authors" Gerald Blaine and Clint Hill. He may not have intended to do so, but his interviews revealed that those who were sworn to protect JFK were complicit in the crime.
I think he's wrong to claim that the agent waving at Love Field was Donald Lawton- I'm quite certain it was Henry Rybka. However, no matter what his own conclusions may be, his work on the Secret Service has been of invaluable assistance to all of us. Unless he pulls another switch and promotes the idea that Oswald acted alone again, or does a dramatic editing job, I think we should all celebrate the publication of his book.
Don, as I posted above, I agree that much of his work is important and helps 'our' cause and case against the official version...no matter what his ever changing views on the case as a whole. However, if as the thread seems to imply the new version will attempt to conclude that the SS was just incompetent, rather than complicit, I'd not want it even for a doorstop....I'll stick with his original materials. Is he still posting at EF and if so what is he saying of his position these days?!
I've read all of Survivor's Guilt online. Unless Vince and/or his publisher appreciably changes the material, readers will reach the inescapable conclusion that JFK's Secret Service detail made his assassination possible. Again, unless the text is altered extensively, the book will clearly leave the impression that there was a conspiracy.
Vince doesn't post often at the EF. When he does, it's usually to promote something he wrote or put on you tube, or to answer someone's questions. However, he did answer Charles on Facebook, and reaffirmed that his infatuation with Bugliosi's book was only a temporary thing. I think it's obvious he now once again believes there was a conspiracy.
Don Jeffries Wrote:I've read all of Survivor's Guilt online. Unless Vince and/or his publisher appreciably changes the material, readers will reach the inescapable conclusion that JFK's Secret Service detail made his assassination possible. Again, unless the text is altered extensively, the book will clearly leave the impression that there was a conspiracy.
Vince doesn't post often at the EF. When he does, it's usually to promote something he wrote or put on you tube, or to answer someone's questions. However, he did answer Charles on Facebook, and reaffirmed that his infatuation with Bugliosi's book was only a temporary thing. I think it's obvious he now once again believes there was a conspiracy.
And herein lies the problem with Chicken Vince.
"JFK's Secret Service detail made his assassination possible" is a fatally ambiguous statement. Are the suspect actions and inactions of the detail the products of ineptitude and negligence, or do they represent the work of witting assassination conspirators?
Also meaningless is the claim that Palamara's book "will clearly leave the impression that there was a conspiracy."
"Leave the impression"???
Fifty years later, and a self-described "learned" student of JFK's murder is pussyfooting around, "leaving impressions"???
Will Palamara maintain his "both ways" stance: namely, numerous conspiracies were in the works to take out JFK, but Oswald "beat them to it" by acting alone?
As for Palamara "answering me" on Facebook: He first unfriended and blocked me from access to his material -- the actions of a physical and intellectual coward and a cheapjack hustler.
If Palamara wants to answer me, then let him come here and make his case.
I promise you, Palamara's days of having it both ways have come to an end.
Ok, Charlie: enough already; geez. I f*cked up, ok? This was 6 years ago in early 2007 when I wasn't thinking clearly and was easily swayed, as a) I was burnt out on the case and b) was seriously thinking of chucking it all for good at that time- I was young and vulnerable and, at that juncture, had basically had enough. NOT that this is an excuse, per se…but it is what it is, whether you, they, or anyone else likes it or not.
I wasand still ama huge admirer of Vincent Bugliosi for his books, especially those relating to OJ Simpson and the Charles Manson case, to name but a couple. Did I truly, in my heart of hearts, make a body-and-soul "conversion" at that time? No…it bothered me then and it bothers me still that I could have been "had", so to speak. I DID try to have it both ways at the time because I did (in 2007), and still do (2013), truly believe that there were multiple (plural) forces at work to kill JFK…just that---yik: I hated to say this then (as I even told Vince B on the phone several times) and I STILL DO---Bugliosi had me convinced, at the time (2007), that Oswald beat them---those aforementioned multiple conspiracies--- to the punch (remember, AT THE TIME: not now). Say what you want about Bugliosi's book, but, as even Dr David Mantik conceded, it is the best Oswald-acted-alone book ever written, (many) warts and all.
If I am "guilty" of anything, it is being too open-minded (some may say gullible and too trusting, too): I am not wedded to a particular theory. As far as the huge ego thing, I am actually really humble in person, no matter what bravado I spew online: after all, I work for a living and am far from rich. If having an ego is a crime, many of us would be locked up. That said, I am a very giving person, making much of my research available to people for nothing for many years, as well as gladly helping countless people out. I am a giver, not a taker.
Fast forward 6 months later, STILL in 2007:I began to have serious "buyer's regret" over my new stance on the case- I wasn't thinking clearly at the time, having been a combination of "starstruck" about Vince B and jaded on the case. Even though I am on record since at least the October 1995 COPA conference (on video and on You Tube: check it out) as stating that "Oswald or no Oswald, conspiracy or no conspiracy, my work still holds up", I want to state for the record:
I do believe there was a conspiracy and Oswald, if he acted at all, did not act alone. If you doubt my sincerity or do not care, so be it…again, it is what it is.
What ultimately "set me straight" ---tantamount to a virtual slap in the face (which I am sure Charlie would love to deliver in person!)----were the outstanding books by Douglas Horne [ all 5] (who actually takes me to task IN his one volume about my temporary reversal!) and Jim Douglass: see my Amazon reviews for the world to see.
Fast forward to 2013:
It would appear the only person not satisfied with my apology and contrition is Charles Drago. What can I say except I am sorry, it was a mistake, I am human, no one is perfect, and I am on record---many times---as stating these feelings and my rationale for my reversal at the time (i.e. my Amazon review of Horne's books). If you are that insecure that another person's temporary reversal alarms you, perhaps you need a bit of counseling and mentoring. I personally could care less, Charlie, what your beliefs are---it's a free country and you are entitled to your opinion.
My book is very Pro Conspiracy friendly and it NOT in the LHO/ lone-nutter camp; just the opposite (it was written as if my temporary reversal of mind NEVER even happened, a very telling sign that, again, I had trouble with my own temporary reversal of opinion on the case, as no revision of thought exists therein. You may have trouble over the semantics of the word "failure", but that has been part of the subtitle for many moons and I do not see the contradiction).
So there you have it: right or wrong, whether you are "satisfied" or not, there is my explanation and my sincere apology (once again). If you don't find me credible and don't wish to deal with me, that is fine; I'll live. All I can say is: it is your loss, not mine. Regardless of one's (changing) conclusions, there is often much of value to offer from one's PRIMARY research, whether direct or indirect. Again, I have a lot to offer and, as with someone's political persuasion (or ethic background, religion, etc), I never thought there was a "litmus test" for helping other people.
It is time to move on…ok, Charlie? You got your pound of flesh now. If you want to beat a dead horse and repeat your righteous indignation over and over and over again, ad nauseum, this is your forum: go for it. If my apology and explanation is not good enough for you, there is 0.0 I can do about that. To quote Kevin Costner in "JFK": "It's up to you." Vince Palamara
For the record, as someone who has studied the Manson family extensively, my considered judgement is that Bugliosi's Helter Skelter case and book are the equivalent of a limited hangout.
The dangerous dark truth about the moulding of the traumatised petty thief and convict Manson, and his ONI handler and supplier, was excised from history.
A stupid mythology about race war was sold to the public, and the truly gulity avoided the limelight.
To peddle that limp old phrase which defines this officially sanctioned genre: CASE CLOSED.
Charlie, I think you are too caught up obsessing over semantics, pouring over the (hidden, or so you seem to think) "meaning" of every nuance and word I use.
And why do you care that I unfriended and blocked you on Facebook? You aren't acting like a friend and posting venom will not be tolerated on my site.
To sum up:
I made a mistake in judgement endorsing Bugliosi's book, I am sorry, I believe there was a conspiracy, and my book reflects that belief.
Vince
(Charlie--"what do you mean: "reflect"??? huh???")