18-02-2013, 03:24 PM
Right on all counts, Jim.
Understand what Palamara is doing: He is arguing -- and there's no guesswork on my part here, because he comes right out and states it for the record -- that neither the Secret Service as an institution nor any member of it was involved in a conspiracy to assassinate JFK.
Palamara says that "gross negligence" alone accounts for the "failure" of the Secret Service to protect its client in Dallas.
At this point I'm not prepared to state that Palamara is a witting accessory to JFK's murder. Rather, he is a dupe. In my informed opinion he is emotionally disturbed -- a spineless egomaniac who rushes to support the most famous of his admirers even as he attempts to find common ground with those who support opposing viewpoints.
To wit: In this case, and with the straightest of straight faces, Palamara tells us that there were conspiracies to kill JFK but that Oswald acted alone before the conspirators could strike.
Absolute fucking insanity.
Come November, the enemy will prop up Palamara as a "conspiracy theorist" who has seen the light. His will be celebrated as a major defection from the CT ranks.
But again, don't take my word for it. I invite Palamara to come to DPF and share with us his current position vis a vis the JFK assassination.
I would advise against holding your breath.
Understand what Palamara is doing: He is arguing -- and there's no guesswork on my part here, because he comes right out and states it for the record -- that neither the Secret Service as an institution nor any member of it was involved in a conspiracy to assassinate JFK.
Palamara says that "gross negligence" alone accounts for the "failure" of the Secret Service to protect its client in Dallas.
At this point I'm not prepared to state that Palamara is a witting accessory to JFK's murder. Rather, he is a dupe. In my informed opinion he is emotionally disturbed -- a spineless egomaniac who rushes to support the most famous of his admirers even as he attempts to find common ground with those who support opposing viewpoints.
To wit: In this case, and with the straightest of straight faces, Palamara tells us that there were conspiracies to kill JFK but that Oswald acted alone before the conspirators could strike.
Absolute fucking insanity.
Come November, the enemy will prop up Palamara as a "conspiracy theorist" who has seen the light. His will be celebrated as a major defection from the CT ranks.
But again, don't take my word for it. I invite Palamara to come to DPF and share with us his current position vis a vis the JFK assassination.
I would advise against holding your breath.
Charles Drago
Co-Founder, Deep Politics Forum
If an individual, through either his own volition or events over which he had no control, found himself taking up residence in a country undefined by flags or physical borders, he could be assured of one immediate and abiding consequence: He was on his own, and solitude and loneliness would probably be his companions unto the grave.
-- James Lee Burke, Rain Gods
You can't blame the innocent, they are always guiltless. All you can do is control them or eliminate them. Innocence is a kind of insanity.
-- Graham Greene
Co-Founder, Deep Politics Forum
If an individual, through either his own volition or events over which he had no control, found himself taking up residence in a country undefined by flags or physical borders, he could be assured of one immediate and abiding consequence: He was on his own, and solitude and loneliness would probably be his companions unto the grave.
-- James Lee Burke, Rain Gods
You can't blame the innocent, they are always guiltless. All you can do is control them or eliminate them. Innocence is a kind of insanity.
-- Graham Greene