18-02-2013, 08:49 PM
Here's Vince "Sybil" Palamara attempting, in October 2012, to explain away his brief affair d'amour with Bugliosi:
"Slickly written and produced, these [LN] works CAN, albeit temporarily, cause one to ponder (and even, as was the case with Bugliosi's book, cause one to change his mind about the case!). I am on the record as stating (for about 6 months in 2007 only) that, although I STILL believed multiple conspiracies (PLURAL) were out to get Kennedy, Oswald beat them all to the punch; so powerful and persuasive was Bugliosi's tome at the time (apparently, ONLY to me at the time, but I digress!). WHY did Bugliosi sway me at the time? The reasons were varied- I was burned out on the case; I had personal life distractions; the powerful one-sided prosecutorial "brief" that wasn't (the book is massive- a cinder block, in fact); and, most of all, "the cult of personality": I was and still am a huge admirer of Vince Bugliosi- as a writer and former prosecutor. Henry Kissinger once famously said that "power is the ultimate aphrodisiac" and the power of celebrity (Fox News' Bill O'Reilly, former JFK Secret Service agent Gerald Blaine, Bugliosi, etc) can cause normally rationale people to think twice after reading an author of such stature.
"However, if someone as well-read and learned on this case---myself---can "return to normalcy" and see the light, one can see how the vast majority of the public, not assassination scholars attuned to all the nuts and bolts of the case, would be hard-pressed to be swayed from their original core beliefs no matter WHO is writing the book."
http://vpalamara.blogspot.com/2012/10/bi...-will.html
Palamara is pathetic in his self-confessed megalomania ("someone as well-read and learned on this case -- myself") and intellectual cowardice.
How did Bugliosi get Palamara to bend over forward for him? He did it the old fashioned, sure-fire way: he flattered the narcissist.
Again, from the letter dated 7/14/07, Bugliosi writes to Palamara:
"I want you to know that I am very impressed with your research abilities and the enormous amount of work you put into your investigation of the Secret Service regarding the assassination. You are, unquestionably, the main authority on the Secret Service with regard to the assassination. I agree with you that they did not do a good job protecting the president (e.g. see p. 1443 of my book)…"
http://vincepalamara.com/2012/02/10/vinc...ted-71407/
We'll know soon enough where Vincent the Bold stands. Will he stick to (or is that revert to?) his LN position in the new edition of his book? Will he attempt explain away Secret Service failures in Dealey Plaza as the simple consequences of professional ineptitude?
Will the answers to these and related questions be functions of medications and dosages?
Stay tuned ...
"Slickly written and produced, these [LN] works CAN, albeit temporarily, cause one to ponder (and even, as was the case with Bugliosi's book, cause one to change his mind about the case!). I am on the record as stating (for about 6 months in 2007 only) that, although I STILL believed multiple conspiracies (PLURAL) were out to get Kennedy, Oswald beat them all to the punch; so powerful and persuasive was Bugliosi's tome at the time (apparently, ONLY to me at the time, but I digress!). WHY did Bugliosi sway me at the time? The reasons were varied- I was burned out on the case; I had personal life distractions; the powerful one-sided prosecutorial "brief" that wasn't (the book is massive- a cinder block, in fact); and, most of all, "the cult of personality": I was and still am a huge admirer of Vince Bugliosi- as a writer and former prosecutor. Henry Kissinger once famously said that "power is the ultimate aphrodisiac" and the power of celebrity (Fox News' Bill O'Reilly, former JFK Secret Service agent Gerald Blaine, Bugliosi, etc) can cause normally rationale people to think twice after reading an author of such stature.
"However, if someone as well-read and learned on this case---myself---can "return to normalcy" and see the light, one can see how the vast majority of the public, not assassination scholars attuned to all the nuts and bolts of the case, would be hard-pressed to be swayed from their original core beliefs no matter WHO is writing the book."
http://vpalamara.blogspot.com/2012/10/bi...-will.html
Palamara is pathetic in his self-confessed megalomania ("someone as well-read and learned on this case -- myself") and intellectual cowardice.
How did Bugliosi get Palamara to bend over forward for him? He did it the old fashioned, sure-fire way: he flattered the narcissist.
Again, from the letter dated 7/14/07, Bugliosi writes to Palamara:
"I want you to know that I am very impressed with your research abilities and the enormous amount of work you put into your investigation of the Secret Service regarding the assassination. You are, unquestionably, the main authority on the Secret Service with regard to the assassination. I agree with you that they did not do a good job protecting the president (e.g. see p. 1443 of my book)…"
http://vincepalamara.com/2012/02/10/vinc...ted-71407/
We'll know soon enough where Vincent the Bold stands. Will he stick to (or is that revert to?) his LN position in the new edition of his book? Will he attempt explain away Secret Service failures in Dealey Plaza as the simple consequences of professional ineptitude?
Will the answers to these and related questions be functions of medications and dosages?
Stay tuned ...
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