19-02-2013, 07:17 PM
(This post was last modified: 19-02-2013, 07:34 PM by Vince Palamara.)
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
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