I don’t have enough followers to get verified on Facebook, Twitter or Instagram, but I DID get verified on Google.

About vincepalamara

Vincent Palamara was born in Pittsburgh and graduated from Duquesne University with a degree in Sociology. Although not even born when President John F. Kennedy was assassinated, Vince brings fresh eyes to an old case. In fact, Vince would go on to study the largely overlooked actions - and inactions - of the United States Secret Service in unprecedented detail, as well as achieving a world's record in the process, having interviewed and corresponded with over 80 former agents (the House Select Committee on Assassinations had the old record of 46 with a 6 million dollar budget and subpoena power from Congress), not to mention many surviving family members, White House aides, and even quite a few Parkland and Bethesda medical witnesses for a corresponding project. The result was Survivor's Guilt: The Secret Service & The Failure To Protect President Kennedy. Vince is also the author of the books JFK: From Parkland To Bethesda, The Not-So-Secret Service, Who's Who in the Secret Service, and Honest Answers about the Murder of President John F. Kennedy: A New Look at the JFK Assassination. All told, Vince has been favorably mentioned in over 140 JFK and Secret Service related books to date (including two whole chapters in Murder in Dealey Plaza, The Secret Service: The Hidden History Of An Enigmatic Agency by Philip Melanson, and the Final Report of the Assassination Records Review Board, among many others), often at length, in the bibliographies, and in the Secret Service - and even medical evidence - areas of these works. Vince has appeared on the History Channel's THE MEN WHO KILLED KENNEDY (VHS and DVD), C-SPAN, Newsmax TV, A COUP IN CAMELOT (DVD/BLU RAY), KING KILL '63, THE MAN BEHIND THE SUIT (DVD), National Geographic's JFK: THE FINAL HOURS (including on DVD), PCN, BPTV, local cable access television, YouTube, radio, newspapers, print journals, at national conferences, and all over the internet. Also, Vince's original research materials, or copies of said materials, are stored in the National Archives (by request under Deed Of Gift by the ARRB), the John F. Kennedy Presidential Library, Harvard University, the Assassination Archives and Research Center, and the Dallas Public Library. Vince Palamara has become known (as he was dubbed by the History Channel in 2003) "the Secret Service expert." As former JFK Secret Service agent Joe Paolella proclaimed: "You seem to know a lot about the Secret Service, maybe even more than I do!" Agent Dan Emmett calls Vince a Secret Service expert in his new book.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.


  1. Larry Adams says:

    Thanks for the updates. Hope you liked what I sent about Thomas Bowe.

    Looks like you have read Zero Fail….I am still reading it.

    Regards Larry

  2. Steve McManaman says:

    Hey Vince, I’ve enjoyed your book Honest Answers. I have a question for you. My brother and I started studying the JFK assassination since the beginning of Covid. We(we’re both on our 60s) had both been on the “it was probably a conspiracy” side for a few years. It just seemed obvious. But he chose to start with Bugliosi’s book. After reading the introduction he told me that’s it, there’s no chance a conspiracy was possible. I wasn’t able to get the book myself because the library here was closed during Covid but I was able to download DiEugenio’s Reclaiming Parkland so my brother and I were coming at it from opposite places.
    When I finally was able to get Bugliosi I read the introduction and was not anywhere near as impressed as my brother. The thing that got him was this part of Bugliosi’s intro:

    “If we’re to believe Oglesby, our current federal government (as well as all previous ones since 1963) is engaged in a conspiracy to cover up the truth in the assassination. Apparently, then, such distinguished Americans as Chief Justice Earl Warren, Senators John Sherman Cooper and Richard B. Russell, Representatives Gerald Ford and Hale Boggs, former CIA director Allen Dulles and former president of the World Bank John J. McCloy (the members of the Warren Commission), as well as the Commission’s general counsel, J. Lee Rankin, a former solicitor general of the United States, and fourteen prominent members of the American Bar (assistant counsels to the Commission), people of impeccable honor and reputation, got together in some smoky backroom and all of them agreed, for some ungodly reason, to do the most dishonorable deed imaginable—give organized crime, the CIA, the military-industrial complex, or whoever was behind the assassination, a free pass in the murder of the president of the United States. And in the process, not only risk destroying everything they had worked for—their reputation and legacy to their families—but expose themselves to prosecution for the crime of accessory after the fact to murder. Ask yourself this: would Earl Warren, for instance, risk being remembered as the chief justice of the United States Supreme Court who was an accessory after the fact to the murder of this nation’s president, one who disgraced himself, his country, and the highest court in the land? The mere asking of the question demonstrates the absurdity of the thought. As political columnist Charles Krauthammer put it, it is preposterous to believe that “Earl Warren, a liberal so principled that he would not countenance the conviction of one Ernesto Miranda [of Miranda v. Arizona fame] on the grounds that police had neglected to read him his rights, was an accessory to a fascist coup d’etat.”22 Indeed, why would any of the members of the Warren Commission and their staff stake their good reputation on a report they prepared which they knew to be fraudulent?* And if the conspiracy to kill Kennedy was as obvious as conspiracy theorists want us to believe, how then could the Warren Commission members have had any confidence that the conspiracy’s existence would not have surfaced in the future?”

    After that there was no chance he would even consider that Oswald may have been innocent, or a patsy, sheep dipped, or whatever. What it seems to me is that with this intro Bugliosi creates the lens through which the reader sees the rest of the case. That is using the a priori fallacy; starting with assumptions before looking at any evidence in the case. We’re in a big debate now where I’m saying just look at the evidence but he’s saying you have to look at the whole picture and what it would mean, how plausible is a conspiracy given all the above about Warren risking his reputation etc.? I’m just curious. I know you contributed a lot to the secret service end of the case but then you read Bugliosi and were convinced yourself and now you’re back to it being a conspiracy. So, what was it about Bugliosi that convinced you for a time?

    • I was in the perfect position to be persuaded by Bugliosi’s argument at the time: side-tracked and burned out on the case. If one doesn’t do a deep dive at the evidence and chooses the easy way out, the official story is tailor-made to bring satisfaction. It took DiEugenio, Horne and Douglass (primarily) to knock me back to my senses. I was also an unabashed Bugliosi fanboy, so I fell victim to the cult of personality. My book is MY answe/rebuttal/dispensation for my brief turn to the dark side. 15 years after my brief 2007 swoon, my book demonstrates why that was an error on my part. I am not the only one- just as several former lone-nutters became pro-conspiracy, I am among a few pro-conspiracy people who briefly switched to the dark side. It merely means we have an open mind and aren’t wedded to any theory.

      • Steve McManaman says:

        Thanks a lot Vince. I particularly liked this line “the official story is tailor made to bring satisfaction”
        I recently went back and rewatched a few of the witness testimony from Bugliosi’s television trial. Interesting. I didn’t understand the choice of witnesses, though, the part with Paul O’Connor. He is adamant there was no brain whatsoever and he was one of the first to receive the body at Bethesda. Do you have any way to reconcile that with Burkely giving the brain to RFK in a bucket? Or all the X-rays that were made? I don’t really get it. He was very convincing there was no brain whatsoever and that any X-rays had to have been forged because there was absolutly no brain there. I can’t make any sense out of this.

    • Typos: answer and 14 years, not 15

      • Sure! O’Connor may not have been in the room when the brain was removed and returned when what was left of it was already removed. That said, there is no doubt in my mind (based off adamant lone-nutter Francis O’Neill’s comments, among others) that there was very little of the actual brain left to remove and (as James Jenkins and another witness said) the brain stem appeared to be cut already. All the shenanigans with the brain exams leads me to believe (as Doug Horne lays out) the real brain was disposed of and another person’s brain was substituted. This would normally be a farcical and ridiculous notion of not for the evidence AND the fact that there were already several/many?brains already at the (teaching) medical facility (cadavers for teaching and newly-deceased servicemen). Please see my You Tube channel:

      • Steve McManaman says:

        Just watched Clint hill and friends-I am always on their minds. haha that was great. Very enjoyable.

  3. Steve McManaman says:

    Thanks Vince, for the info on O’Connor and the brain. I’ll have to check it out again. I thought he was right there when jfk came out of the body bag, like he was the first to see it. Maybe I’m misremembering it.
    Is there a consensus about exactly who did the alterations and when and where? I get the impression it’s changed recently.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s