8 Responses to VINCE PALAMARA: VERIFIED ON GOOGLE

1. Larry Adams says:

   August 7, 2021 at 9:06 pm

   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

   Reply
2. Steve McManaman says:

   August 18, 2021 at 5:53 pm

   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?
   Thanks,
   Steve

   Reply
   • vincepalamara says:

     August 18, 2021 at 6:22 pm

     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.

     Reply
     • Steve McManaman says:

       August 18, 2021 at 6:49 pm

       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.
   • vincepalamara says:

     August 18, 2021 at 6:24 pm

     Typos: answer and 14 years, not 15

     Reply
     • vincepalamara says:

       August 18, 2021 at 7:36 pm

       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: https://m.youtube.com/user/VincePalamara
     • Steve McManaman says:

       August 19, 2021 at 12:25 am

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

   August 19, 2021 at 12:44 am

   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.

   Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Enter your comment here...

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

Email (required) (Address never made public)

Name (required)

Website

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

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

Cancel

Connecting to %s

Notify me of new comments via email.

Notify me of new posts via email.

Δ