Charles Drago: I was in tears laughing at some of this! Thanks, my friend

([some of] the truth doesn't hurt...it can be funny. If you cannot laugh at yourself once in a while, who CAN you laugh at? I have a very good sense of humor and laugh alot...sometimes even at my OWN expense. Self-deprecating humor rules!)

:O)

CHARLIE DRAGO wrote:
08-17-2012 07:46 AM #5 Charles Drago





Founding Member Join Date:Sep 2008

Posts:2,644

Vince Palamara's reviews are worthless.



Vince tells us yet again that he has "read literally thousands of books through the years." These books include Posner's Case Closed, which shook Vince's conspiracy convictions to the core, and Bugliosi's Reclaiming History, which persuaded Vince that LHO acted alone after all.



A position which he softened when the research community he had betrayed took up arms against him.



How did Bugliosi wring a fawning review out of Vince? Simply by stroking his massive ego. In correspondence dated July 14, 2007, Bugliosi wrote this 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)..."



The intended result? As Vince admits, "After being a fervent believer [!] in a conspiracy in President John F. Kennedy's death (from about the age of 12 to 41!), the Spring of 2007 yielded the Oswald-did-it-alone masterpiece "Reclaiming History" by the highly respected author and former prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi that, quite literally, made my world upside down and had me reassess everything I knew (or thought I knew) about JFK's murder. Result? While I still believed there were multiple conspiracies (plural) to kill Kennedy, and that (speaking as the leading civilian Secret Service authority) the Secret Service was grossly negligent on 11/22/63 in Dallas, at the end of the day, Oswald beat everyone to the punch, so to speak; for all intents and purposes, that solved it for me, albeit with a great deal of discomfort."



Vince aided and abetted the cover-up by championing Bugliosi's version of it. Why? Because to praise Palamara Almighty is to OWN Palamara Almighty.


Bugliosi knew it, and he played Vince like a guitar.



Of course, Vince "General Sherman" Palamara recanted -- sort of -- his Bugliosi endorsement when Doug Horne's five-volume masterpiece saw the light of day.



Vince hastens to add that he's "an accomplished author and researcher on my own terms." Which has what, exactly, to do with the merits of Dead Wrong?



Vince's Secret Service work is invaluable. Beyond that, he over and over again demonstrates himself to be a shameless, ego-driven self-promoter who, if you blow in his ear, will follow you anywhere.



Caveat emptor.



As for Dead Wrong: I've yet to read it, so I'll reserve judgment. But I do feel confident to note that I'd be far more excited about the book if its authors weren't indicting for deep political crimes "the government" -- which is as simple-minded and counter-productive as indicting "the" CIA, "the" FBI, "the" Mafia" ...



And just how, dear scribes, do you define "the government?"


Last edited by Charles Drago; 08-17-2012 at 08:23 AM.

Charles Drago

Co-Founder, Deep Politics Forum

Footage of the agent stand-down at Love Field was found -- or at least first contextualized -- by the problematic Vince Palamara.




Questions subsequently arose regarding the agent's identity and about Rybka's subsequent whereabouts on 11/22/63.



The on-the-tarmac image is powerful in its implications. And yes, certain Secret Service agents had to have been complicit in JFK's murder.



But be careful: "The Secret Service" did not "play a [conspiratorial] role" in the JFK assassination. "The Secret Service," like "the CIA," "the FBI," or "the government," did not conspire to kill JFK.



This is not a simple matter of semantics.



Understanding this distinction is the sine qua non for understanding the structure of the JFK hit in particular and deep political events in general.

---------------

CHARLES "OJ" DRAGO: HIS COMMENTS CUT LIKE A KNIFE :o)