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 was—and still am—a 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
--------------
post script to the above
Charlie, I think you are too caught up obsessing over semantics, pouring over the (hidden, or so you seem to think) "meaning" of every nuance and word I use.
And why do you care that I unfriended and blocked you on Facebook? You aren't acting like a friend and posting venom will not be tolerated on my site.
To sum up:
I made a mistake in judgement endorsing Bugliosi's book, I am sorry, I believe there was a conspiracy, and my book reflects that belief.
Vince
(Charlie--"what do you mean: "reflect"??? huh???")
Charlie, repeat this mantra over and over again: have t-shirts and bumper stickers made
"I made a mistake in judgement endorsing Bugliosi's book, I am sorry, I believe there was a conspiracy, and my book reflects that belief."
"I made a mistake in judgement endorsing Bugliosi's book, I am sorry, I believe there was a conspiracy, and my book reflects that belief."
"I made a mistake in judgement endorsing Bugliosi's book, I am sorry, I believe there was a conspiracy, and my book reflects that belief."
:O)
yes--2007 vintage, NOT now!!
Methinks ole Charlie is deliberately trying to leave that impression with folks so people will turn on me and say "that SOB Palamara changed his frickin' mind AGAIN". I had to tell Dawn Meredith, for one, that those quotes were from 2007, NOT now.
Ask yourself--why is old Charlie doing this?
Hmmm...
Originally Posted by Don Jeffries
I was trying to be classy with my last post. Charles, since you won't have it any other way- your response to Vince's articulate and reasonable explanation (which he didn't owe you) was childish and profane. You want to convey the image of a towering intellect, and everyone here incomprehensibly bows down to you and enables your outrageous behavior. You come off like a pompous internet bully.
I know you don't have the capacity for it, but try and re-read what you wrote. You sound like you're quoting a bad Western movie- "You gonna fuck with ME, boy?" THAT is your idea of an intellectually impressive reply? And once again, the reference to "heavy weapons." Are you planning to shoot Vince? You bring debate down to the playground level.
Vince was exactly right- you are constantly playing semantic games, while inferring that you, and only you, comprehend absolute truth. If even one of your devoted sycophants slips up and, in your mind, uses the wrong word, they feel the full brunt of the Dragonian wrath. You are not a benevolent ruler, and demand total, unadulterated subservience from your followers.
And yet you have the audacity to demand that Albert Doyle be banned, and resort to juvenile name calling. Just writing things like "Little Vinny" and "Miss Manners" alone discredits you in the eyes of mature and responsible people. Your fan base here may continue to ignore your tantrums, but I feel no obligation to do so. I've been studying this case for nearly forty years, and I don't need you to lecture me about any aspect of it. You overestimate your own influence and your base of knowledge. In fact, I'm not even sure how much you do know about this case, since you seem to spend most of your time here snidely putting others down and vaguely hinting at things only you know.
-----------
:o)
Charles:
I totally understand your ire and indignation re: my temporary reversal: G.M. Evica would have kicked my butt over that! Besides yourself and, to a certain extent, Dawn, I know Walt Brown is also mad at me. To be honest, I "get it": I would be weary of myself, as well, if i was in your shoes (in retrospect). That said, I promise to make you proud- a sinner can only atone for his sins going forward. The "good" news: the public at large (and even, surprisingly, the vast majority of the research community) does not seem to be aware of my brief 2007 flirtartion with Vince B, so to speak...so my book will go a LONG way toward atonement.
I apologize for my sarcasm and juveline retorts---you are a good guy who is (rightfully) very passionate about the truth AND skeptical of any perceived "Benedict Arnolds" in our midst. I did let pride and ego get in my way---while I truly was quite vulnerable to be "had", it STILL takes a conscious decision TO be "had"...and my infatuation with Vince B was NOT good; a classic case of shooting myself in the foot...big time.
All I (we) can do is go forward. The one truly good consolation: we are looking for converts as we preach to the choir--isn't it nice to know that a former member of the choir is now BACK to being a part of that choir?
I have enjoyed my association with you and you speak and write eloquently. Again, I truly am sorry for my stupid, ill-advised (albeit temporary) reversal on the case back in 2007.
Vince Palamara 2/20/13 :O)
P.S. I "refriended" you on Facebook--let's try to get along. But, let me stress once again: upon reflection, I DO understand your anger with me...it is justified. My book, for the whole world to see, will go a very long way (as have my actions and writings since late 2007) toward atonement.
No comments:
Post a Comment