VINCE PALAMARA SAID:
http://google.com/alt.conspiracy.jfk
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Vincent Palamara doesn't seem to know which side of the fence he's on.
Many months after fully endorsing Vincent Bugliosi's lone-assassin book, "Reclaiming History", we're treated to this strange 5-Star review written by Mr. Palamara for Jim Douglass' conspiracy-flavored book.
It's perfectly fine to ride the JFK fence forever -- Jerry Dealey at the JFK Lancer forum does that very nicely, in fact. And I've enjoyed talking with Jerry on several occasions in the past.
But Vince Palamara seems to be in a different category. And to be perfectly honest, I'm not entirely sure WHAT category of "JFK researcher" Mr. Palamara currently resides in. But he seems to be trying his darndest to play the entire field and to have it both ways. By reading some of his reviews for both anti-conspiracy and pro-conspiracy material, it would appear that Mr. Palamara believes in a unique "No Conspiracy Conspiracy" with respect to the death of John F. Kennedy.
~shrug~
To quote Mr. Palamara directly, he claims that Vincent Bugliosi's book ... "is a devastating knock-out blow to those who, like me, once believed there was a conspiracy in the death of JFK. .... It is time to get a life, America: Oswald did indeed kill Kennedy, acting alone. Vince Bugliosi has done what I once thought was the impossible: he has convinced me of this notion."
And yet, months later, Vince P. continues to write positive reviews for pro-conspiracy publications (probably because Mr. Palamara's name is in the index of most or all of these conspiracy-favoring books).
Strange behavior, IMO. But, YMMV.
FOOTNOTE:
I recently sent Vincent Bugliosi's secretary (Rosemary Newton) the following e-mail, mainly to highlight a matter concerning David Mantik's review for Bugliosi's JFK book. Rosemary, as she has done previously with e-mails I've sent her, faxed the mail to Mr. Bugliosi. "I know he'll be interested," Rosemary told me via a follow-up e-mail message. .....
=================================================
Subject: Reclaiming History Website
Date: 6/12/2008
To: Rosemary Newton
------------------
Hi again Rosemary,
A thought just jumped into my cranium that I had previously wanted to mention to you and Vince Bugliosi, but I forgot to tell you in my other mails:
I know this is none of my business at all, but IMO somebody should consider removing the David Mantik review snippet that is currently on the ReclaimingHistory.com website [which is a website that no longer exists; it has been removed from the Internet since this e-mail was written in June 2008]. And that's because Mantik does NOT endorse VB's "RH" book--at all.
In fact, Mantik hates the book for the most part and rips it (and Vince) to shreds--or attempts to--in his full review [linked below].
http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v5n1/v5n1mantik.pdf
I'm actually kind of embarrassed for Vince when I see those two brief review blurbs of Mantik's showing up online at the RH site, because they are also taken totally out of context. Mantik is actually bashing the book and its author--not praising it/him.
And what's worse is that the same out-of-context blurbs appear in VB's "Four Days In November" paperback now too--which is absurd. I have a feeling that W.W. Norton put those blurbs in the "4 Days" book and on the RH site (and possibly without Vince B. even knowing what Mantik's FULL opinion was of "Reclaiming History").
Anyway, I just thought I'd point this out....because apparently nobody has seemed to notice that a person who actually has a severely negative opinion about "RH" (David Mantik) is showing up with seemingly-glowing remarks about it on the RH site.
But if you'll read Mantik's entire review, you'll see I'm 100% right, and that Mantik's "It is a masterpiece" remark is really NOT a compliment at all. Because the next words out of Mantik's mouth after "masterpiece" are "—a truly brilliant prosecutorial brief".
And we both know that Vince does not intend for his Magnum Opus to be looked upon as only a "prosecutorial brief".
Also:
I doubt that Mr. Bugliosi knows about this following hunk of info either (regarding Vince Palamara, who recently switched from being a conspiracy-lover to a lone-assassin believer--or so he says--and who has a review posted at the RH website and in the book "4 Days" as well):
Months after going on record as having said that VB's JFK book completely changed his mind about a conspiracy in Kennedy's murder, Mr. Palamara continues to write 5-Star reviews for pro-conspiracy books. The latest example being his 5-Star Amazon review for Jim Douglass' latest piece of pro-conspiracy fiction.
Mr. Palamara, to put it bluntly, has a huge ego to feed...and, in my own opinion, he saw a perfect opportunity to do so by embracing VB's "Reclaiming History".
Palamara loves to see his name in print. I fear he doesn't really know what side of the JFK fence he's really on. As long as his ego is fed, he's happy. That's sad, but I think it's true. And just one look at his Amazon reviews will tend to bear me out on that. Or by watching this YouTube video by Mr. Palamara [linked below], which is filled with non-stop self-promotion. [The video, like the "ReclaimingHistory.com" website, is now no longer there.]
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Zm842SWubNw
As I said, these matters are really none of my business...and Vince Bugliosi (and you) have every right to tell me to go jump in the lake....but I really wanted Vince B. to know about these things (which I truly don't think he's aware of at all) -- especially the Mantik review blurbs, which, as mentioned, are just flat-out embarrassing after reading Mantik's WHOLE review.
It makes it look as if the publisher (Norton) is so desperate for ANY kind of praise from the pro-conspiracy crowd that they are willing to bend the context of Mantik's words to suit their own pro-RH purposes. And that's not a good thing at all, in my view.
Regards,
David Von Pein
=================================================
David Von Pein
June 17, 2008
