I was a middle-aged JFK lone-nutter (briefly)

Honest recollections from Vince Palamara, the Secret Service researcher extraordinaire. He bought the official JFK story for a while. Nothing wrong with that.  Millions did. Then he took a closer look and changed his mind. I like his candor about how it happened. He writes:

for one brief, non-shining moment in 2007, I was swayed (groomed?) by Vince Bugliosi, one of my then-idols for his many non-JFK books: I am posting this (and the above modified meme) because someone recently “found out” that I had once changed my mind. Well, I still believed there were multiple conspiracies to kill Kennedy…I was swayed into thinking Oswald beat them all to the punch via Bugliosi’s book. And, when I received a personal letter from him before I was even finished reading his massive tome, ….

Source: I Was A Middle-Aged JFK Lone-Nutter (Briefly) By Vince Nitwit (me) | Vince Palamara

3 thoughts on “I was a middle-aged JFK lone-nutter (briefly)”

  1. My pro-conspiracy book HONEST ANSWERS ABOUT THE MURDER OF PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY: A NEW LOOK AT THE JFK ASSASSINATION comes out next year and is the best of my five books. It clocks in at well over 500 pages and, more importantly, has new evidence and new insights; definitely not the same-ole-same-ole. 🙂

  2. It’s surely OK, as Mr Palamara says, to be swayed by the Oswald-did-it story. It is, after all, persuasive. There is a certain simplicity to it, and all cases contain anomalies and contradictions that speak to the oddity of life. The problems come, though, when considering all the multiple elements that jump out if one tries to maintain focus for more than a short time; the location of Oswald before, during, and after the shooting, the patterns of gore and damage to Kennedy and Connally, the behaviours of parties before and after the immediate event, the testimonies, the physical evidence, the circumstantial contradictions, the conclusions of serious people in politics and elsewhere over five decades. As Larry Hancock also pointed out, the misleading defence of the lone nutter case that ‘someone would have talked’ is also wrong, since everyone seems to have talked–they were just misheard, ignored, spun, or drowned out. Vince Palamara was misled by the fleeting appeals of circumstantial reason, but seems to have enough conscience and instinct about the nagging inconsistencies to have recovered from that.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Scroll to Top