O'Reilly's Book (on JFK) has been green-lighted to be a movie

[David Lifton]

According to this news item, Bill O'Reilly's book --KILLING KENNEDY--has received the go-ahead to be made into a movie.

http://www.deadline.com/2013/01/killing-kennedy-movie-bill-oreilly-national-geographic/

National Geographic Channel Reteams With Bill O’Reilly And Ridley Scott For ‘Killing Kennedy’ Film About JFK’s Assassination

By NELLIE ANDREEVA

Thursday January 3, 2013 @ 10:00am PST

Tags: Bill O'Reilly, Killing Kennedy, Killing Lincoln, National Geographic Channel, Scott Free

EXCLUSIVE:

Ahead of next month’s premiere of National Geographic‘s Killing Lincoln, the cable network has greenlighted Killing Kennedy, a new film from Killing Lincoln producer Scott Free about the assassination of John F Kennedy. Like Killing Lincoln, Killing Kennedy will be based on a book by Fox News anchor Bill O’Reilly. Killing Kennedy: The End Of Camelot, O’Reilly’s latest New York Times bestseller with co-author Martin Dugard, is a follow-up to the duo’s hugely successful Killing Lincoln: The Shocking Assassination That Changed America Forever, which has sold more than 1 million copies.

The new two-hour factual drama will keep the narrative storytelling devices used by

O’Reilly in the book, published in October, which recounts Kennedy’s assassination and its impact on America. “The common parallels between Abraham Lincoln and John F. Kennedy are astonishing, with both assassinations profoundly changing the nation during crucial moments in its history,” O’Reilly said.

“While Kennedy’s assassination continues to garner many conspiracy theories, our story is based on facts — some that haven’t been publicly known. And with National Geographic Channel and Scott Free once again at the helm, I have the utmost trust and faith that they will bring the story of Kennedy and Camelot to life.”

Casting on the two-hour film, which will combine historical insights and archives with dramatic storytelling in the signature style of the Scott brothers, is expected to begin shortly for a sprint start of production. “Collaborating with National Geographic on Bill O’Reilly’s follow-up was an easy decision,” said Scott Free principal Ridley Scott. “They share the same passion of storytelling, willing to take creative leaps and risks to keep viewers entertained to tell the provocative story of Kennedy’s last days, a pivotal and historic moment.”

Killing Lincoln and Killing Kennedy are part of National Geographic Channel’s new emphasis on narrative historical programming under president Howard T. Owens. In the fall, the network picked up its first feature film, John Stockwell’s SEAL Team Six, which premiered to 2.7 million viewers, Nat Geo’s largest audience of 2012. “With the tremendous success of SEAL Team Six, our first feature film, and the growing excitement over this February’s premiere of Killing Lincoln, producing Bill O’Reilly’s follow-up was a no-brainer and will be yet another story that will resonate with our audience,” said Owens, adding that the network is “claiming a stake in producing factual dramas, delivering entertainment with substance.”

The special will premiere globally on the National Geographic Channel in 171 countries and 38 languages. Here is a teaser for Killing Lincoln starring Billy Campbell as the slain 16th US President and narrated by Tom Hanks.

[James R Gordon]

I know it is a big seller and making Bill a lot of money, but it is an appalling book. It is astonishingly poorly researched. Whatever made Bill believe it was factually researched amazes me. I bought the book recently and looked at the section on the assassination. I got through a page and a half, and could read no more.

Although I do not agree with much that he says, Bugliosi's book at least has the merit that it is clear research has been carried out.

I thought the National Geographic are renowned for being factual, I am astonished they would take this on.

If this is the quality of future writing on the assassination that does not bode well.

James

[David Lifton]

I know it is a big seller and making Bill a lot of money, but it is an appalling book. It is astonishingly poorly researched. Whatever made Bill believe it was factually researched amazes me. I bought the book recently and looked at the section on the assassination. I got through a page and a half, and could read no more.

Although I do not agree with much that he says, Bugliosi's book at least has the merit that it is clear research has been carried out.

I thought the National Geographic are renowned for being factual, I am astonished they would take this on.

If this is the quality of future writing on the assassination that does not bode well.

James

Agreed, James. . .and this is the response from an associate of mine who shall remain nameless, so he can continue certain research:

I firmly disagree that this "news" is "important."

I saw O'Reilly's JFK book in a discount grocery store recently and thumbed through it. It is thin, weak, and not compelling in the slightest. Its distortions, omissions and misstatements are gargantuan. It doesn't address serious evidence. It is Warren Report "lite."

Moreover, O'Reilly's primary thesis appears to be that LHO killed Kennedy because Marina wouldn't agree to come back to him and work things out [sic] -- and that if she had agreed to, LHO wouldn't have done it [sic].

In the book O'Reilly actually declares, with laughable solemnity, words to the effect that "Either Oswald would win Marina's love again that night or he would kill Kennedy the next day. That was the choice."

(Tough break for JFK, huh? [Marina] wouldn't cozy up to Lee. Oh Damn . . .)

It's an utterly laughable theory based on lame armchair pseudo-psychology.

O'Reilly himself is a rude right-wing blowhard -- an intellectual lightweight best known for sexually harassing his own female assistant at Fox News Channel. He settled her humiliating and well-publicized lawsuit just a few years ago for an disclosed sum and got a gag order as part of the agreement to avoid further embarrassment.

He's no 800-pound gorilla; he's just a slimmer version of Rush Limbaugh. . . .

As for the cable TV venue, excuse me while I chuckle.

National Geo is known mostly for nature documentaries. Elephant turds and bat xxxx and gorgeous mountain valleys. All of which is fine and good and noble.

Its recent venture into "history" is ludicrous and weak.

Its "Seal Team Six" made-for-TV movie, aired last fall, received some VERY negative reviews for its significant factual inaccuracies and errors -- and anyway, it has been completely overshadowed by "Zero Dark Thirty," a much more dramatic and talked-about theatrical release.

NatGeo itself says it only has some 2.7 million viewers, anyway. That's far less than 1% of the U.S. population. . . .

And [we] always knew that of course some conventional TV outlet -- probably several -- will air bullxxxx "documentaries" or other programs near the 50th anniversary.

Yes, it's wrong for a twerp like O'Reilly to have a book, and it's wrong for National Geo to make a movie based on lies -- but this mildly nauseating development is hardly the apocalypse.

So get tough and get a grip.

Saddle up, pardner. You're burning daylight.

END OF TEXT

* * *

To which I should add, quoting Winston Churchill. . . . KBO.

DSL

1/3/13; 4:20 PM PST

Los Angeles, California

[Greg Burnham]

Two dear friends came to visit me and my wife for dinner on Christmas evening. They are aware of my somewhat obvious interest in this subject given that my home office is decorated

in a very Kennedy-esque motif, replete with a book case full of volumes on the subject, framed artwork and photographs on the walls, and historical items, too numerous to list, almost

spilling out of drawers.

I was, however, quite taken aback at their innocently enough offered--well intentioned--Christmas gift: Killing Kennedy by Bill O'Reilly. In an attempt to give me a meaningful gift

they inadvertently did the exact opposite. I thanked them for their generosity noting that: "I never would have gotten around to buying this one--not in a million years!"

Edited January 4, 2013 by Greg Burnham

[Mark Wengler]

That is one book i would never want in the collection i am rebuilding.

If someone gave me that book i would take it to the library and give them the book to be put under fiction

[Ian Kingsbury]

Before we know it the authors of the Warren Commission report

Will be demanding a royalty .

This work of fiction should be exposed and the Scott brothers should

Know better .

Bill O'Really insists on playing the part of Bannister.

Perhaps they can get Danny Glover to play JFK make it real accurate!.

[David Von Pein]

In the book, O'Reilly actually declares, with laughable solemnity, words to the effect that "Either Oswald would win Marina's love again that night or he would kill Kennedy the next day. That was the choice." .... It's an utterly laughable theory based on lame armchair pseudo-psychology.

It's not a laughable theory at all. Not in the slightest. It makes perfect sense--from the point-of-view of Lee Harvey Oswald on the evening of Thursday, November 21, 1963.

I, too, think that the assassination would almost certainly have not occurred had Marina and Lee agreed to get back together on November 21st.

Marina Oswald said that Lee, on November 21, offered to go look for an apartment in Dallas "tomorrow" if Marina would agree to come back and live with Lee right away. Quoting Marina Oswald:

"He said that he was lonely because he hadn't come the preceding weekend, and he wanted to make his peace with me. .... On that day [11/21/63], he suggested that we rent an apartment in Dallas. He said that he was tired of living alone and perhaps the reason for my being so angry was the fact that we were not living together. That if I want to he would rent an apartment in Dallas tomorrow--that he didn't want me to remain with Ruth any longer, but wanted me to live with him in Dallas. He repeated this not once but several times, but I refused. And he said that once again I was preferring my friends to him, and that I didn't need him." -- Marina Oswald; Warren Commission testimony; February 3, 1964 [1 H 65-66]

Therefore, given that testimony from the lips of Marina Oswald herself, is it likely Lee would have had thoughts of taking his rifle to work with him the next day and killing JFK at noontime just before he went to look for a new apartment for his family after work? I kind of doubt it.

The fact that Marina rejected Lee on November 21 is, in my view, a key event that allowed Lee Oswald's plan of attempting to assassinate President Kennedy to go forward uninterrupted.

When Lee went to Ruth Paine's house in Irving on November 21st, he had, of course, already been thinking about shooting the President with his Mannlicher-Carcano rifle. We can know he had thoughts of shooting JFK as early as Thursday morning, November 21 when he made up his lie to Buell Wesley Frazier about the nonexistent "curtain rods".

So Marina's rejection on the night of the 21st was certainly not an overriding motive of Lee's in his decision to take his gun to work the next day and shoot the President of the United States. Obviously, he must have had a motive for wanting to kill the President even before riding to Irving with Wesley Frazier on Thursday afternoon. And the proof of that fact rests in the provable "curtain rods" lie he told Frazier on Thursday morning. So Lee Oswald had a motive for shooting the President even before he saw his wife on November 21, although we will never know for sure what that motive was.

But Lee Harvey's assassination plan was not yet finalized in his mind or fixed in stone as late as Thursday night. If Marina had responded differently to Lee's request to get an apartment in Dallas right away, I think history would have been different on November 22, and John F. Kennedy would very likely have lived to make his speech at the Trade Mart that day.

And Vincent Bugliosi thinks so too. Let's listen: http://Box.com/s/q14gblv90ddfeiz5i3ue

http://Vincent-Bugliosi.blogspot.com

People are, of course, free to disagree with the above assessment of Lee Harvey Oswald's perceived thought processes. Is it a guessing game? Sure it is. It can't be anything else, given the fact that the President's assassin was himself killed just two days after JFK was slain. But in my view, the above evaluation is a reasonable one when trying to get inside the head of Lee Harvey Oswald on the night of Thursday, 11/21/63.

Ruth Paine also made a good observation about Lee Oswald that deserves to be replayed occasionally. She said this:

"I do think for the historical record it's important that people understand that Lee was a very ordinary person -- that people can kill a President without that being something that shows on them in advance." -- Ruth Paine; July 1986; "On Trial: Lee Harvey Oswald" (London Weekend Television)

http://DVP-Potpourri.blogspot.com/2010/07/ruth-paine.html

http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2013/01/lee-harvey-oswalds-decision-to-shoot-jfk.html

Edited January 4, 2013 by David Von Pein

[Ian Kingsbury]

Bette Davis would have been great as "Ruthless Pain"

But David no doubt sees her as a Mary Poppins figure.

[David Von Pein]

RUTH-PAINE.BLOGSPOT.COM

(But Bette Davis was great too.)

Edited August 4, 2014 by David Von Pein

[Cliff Varnell]

In the book, O'Reilly actually declares, with laughable solemnity, words to the effect that "Either Oswald would win Marina's love again that night or he would kill Kennedy the next day. That was the choice." .... It's an utterly laughable theory based on lame armchair pseudo-psychology.

It's not a laughable theory at all. Not in the slightest. It makes perfect sense--from the point-of-view of Lee Harvey Oswald on the evening of Thursday, November 21, 1963.

I hate to remind you of this, David, but you have acknowledged the drop of JFK's jacket in Dealey Plaza. Ergo, his jacket was not bunched up the 3+ inches your SBT requires.

Every time you wave your arm like JFK the fabric of your shirt indents along the shoulder-line.

Every time.

You have acknowledged the facts that prove at least 2 shooters hit JFK. You have corroborated these facts with your own experience.

You're simply in denial, so you can't admit it.

[Nathaniel Heidenheimer]

This really says a lot about how the hope that cable TV once held has been dashed to smithereens.

Everyone who has read this book, or my review of it, has to know it is horrible.

What on earth is Ridley Scott doing involved in this crap?

All I can say is to write, fax, or e mail both National Geographic and Scott Free productions. Send them my review if you want.

But gad, between this, DI Caprio, and Hanks, it does not look good at all for the50th.

------

I wish more would spread stuff to new readers. If they don't whatever happens in Dallas will be entirely defined by the billionaire's lenses. I am really discouraged SO FAR about the 50th because so far people just seem to see it as an action in Dallas, rather than a coordinated attempt to reach a new generation. The best lack all conviction. The worst don't even need passionate intensity. Their sewage will automatically be reviewed by the NYT and scripted by National Geographic which may as well do ice trucking specials like the McHistory Channel.

Edited January 5, 2013 by Nathaniel Heidenheimer

[David Von Pein]

Davey, with the info in my book, the cat's out of the bag with Ruth and Michael Paine. You won't ever be able to use them again.

Naturally, this is the type of response I would expect from someone like DiEugenio, because Jimbo believes really silly things when it comes to the JFK case -- like his belief that Oswald carried no large bag at all into the TSBD on Nov. 22. That's how far afield from reality Jim DiEugenio has strayed regarding the evidence in this case. How anyone can possibly even begin to take DiEugenio seriously when it comes to the JFK assassination is a real mystery to me. And that's because Jimbo believes in all of the following outlandish things:

1.) Oswald didn't fire a single shot at JFK.

2.) Oswald didn't fire a single shot at J.D. Tippit.

3.) Oswald didn't fire a shot at General Walker.

4.) Oswald did not visit the Russian and Cuban embassies in Mexico City in Sept./Oct. 1963.

5.) Oswald probably wasn't even IN Mexico City in Sept./Oct. 1963.

6.) Oswald never ordered a rifle from Klein's Sporting Goods.

7.) Oswald never ordered a revolver from Seaport Traders Inc.

8.) Oswald's signature on the register of the Hotel del Comercio in Mexico City is a fake signature.

9.) All of the documents pertaining to Oswald's rifle purchase from Klein's are fake.

10.) All of the documents pertaining to Oswald's revolver purchase are fake.

11.) Marina Oswald lied about dozens of things, including when she said that Oswald had told her that he had taken a shot at General Walker.

12.) Ruth Paine was a major co-conspirator in JFK's murder, with Ruth being instrumental in getting Oswald his job at the Book Depository so that LHO could be set up as the proverbial "patsy".

13.) Linnie Mae Randle lied when she said she saw Oswald crossing Westbrook Street in Irving with a large paper package on the morning of Nov. 22, 1963.

14.) Buell Wesley Frazier lied about a bunch of stuff after the assassination, including the whopper about seeing Oswald carrying a large bag into the TSBD. And in addition to the individuals mentioned above, DiEugenio thinks a lot of other people lied about many other things pertaining to the JFK murder case too, including Marrion Baker, Roy Truly, and Howard Brennan. Two of DiEugenio's most hilarious quotes can be found below:

"Baker never saw Oswald. .... I believe the [Oswald/Baker/Truly] incident was created after the fact." -- James DiEugenio; July 2015

"I don't think Brennan was at any lineup. I think that was all manufactured after the fact. I think Brennan is a completely created witness." -- James DiEugenio; May 2010

15.) Captain J. Will Fritz of the Dallas Police was a major co-conspirator in a plot to have Jack Ruby rub out Lee Oswald in the DPD basement on Nov. 24, with Fritz deliberately opening up a big gap between himself and prisoner Oswald just before Ruby fired his fatal shot.

16.) The backyard photos of Oswald are fakes (despite what the HSCA said).

17.) The autopsy report is pure bunk, which almost certainly means that DiEugenio thinks that all three autopsy doctors (Humes, Finck, and Boswell) lied out their collective assholes about President Kennedy's wounds.

18.) The conspirators planning the assassination, although they wanted to frame ONLY Lee Oswald, shot JFK from a variety of locations, and they fired more than three shots in so doing, which pretty much guaranteed that their "One Patsy" plot would be exposed after the shooting. (But Jimbo and many like him believe this craziness anyway. Go figure.)

19.) A Mauser rifle was found in the TSBD after the assassination, even though the plotters knew they had to frame their one and only patsy with a Carcano rifle. (Brilliant!)

20.) All of the physical evidence that leads to Lee Oswald in the two Nov. 22 murders (JFK's and Tippit's) has been faked, planted, manipulated, or manufactured in order to falsely incriminate a patsy named Lee Harvey.

21.) There were very likely at least two "Lee Oswalds" running around in various locations before the assassination. (In general, DiEugenio pretty much believes everything in John Armstrong's book of fantasy about there being "2 Oswalds" and "2 Marguerites". This proves that NO theory is too outrageous or preposterous for Mr. DiEugenio's gullible palate.)

22.) Jim Garrison was right about Clay Shaw after all. Shaw was guilty of being a co-conspirator in JFK's murder, despite the fact that Garrison did not provide ONE solid piece of evidence at Shaw's 1969 New Orleans trial to show that Shaw was involved in planning the assassination.

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

I can add dozens of additional outrageous things to the list above, but I'll stop at those twenty-two items for now.

And yet despite the above laundry list of silliness, James DiEugenio is still held in high esteem by many people when it comes to his evaluation of the evidence and his assessment of the facts concerning the assassination of President John F. Kennedy.

Unbelievable.

jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/04/dvp-vs-dieugenio-complete-series.html

Edited May 3, 2016 by David Von Pein

[David Von Pein]

There's only one xxxx on Jim's list in his last post -- and that's Roger Craig. None of the others are liars though. Jimbo is merely attempting to sidestep the 22 ridiculous things that I mentioned in my previous post.

Edited January 5, 2013 by David Von Pein

[Len Colby]

Roger Craig as a reliable source?! LOL!

[Michael Hogan]

In the book O'Reilly actually declares, with laughable solemnity, words to the effect that "Either Oswald would win Marina's love again that night or he would kill Kennedy the next day. That was the choice." It's an utterly laughable theory based on lame armchair pseudo-psychology.

Along comes David Von Pein, intent on proving DSL correct:

It's not a laughable theory at all. Not in the slightest. It makes perfect sense--from the point-of-view of Lee Harvey Oswald on the evening of Thursday, November 21, 1963.

I, too, think that the assassination would almost certainly have not occurred had Marina and Lee agreed to get back together on November 21st.

Marina Oswald said that Lee, on November 21, offered to go look for an apartment in Dallas "tomorrow" if Marina would agree to come back and live with Lee right away....

.....Therefore, given that testimony from the lips of Marina Oswald herself, is it likely Lee would have had thoughts of taking his rifle to work with him the next day and killing JFK at noontime just before he went to look for a new apartment for his family after work? I kind of doubt it.

The fact that Marina rejected Lee on November 21 is, in my view, a key event that allowed Lee Oswald's plan of attempting to assassinate President Kennedy to go forward uninterrupted.

One couldn't ask for a better example of lame keyboard psuedo-psychology. And yes, it's a laughable theory.

Technically speaking, the testimony referenced by DVP did not come "from the lips of Marina Oswald herself." Those words came from the lips of the interpreter.

The distinction is worth noting.

The Warren Commission carefully concluded: No one will ever know what passed through Oswald's mind during the week before November 22, 1963.

No one except O'Reilly, Von Pein and other like-minded theorists.

The Warren Report stated:

.....The Commission does not believe that the relations between Oswald and his wife caused him to assassinate the President. It is unlikely that the motivation was that simple. The feelings of hostility and aggression which seem to have played such an important part in Oswald's life were part of his character long before he met his wife and such a favorable opportunity to strike at a figure as great as the President would probably never have come to him again.

After claiming that Oswald would not have shot the President if Marina had not rebuked him, David issued a qualifier of sorts:

When Lee went to Ruth Paine's house in Irving on November 21st, he had, of course, already been thinking about shooting the President with his Mannlicher-Carcano rifle. We can know he had thoughts of shooting JFK as early as Thursday morning, November 21 when he made up his lie to Buell Wesley Frazier about the nonexistent "curtain rods".

So Marina's rejection on the night of the 21st was certainly not an overriding motive of Lee's in his decision to take his gun to work the next day and shoot the President of the United States. Obviously, he must have had a motive for wanting to kill the President even before riding to Irving with Wesley Frazier on Thursday afternoon. And the proof of that fact rests in the provable "curtain rods" lie he told Frazier on Thursday morning. So Lee Oswald had a motive for shooting the President even before he saw his wife on November 21, although we will never know for sure what that motive was.

But Lee Harvey's assassination plan was not yet finalized in his mind or fixed in stone as late as Thursday night. If Marina had responded differently to Lee's request to get an apartment in Dallas right away, I think history would have been different on November 22, and John F. Kennedy would very likely have lived to make his speech at the Trade Mart that day.

....

People are, of course, free to disagree with the above assessment of Lee Harvey Oswald's perceived thought processes. Is it a guessing game? Sure it is. It can't be anything else, given the fact that the President's assassin was himself killed just two days after JFK was slain. But in my view, the above evaluation is a reasonable one when trying to get inside the head of Lee Harvey Oswald on the night of Thursday, 11/21/63.

It is one thing for DVP to offer his assessments of Lee Oswald's perceived thought processes. Of course he thinks his evaluation is a reasonable one. He is, of course, free to offer all the unsubstantiated and illogical guesses he can conjure up and post them here on the JFK Education Forum or on his blog. Few take him seriously.

It is an entirely different matter for O'Reilly to put crap like that in his book and try to pawn it off as history.

O'Reilly even wrote that Oswald was standing up while he fired shots at the President's motorcade. That false description of such a tragic event is both disgusting and dishonest.

Otherwise, it would be laughable.