Christopher Hall Posted August 9, 2007 Share Posted August 9, 2007 (edited) Actually, getting O'Reilly interested in the assassination debate would be a great thing, particularly in view of his prior piece on the MB.He would stay on the matter until he got the attention of someone in Congress, and he would demand that all records be opened. He single-handedly revealed the fraud that the Red Cross was perpetrating on the public post 911 when it was keeping most of the money that donors sent it for that specific purpose. He brutalized the Red Cross until it completely changed its distribution method (and percentages) to bring them into considerably greater conformity with donors' expectations. It would be a great opportunity for someone like Larry Hancock to appear and challenge Bugliosi or Posner to a debate. The only other current television personality who I think would do a good job on this matter would be Keith Olberman, but no one, other than NBC close friends and family, watch his show. Bill O'Reilly is a supreme right wing jerk. Jack The fact that he is a narcissistic jerk may make him a good one to advance the CT issue. I don't watch O'Reilly, but his ratings have historically dwarfed those of CNN, MSNBC and the other Fox News Channel shows. He already (unlike, say, his left-wing counterpart, Chris Matthews) thinks that the MB theory is garbage, and he would get the CT issue the visibility that it needs. I don't care who gets the CT issue and debate in the public domain, and not just within the research community and occasional authors. Edited August 9, 2007 by Christopher Hall Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ecker Posted August 9, 2007 Share Posted August 9, 2007 IMO today's Bill O'Reilly, media star at FoxNews, would not touch the JFK conspiracy with a 10-foot pole. For the same reason none of the other media stars will touch it. Too much to lose. They've got it made, at the height of their careers. They would risk losing it all for what? The truth? For one of them to exhibit that kind of courage or principle would be flabbergasting. And he or she would wind up in Dan Ratherville. A laughing stock. Taking on the Red Cross or boycotting French wine is a lot different from taking on the killers of JFK. That's why O'Reilly and his ilk stick to "safe" controversies to entertain us. I call it the Kilgallen Syndrome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted August 9, 2007 Share Posted August 9, 2007 Actually, getting O'Reilly interested in the assassination debate would be a great thing, particularly in view of his prior piece on the MB.He would stay on the matter until he got the attention of someone in Congress, and he would demand that all records be opened. He single-handedly revealed the fraud that the Red Cross was perpetrating on the public post 911 when it was keeping most of the money that donors sent it for that specific purpose. He brutalized the Red Cross until it completely changed its distribution method (and percentages) to bring them into considerably greater conformity with donors' expectations. It would be a great opportunity for someone like Larry Hancock to appear and challenge Bugliosi or Posner to a debate. The only other current television personality who I think would do a good job on this matter would be Keith Olberman, but no one, other than NBC close friends and family, watch his show. Bill O'Reilly is a supreme right wing jerk. Jack A cerebral response, indeed. And your selection for television personalities to advance and debate the CT issue would be? I don't watch O'Reilly, but his ratings dwarf those of CNN, MSNBC and the other Fox News Channel shows. He already (unlike, say, his left-wing counterpart, Chris Matthews) thinks that the MB theory is garbage, and he would get the CT issue the visibility that it needs. When you quote someone's post, you may want to respond to what they say. Matthews is equally obnoxious. But either O'Reilly or Matthews would attract attention. Also obnoxious, but with far greater credibility if he would "confess", is none other than Danny Rather. Imagine if he would say I WAS PART OF THE COVERUP! None of the above has real "credibility". Someone I think people would respect would be Brian Williams of NBC, whose stance on JFK seems untainted as far as I know. One with great credibility (but who is a lone nut believer unfortunately) would be Bob Schieffer, who was there on 11-22. If you want a "debate" let's pit Fetzer, Marrs and Lifton vs Bugliosi, Posner and Mailer. If Prouty were alive, I'd want him on my team also. I hope you find this reply satisfactory. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christopher Hall Posted August 9, 2007 Share Posted August 9, 2007 Actually, getting O'Reilly interested in the assassination debate would be a great thing, particularly in view of his prior piece on the MB.He would stay on the matter until he got the attention of someone in Congress, and he would demand that all records be opened. He single-handedly revealed the fraud that the Red Cross was perpetrating on the public post 911 when it was keeping most of the money that donors sent it for that specific purpose. He brutalized the Red Cross until it completely changed its distribution method (and percentages) to bring them into considerably greater conformity with donors' expectations. It would be a great opportunity for someone like Larry Hancock to appear and challenge Bugliosi or Posner to a debate. The only other current television personality who I think would do a good job on this matter would be Keith Olberman, but no one, other than NBC close friends and family, watch his show. Bill O'Reilly is a supreme right wing jerk. Jack A cerebral response, indeed. And your selection for television personalities to advance and debate the CT issue would be? I don't watch O'Reilly, but his ratings dwarf those of CNN, MSNBC and the other Fox News Channel shows. He already (unlike, say, his left-wing counterpart, Chris Matthews) thinks that the MB theory is garbage, and he would get the CT issue the visibility that it needs. When you quote someone's post, you may want to respond to what they say. Matthews is equally obnoxious. But either O'Reilly or Matthews would attract attention. Also obnoxious, but with far greater credibility if he would "confess", is none other than Danny Rather. Imagine if he would say I WAS PART OF THE COVERUP! None of the above has real "credibility". Someone I think people would respect would be Brian Williams of NBC, whose stance on JFK seems untainted as far as I know. One with great credibility (but who is a lone nut believer unfortunately) would be Bob Schieffer, who was there on 11-22. If you want a "debate" let's pit Fetzer, Marrs and Lifton vs Bugliosi, Posner and Mailer. If Prouty were alive, I'd want him on my team also. I hope you find this reply satisfactory. Jack Sorry for my tempermant, Jack. I was no gentleman, and I edited my post. I agree that Brian Williams would be a great spokesperson for advancing the issue. He may have the most credibility of any media personality in the US today. Rather fessing up to being part of the cover-up could certainly not hurt his negligible credibility at this point. Best regards. Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Kelly Posted August 10, 2007 Share Posted August 10, 2007 Did Bill O'Reilly's career get a little boost because he was onto something big in the Kennedy Assassination while working as a local TV reporter in Dallas? He certainly would not be the first reporter who's career got a bounce from the Magic Bullet!This article, is not just the same O'Reilly --JFK rumors. This time it is backed up by recently released CIA documents, that took a whole lot of prying. I am starting a new thread on this article because I think it could be a huge breakthrough, especially if more is learned about the relationship between J. Walton Moore and Charles Donald Ford. Hopefully this thread can remain focused on the implications of this article. ----------------------------------- Did you see my post on Michael Paine and ESP under "Coincidence or Conspiracy?" Thread? Indeed there is more on Moore. Attached is a link to Greg Parker's new web site Reopen JFK Case - with my article on THE O'REILLY FACTOR & THE JFK ASSASSINATION - J. Walton Moore and LHO. http://reopenjfkcase.interodent.com/index....36&Itemid=9 Is there a photo of Moore available? And many thanks to Robert Howard for providing docs and Greg for posting it. BK There is more to the story than merely getting Bill O'Reilly to join the fray. I think O'Reilly's original hunch that there was more of an association between Moore and Oswald than DeMornshildts. In reviewing other records from Moore's CIA file there is a reference to the fact that Moore played handball with Col. Orlov, the Air Force Colonel who was with DeMornschildt when they sought Oswald out and visited his apartment for the first time. That BOTH DeMorn and Orlov would be assoicated with the CIA's Moore makes that first contact extremely suspicious. BK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Drago Posted August 10, 2007 Share Posted August 10, 2007 (edited) We must understand that the actor Bill O'Reilly plays the character Bill O'Reilly on his Fox series. It's a role -- one that doesn't necessarily reflect the player's own most deeply held political viewpoints and appreciations of history. So ... Who are we trying to enlist in the cause? The actor or the character? Seriously. Edited August 10, 2007 by Charles Drago Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stephen Miller Posted August 10, 2007 Share Posted August 10, 2007 We hope that O'Reilly will join us and even get media establishment types to call for the release of the Joannides CIA files, that is if they are interested. Even the normally recalcitrant Posner and Blakey are calling for their release. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kathleen Collins Posted August 11, 2007 Share Posted August 11, 2007 IMO today's Bill O'Reilly, media star at FoxNews, would not touch the JFK conspiracy with a 10-foot pole. For the same reason none of the other media stars will touch it. Too much to lose. They've got it made, at the height of their careers. They would risk losing it all for what? The truth? For one of them to exhibit that kind of courage or principle would be flabbergasting. And he or she would wind up in Dan Ratherville. A laughing stock.Taking on the Red Cross or boycotting French wine is a lot different from taking on the killers of JFK. That's why O'Reilly and his ilk stick to "safe" controversies to entertain us. I call it the Kilgallen Syndrome. And I'd add the Kupcinet Syndrome: We won't kill you, we'll just kill the thing you love the most -- your daughter. Kathy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kathleen Collins Posted August 11, 2007 Share Posted August 11, 2007 If you want a "debate" let's pit Fetzer, Marrs and Lifton vs Bugliosi, Posnerand Mailer. If Prouty were alive, I'd want him on my team also. Jack I've seen Mailer on C-Span recently. He's about ready to give up the ghost. Kathy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Kelly Posted August 11, 2007 Share Posted August 11, 2007 Actually, getting O'Reilly interested in the assassination debate would be a great thing, particularly in view of his prior piece on the MB.He would stay on the matter until he got the attention of someone in Congress, and he would demand that all records be opened. He single-handedly revealed the fraud that the Red Cross was perpetrating on the public post 911 when it was keeping most of the money that donors sent it for that specific purpose. He brutalized the Red Cross until it completely changed its distribution method (and percentages) to bring them into considerably greater conformity with donors' expectations. It would be a great opportunity for someone like Larry Hancock to appear and challenge Bugliosi or Posner to a debate. The only other current television personality who I think would do a good job on this matter would be Keith Olberman, but no one, other than NBC close friends and family, watch his show. Bill O'Reilly is a supreme right wing jerk. Jack The fact that he is a narcissistic jerk may make him a good one to advance the CT issue. I don't watch O'Reilly, but his ratings have historically dwarfed those of CNN, MSNBC and the other Fox News Channel shows. He already (unlike, say, his left-wing counterpart, Chris Matthews) thinks that the MB theory is garbage, and he would get the CT issue the visibility that it needs. I don't care who gets the CT issue and debate in the public domain, and not just within the research community and occasional authors. O'Reilly's employer, Rubert Murdoch, recently purchased Dow Jones and the Wall Street Journal from the Bancroft family. Yes, it is the same family that included the late Mary Bancroft, Allen Dulles' paramour and OSS agent in Swiss during WWII. The proud independence of the Wall Street Journal made inclusion in Mockingbird activities doubtfull, but now, who knows? BK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Parker Posted August 12, 2007 Share Posted August 12, 2007 We must understand that the actor Bill O'Reilly plays the character Bill O'Reilly on his Fox series. It's a role -- one that doesn't necessarily reflect the player's own most deeply held political viewpoints and appreciations of history.So ... Who are we trying to enlist in the cause? The actor or the character? Seriously. Indeed, Charles. I was going to make the same point until I saw you beat me to it. Fox News is the WWF of Cable News -- lots of flashing lights, bells and whistles, huffing and puffing -- and acting. But I don't think it matters too much if it's BO'R the character or BO'R the actor. It's the message that will determine the worth of the support, whichever face utters it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Richards Posted August 12, 2007 Share Posted August 12, 2007 We must understand that the actor Bill O'Reilly plays the character Bill O'Reilly on his Fox series. It's a role -- one that doesn't necessarily reflect the player's own most deeply held political viewpoints and appreciations of history.So ... Who are we trying to enlist in the cause? The actor or the character? Seriously. Indeed, Charles. I was going to make the same point until I saw you beat me to it. Fox News is the WWF of Cable News -- lots of flashing lights, bells and whistles, huffing and puffing -- and acting. But I don't think it matters too much if it's BO'R the character or BO'R the actor. It's the message that will determine the worth of the support, whichever face utters it. Speaking of WWF, wasn't Jesse Ventura championing the conspiracy cause at one point? James Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dawn Meredith Posted August 12, 2007 Share Posted August 12, 2007 Speaking of WWF, wasn't Jesse Ventura championing the conspiracy cause at one point? James Yes he certainly was. He briefly had his own tv show on cable. One Sat in Oct 03 his guest was Barr McClellan and the whole show was devoted to the assassination. He said that he was warned to shup up about such matters but that he was not afraid. I don't recall that the show lasted after that. Nor have I ever seen him on tv again. Dawn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ecker Posted August 12, 2007 Share Posted August 12, 2007 Maybe the warning worked. Big surprise. I assume he has a family. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Drago Posted August 12, 2007 Share Posted August 12, 2007 We must understand that the actor Bill O'Reilly plays the character Bill O'Reilly on his Fox series. It's a role -- one that doesn't necessarily reflect the player's own most deeply held political viewpoints and appreciations of history.So ... Who are we trying to enlist in the cause? The actor or the character? Seriously. Indeed, Charles. I was going to make the same point until I saw you beat me to it. Fox News is the WWF of Cable News -- lots of flashing lights, bells and whistles, huffing and puffing -- and acting. But I don't think it matters too much if it's BO'R the character or BO'R the actor. It's the message that will determine the worth of the support, whichever face utters it. The actor O'Reilly plays roles in farces that are produced, written, directed, edited, and distributed by his studio -- 20th Century Fox. He is scripted. He couldn't ad lib flatulence at a garlic festival. And he certainly has not demonstrated either the courage or the talent or the economic resources to produce his own programming -- in the broader sense of "production," of course. Therefore, the situation is simple to understand: If the actor O'Reilly's studio bosses so decree, the character O'Reilly will strut the stage on our behalf. If they do not, the actor O'Reilly will not. Sadly, perhaps, Charles Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now