Bill OReilly's NewBook

[Barry Krusch]

The number of people who are possessed of the facts are vastly dwarfed by the people who do not, and with the media ready and able to reinforce false perceptions, we realize we're definitely living in a Matrix.

[Michael Hogan]

The number of people who are possessed of the facts are vastly dwarfed by the people who do not, and with the media ready and able to reinforce false perceptions, we realize we're definitely living in a Matrix.

Speaking of the Matrix.....

http://www.matrixtheatre.com/

http://losangeles.broadwayworld.com/article/Matrix-Theatre-Remounts-THE-MAGIC-BULLET-THEORY-118-1215-20121017

Edited October 18, 2012 by Michael Hogan

[Dawn Meredith]

Yes it is odd. I posted a review with a product link to JFK and the Unspeakable. I posted one on the horrible Caro book too and it is still on the front page. But the one I posted On the O Reilly book was already off the page when I went there four hours later. Buried. Nobody ever had a chance to see it.

Consider this: The Bill book has almost 270 reviews. That is more than JFK and the Unspeakable has had in more than four years. And the Bill book has been out about a week.

This is what we are up against. Get off the reservation or you are giving up.

That makes me sick. Even Amazon is totally controlled. I bet Billo has people writing the reviews. No-one gets that many that fast.

[Don Jeffries]

The myriad of nearly identical 5 star reviews for O'Reilly's book remind me quite a bit of the ones posted in support of Gerald Blaine's ridiculous The Kennedy Detail on Amazon.

In both cases, it looks very much like an orchestrated campaign, to counteract all the negative reviews.

[Pat Speer]

I read somewhere that O'Reilly was talking about his book on his show, and asking his viewers to give the book positive reviews on Amazon. That would explain all the newbies posting five star reviews.

Speaking of orchestrated campaigns... When Arlen Specter died, I looked in vain for an article on the Huffington Post. I didn't see one. The next day, however, I spotted an article on Specter with almost 2,000 comments. I read through 200 or so of them, and found that NONE of them mentioned his single-bullet theory or stint on the WC in detail. None of them were of the "I'm glad he's dead" variety found elsewhere. There were several, however, in which the poster complained that they'd written something in an earlier post in which they criticized Specter's work on the Warren Commission, which never made it past the moderators. I decided to try it out, and wrote a reasonable post describing my thorough study of Specter's statements over the years, and sad conclusion he'd lied. I didn't say he was evil, or should burn in hell. I merely said I'd been forced to conclude he'd lied.

It never showed up.

Apparently, telling the truth about dead people is considered bad form on the Huffington Post, if, in doing so, one suggests the possibility a verboten conspiracy theoriy has merit.

Disgusting.

[Michael Hogan]

I read somewhere that O'Reilly was talking about his book on his show, and asking his viewers to give the book positive reviews on Amazon. That would explain all the newbies posting five star reviews.

This is unofficial of course, but I did a review count by date.

October 13th/7

October 14th/7

October 15th/13

October 16th/6

October 17th/119

October 18th/49 (so far)

[Guest Robert Morrow]

I read somewhere that O'Reilly was talking about his book on his show, and asking his viewers to give the book positive reviews on Amazon. That would explain all the newbies posting five star reviews.

Speaking of orchestrated campaigns... When Arlen Specter died, I looked in vain for an article on the Huffington Post. I didn't see one. The next day, however, I spotted an article on Specter with almost 2,000 comments. I read through 200 or so of them, and found that NONE of them mentioned his single-bullet theory or stint on the WC in detail. None of them were of the "I'm glad he's dead" variety found elsewhere. There were several, however, in which the poster complained that they'd written something in an earlier post in which they criticized Specter's work on the Warren Commission, which never made it past the moderators. I decided to try it out, and wrote a reasonable post describing my thorough study of Specter's statements over the years, and sad conclusion he'd lied. I didn't say he was evil, or should burn in hell. I merely said I'd been forced to conclude he'd lied.

It never showed up.

Apparently, telling the truth about dead people is considered bad form on the Huffington Post, if, in doing so, one suggests the possibility a verboten conspiracy theoriy has merit.

Disgusting.

The Huffington Post was actively deleting all comments to Arlen Specters criminal behavior on the Warren Commission, his intimidation attempts on Jean Hill & his hilariously awful Magic Bullet Theory.

[Don Jeffries]

It is frustrating when the dark side can summon up this kind of mindless support from the sheeple. However, I would urge every poster (and lurker) on this forum to go write a 1 star review of O'Reilly's ridiculous book on Amazon. Tell your friends and family to do so, too.

Fighting fire with fire, or something like that....

[Dawn Meredith]

It is frustrating when the dark side can summon up this kind of mindless support from the sheeple. However, I would urge every poster (and lurker) on this forum to go write a 1 star review of O'Reilly's ridiculous book on Amazon. Tell your friends and family to do so, too.

Fighting fire with fire, or something like that....

Good idea but will they stay up? And I agree with Jim. The new media does not touch this stuff. And people actually believe there is a free press in the US. Hardly.

Dawn

[Karl Kinaski]

O Reilly in action Give him some Valium! LOL

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z5qU4qudJYk

Edited October 19, 2012 by Karl Kinaski

[Dawn Meredith]

The real Billo. I bet he cannot stand that this is out there...I just posted it to my facebook page...share please...

[Nathaniel Heidenheimer]

Here is an example of a review WITH PRODUCT LINKS. PLEASE CLICK THIS UP ONTO THE FIRST PAGE. There are better written reviews, but the pointing towards better books are what is needed right now.

AGAIN, CLOSE YOUR EYES AND THINK HOW MANY EYEBALLS ARE HITTING THE O'REILLY SEWAGE BOOK ON AMAZON RIGHT NOW. Turn the vomit into opportunity.

That alchemy is called Product Links button. You can put these into Your review or you can put these product links into the comments on some of the other O'Reilly reviews that have sprouted in such abundance of late.

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

1.0 out of 5 stars Loosing time, wasting money, October 19, 2012

By

JM "JMP" (France) - See all my reviews

This review is from: Killing Kennedy: The End of Camelot (Hardcover)

The corner stone of this book is this: Kennedy was killed by Oswald. End of story.

How does O'Reilly know? Because he read the Warren Report.

Fine. For a lone killer to have fired only three shots in the imparted six seconds, the Commission had to create the single-bullet theory: one bullet, seven wounds, two broken bones, one right turn, one left turn... So magic that the bullet is found in pristine condition on a stretcher. Are you ready to believe that? Well, in September 1964, two men were not.

One of the seven Warren Commisison members, Senator Richard Russell had this (recorded) conversation with his good buddy, President Lyndon Johnson:

RUSSELL: - The commission believes that the same bullet that hit Kennedy hit Connally. Well, I don't believe it.

JOHNSON: - I don't either.

Now,

- If you want to know how the story was concocted, you might want to read : Breach of Trust: How the Warren Commission Failed the Nation and Why.

- If you want some perspective on who killed Kennedy and why, ou might want to read : JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters

- If you need a good dissection of the Warren Report, you could turn to : Accessories After the Fact (1967) or Biting the Elephant: The Warren Report (2009).

- If you don't mind a little file chasing, you might want to venture into : Oswald and the CIA: The Documented Truth About the Unknown Relationship Between the U.S. Government and the Alleged Killer of JFK

- If you want to know how does a well-sourced book looks like, you should read : Destiny Betrayed: JFK, Cuba, and the Garrison Case (Second Edition)

One book remains to be written, though. I will be more than happy to contribute title and subtitle:

BLINDING AMERICA

The 1963-2013 propaganda campaign to keep Americans in the dark following the assassination of President Kennedy.

Edited October 20, 2012 by Nathaniel Heidenheimer

[Nathaniel Heidenheimer]

wrong thread

Edited October 20, 2012 by Nathaniel Heidenheimer

[Len Colby]

I do recall he believed in a conspiracy back in the late 80s when he was doing Inside Edition, but that was years ago before he made it big. In case you've missed it, here's Bill with some JFK Conspiracy reporting back in the late 80s:

Rodney why do have a photo of Harry Belafonte as your avatar?

[Daniel Gallup]

I just read OReilly's book, and came away stunned as to how shallow the book is on critical matters. The discussion of Johnson on the Kennedy ticket in 1964 amounts to one paragraph, absent any discussion of Johnson's legal problems at the time. There is no discussion of Oswald's movements in the TSDB before the assassination, all the more important because they admit a shooter is seen at the window 10 minutes before the motorcade reached Dealey Plaza. The some total of their analysis: Oswald was busy prior to the shooting constructing a sniper's lair. Everyone has commented on their assertion that Oswald shot standing up. Then they simply lie with the following: "He drops his now-unnecessary Italian carbine and steps from the tower of the book boxes behind which he's been hiding. He races to get out of the depository." (p. 265) They lie about the location of the wound in the back (266) and the nature of the head wound as observed at Dallas and also Bethesda, saying the bullet exited "the front of his skull." One cannot but be reminded of Jackie's words: "...from the front there was nothing..." They mention Clint Hill but not what he saw on the back seat. They mention Perry but nothing he said about the anterior throat wound. In fact there are no comments from any physicians or nurses about Kennedy's wounds at all, and no references to the autopsy. The book is pure fluff, which is all one could expect from someone unacquainted with the case but with a flair for writing and making a buck. In the end acknowledgments they make clear that they are depending on Manchester, the Warren Commission, and Bugliosi and an individual Dallek who apparently wrote on the medical problems in the case, but which received no mention in the book itself. Before O'Reilly can be discredited, it seems to me Bugliosi needs to remain in the crosshairs, and the edifice he constructed torn down.