Jump to content
The Education Forum

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

Recommended Posts

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

If someone was foolish enough to give me that book I would give it back and advise they get a refund. I think people know me better than that.

Bad news that this will be a film.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 241
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

A couple of points.

1.The "Scott brothers" are down to one Scott. Tony jumped off a bridge in L.A. Harbor on August 19.

2. The only network special on the 40th anniversary worth a damn was on Fox, and hosted by Greta Van Susteren. I say this not because I'm a fan of Bill O'Reilly's or Fox News, I'm not. In fact, they make me puke. I say it because I'm not sure at this point that the conspiracy/no conspiracy argument is a left/right argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know I'm going to regret this, but DVP lists "Oswald never visited the Cuban and Russian Embassies" as a view attributed to Jim D, as though this was something to be ridiculed.

How, then, does DVP explain the CIA manufacturing the "evidence" of his visit to Mexico City in September 63? I'm specifically referring to the "photo that never was" and also the voice recording of Oswald which wasn't. Or that David Atlee Philips publicly stated that there was never any evidence that Oswald was there? ("Last Word", Lane)

Or that the bus ticket managed to elude searches until Priscilla Johnson entered the equation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Roger Craig as a reliable source?! LOL!

And why is Roger Craig an unreliable source? Honest question.


Most Warren defenders believe that Craig started his professional

Lies at 12:31 on 11/22/63 but not before .although there is more corroboration

For his seeing an "Oswald" walk down to the Rambler than there is for him riding

McWatters bus . Therefore the Deputy had to be a xxxx so the Warren defenders have to wait

Till the Garrison /Shaw trial to accuse him .

I guess they just backdated it like the evidence!.

You have to ignore so much to get Oswald in the frame and it is becoming

Clearer that some visit these forums just to test thier density of thought ,or not!.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

And why is Roger Craig an unreliable source?

He's not unreliable when it comes to seeing a guy who looked like Oswald getting in a Rambler at approx. 12:40 PM. (It wasn't Oswald he saw, of course, because we know Oswald travelled to Oak Cliff in Whaley's cab at just about that same time. Are there actually some conspiracists who believe Oswald DIDN'T take a taxicab to Beckley on 11/22?)

But Roger Craig is most definitely unreliable when it comes to the "Mauser" issue. And he HIMSELF proved himself to be a xxxx on that critical issue. Or do some conspiracy theorists think this 1968 L.A. Free Press article is a fake too?:


Edited by David Von Pein
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Craig makes an interesting observation of the locations of the shells in that article. All of them facing the same direction, none of them more than 3/4" apart. This is corroborated by Alyea, the photographer who took the famous shells picture.

And there is indeed some evidence that the WC version of the bus and cab journey has unravelled.

Thanks for the article David. I've never seen that before.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

" 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.” (Bill O'Reilly)

“Collaborating with National Geographic on Bill O’Reilly’s follow-up was an easy decision. 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.” (Ridley Scott)

(Bold added)


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are there actually some conspiracists who believe Oswald DIDN'T take a taxicab to Beckley on 11/22?
Of course there are, Dave. You included one on your crappy website that takes its readers back in time to 1964.

Well, Lee, I asked that question mainly as a rhetorical one. But I had, indeed, forgotten about my post from December 2010, in which I discuss your idiotic theory about Oswald not being on the bus OR in Whaley's taxicab. But you could have linked directly to the Education Forum thread from 2010, where your silliness originated.

Don't bother replying, Dave. We all know what you BELIEVE.

And we all know that you conspiracy mongers will continue to pick away at the verified evidence for as long as there's an out-of-print Mark Lane book still for sale at any garage sale in the USA or UK. Do you guys ever stop inventing new ways to keep from accepting Lee Oswald's guilt in the two murders he committed? Apparently not.

To believe William Wayne Whaley DIDN'T drive Lee Harvey Oswald to Beckley Avenue in Oak Cliff on the afternoon of November 22, 1963, is the same as believing Whaley was a big fat xxxx. And to believe Whaley was a big fat xxxx, while not altogether unusual in the loopy world of JFK conspiracists, is a ridiculous belief nonetheless.

If Whaley's a xxxx, then Commission Exhibit 382 is a big fat lie, which is written in Whaley's very nice handwriting:


And speaking of Whaley's handwriting -- I suppose that is yet another thing that conspiracy clowns like Lee Farley think is fake too. (It wouldn't surprise me.)

IOW, this burly, gruff, and scruffy old cab driver named Bill Whaley couldn't possibly have possessed such beautiful handwriting. No way! Therefore, that handwriting has got to be someone else's. Right, Lee?

Which would also mean that Whaley's 11/23/63 affidavit is a fraud too, because the signature on that document perfectly matches the signature found on Whaley's trip sheet in CE382:


Plus, Whaley's November 23rd affidavit, as far as content, must be a total lie too (if conspiracy theorist Lee Farley is correct), because in that 11/23 affidavit, Mr. Whaley tells us that he took Lee Oswald to North Beckley Avenue in Oak Cliff the previous afternoon.

And that same affidavit also provides the extra detail about how Whaley's November 22nd passenger was wearing "a bracelet on his left wrist" (although Mr. Whaley misspelled the word bracelet in his original affidavit). And guess who was wearing such a bracelet on his left wrist on 11/22/63?:


Lee, do you really believe William Whaley is telling a bunch of lies in the videos below? .....




Edited by David Von Pein
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is this affidavit a lie, Jimmy? If not, then you conspiracy mongers are cooked. And regardless of what the WC did with Whaley, this affidavit still exists, which was filled out by Whaley months before Whaley gave any WC testimony:


Edited by David Von Pein
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Incredible. The things CTers believe.

BTW, I'm not at all "hemmed in" by Earlene Roberts' timeline:


BTW #2: Whaley took Oswald approx. three blocks past his roominghouse, not five blocks. Oswald lived in the 1000 block, and Whaley dropped him off at Neely & Beckley, which was the 700 block. How does 1000 minus 700 = 5 blocks?

Edited by David Von Pein
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, Davey does not know of what he speaks.

1. Because this is what it says in his [cab driver William W. Whaley's] original notation and this is what he said at first. See 10-5 is equal to 5.

Sure. But why would anybody still be foolish enough to be married to the "500 block of North Beckley" statistic? We know that Whaley DIDN'T take Oswald all the way to the 500 block of Beckley, even though Oswald initially told Whaley when he got in the cab that he wanted to go to the 500 block and even though Whaley did write "500 Beckley" on his trip sheet.

Did you even watch Whaley's two re-creations (for David Wolper's film and then for the CBS News documentary)?

Whaley also told the Warren Commission [at 6 H 429] that Oswald got out of the cab near the intersection of Neely and Beckley, which is the 700 block of Beckley, not the 500 block.

Whaley was just lying to the Commission there on page 429 of Volume 6, right Jimmy? And Whaley continued his lies during the two re-creations he did for David Wolper's film crew and for Eddie Barker and CBS-TV in 1964. Right, Jimbo?

Get real.

2. And yes you are wedded to one o'clock with [Earlene] Roberts.

Bullxxxx. ALL times related to Oswald's post-assassination movements are merely "estimates" and "approximations", and all reasonable people know this.

You seem to think that every time estimate mentioned by every witness is rooted in concrete as the truth and couldn't possibly be a little bit off one way or the other -- like T.F. Bowley's "1:10" timestamp that you conspiracy theorists love so much; along with Helen Markham's "1:06" time for J.D. Tippit's murder, which has become the holy grail of timelines for Tippit's slaying for many conspiracists over the years. Balderdash and Humbug! (Not to mention "bullxxxx"!)

Plus: Let's listen to something else Earlene Roberts said at 6 H 440, which is a quote that came out of Mrs. Roberts' mouth precisely ONE SECOND after she said "3 or 4 minutes":

Roberts said that Oswald was in his room "just long enough, I guess, to go in there and get a jacket and put it on".

Tell me, Jimmy, how long does it take you to take a jacket off a hanger and put it on? 3 minutes? 4 minutes?


Give it up will you?

The person who should be surrendering is you, not me. You should be embarrassed at even suggesting that Lee Oswald wasn't in Whaley's cab. Good heavens, even your very own patsy, Oswald himself, said he took a cab to his room on November 22nd.

But let me guess -- you don't believe Oswald ever said anything of the kind about the cab ride, do you Jimbo? You think the Dallas Police Department's cover-up crew, which was filled with nothing but rotten cops, just lied their asses off about Oswald saying he had taken a cab to his roominghouse. Correct?

Of particular note is DPD Captain J.W. Fritz' Warren Commission testimony at 4 H 223, where we find these words spoken by Mr. Fritz (which are words that Jim DiEugenio probably believes are nothing but a web of lies being spun by the veteran homicide captain):

J. WILL FRITZ -- "When I asked him [Oswald] about a cab ride--if he had ridden in a cab--he said yes, he had."


JOSEPH BALL -- "Did you ask him if he went directly to his home?"

CAPTAIN FRITZ -- "Yes, sir; he said he went straight home."

MR. BALL -- "Didn’t you learn from the cabdriver that he hadn’t taken him to 1026 North Beckley?"

CAPTAIN FRITZ -- "I knew he had taken him near there, but I am telling you what he told me. He told me he had taken him home."

When you accepted those 57 witnesses, you hinted you were really a WC critic after all.

You're goofy, Jimmy. When I said this on January 5, 2013....

"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." -- DVP

....You seem to think I accept AS TRUE everything each of those witnesses said. But quite obviously, I do not think those witnesses are accurate with respect to much of what they have said. But I do not think they are liars either. I think they are wrong, yes. But that doesn't mean they qualify as liars (except Roger Craig, of course, and possibly Rose Cherami).

Instead of getting more pies in the face, just come out of the closet.

You want me to accept your foolish idea that Lee Oswald shot no one on November 22, 1963? Is that what you mean by "come out of the closet"?

Thanks, but no thanks. I'd rather be trapped aboard the Titanic or on the top floor of the World Trade Center on 9/11 than to join James DiEugenio's Anybody-But-Oswald circus of conspiracy clowns.

Edited by David Von Pein
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You seem to think that every time estimate mentioned by every witness is rooted in concrete as the truth and couldn't possibly be a little bit off one way or the other

If one can assume that:

  • All timepieces (watches, clocks, etc.) used by the witnesses that assigned a time to an event were synchronised during the passage of those events.
  • Each witness who assigned an absolute time to an event recorded that time accurately.
  • No absolute times were estimated.
  • Each witness that gave an elapsed rather than an absolute time, calculated it using an accurately recorded start and end time.
  • No elapsed times were estimated.

Then Jim and Lee's arguments become more feasible.

I say "Bravo, Jim!", and "Good work as always, Lee!"


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in

Sign In Now

  • Create New...