The Latest on Tom Hanks' production of "Parkland"

[Pat Speer]

It's revolting to think Bugliosi, Bill O'Reilly and a number of actors and directors are gonna make more off their JFK-related products than all the actual researchers to ever work on this case. But that's the reality.

What's truly "revolting" is to think how much profit Oliver Stone has made on his JFK fantasy flick.

In my view, people like Bugliosi, Hanks, Posner, Davison, Myers, McAdams, Moore, and O'Reilly deserve all the reward they can rake in from their JFK-related work. After all, they've told the FACTS about the way John Kennedy died. Oliver Stone sure as hell didn't.

DVP Vs. DiEugenio (Re: "Parkland")

What? You've got to be kidding, David. I suspect in your heart of hearts you find O'Reilly's milking of JFK's ghost as disgusting as I do. Here's a man who knows less than the average Forum member about the case, making MILLIONS off his name, on a book clearly written by someone else, who knows even less about the case. What a scam!

In short, I'd find O'Reilly's book despicable even if he said Oswald was innocent.

As far as Stone, an awful lot of people liked JFK without believing everything in it. There was a passion to the story; it was a technical and artistic triumph. Not so most of the works you referenced, which had little appeal to anyone beyond their message: that Oswald did it all by his lonesome.

Edited August 23, 2013 by Pat Speer

[David G. Healy]

It's revolting to think Bugliosi, Bill O'Reilly and a number of actors and directors are gonna make more off their JFK-related products than all the actual researchers to ever work on this case. But that's the reality.

What's truly "revolting" is to think how much profit Oliver Stone has made on his JFK fantasy flick.

In my view, people like Bugliosi, Hanks, Posner, Davison, Myers, McAdams, Moore, and O'Reilly deserve all the reward they can rake in from their JFK-related work. After all, they've told the FACTS about the way John Kennedy died. Oliver Stone sure as hell didn't.

DVP Vs. DiEugenio (Re: "Parkland")

Ahhh, E-N-V-Y, not a good trait, Davey-me-boy. You aren't still ticked off because Dale *gotta see my EMMY* Myers got the Reclaiming History-ghost writing nod and not you? Bugliosi probably figures your JFK assassination related 15 blogs, 25 websites, unknown quantity of video clips, gazillion audio clips, 200,000 posts to various forums around the USENET and Internet, cover enough bases... I'm sure Myers enjoyed the work.

And besides you got the internet marketing nod for Bugliosi's Reclaiming History (the worst book publishing disaster in the history of book publishing!) You're a natural, dude! LMAO

Edited August 23, 2013 by David G. Healy

[David Von Pein]

What? You've got to be kidding, David. I suspect in your heart of hearts you find O'Reilly's milking of JFK's ghost as disgusting as I do. Here's a man who knows less than the average Forum member about the case, making MILLIONS off his name, on a book clearly written by someone else, who knows even less about the case. What a scam!

You do, indeed, have a point regarding Bill O'Reilly's "Killing Kennedy" book. I don't have that book and have not read it, but of course I know the bottom-line theme in the book -- LHO was the person who shot JFK and Tippit.

So from that limited "bottom line" standpoint, I would still recommend the book...if only just so a little more "equal time" can be achieved between the crazy CT books and the few-and-far-between LN volumes (even if O'Reilly's LN volume wasn't written by a so-called "JFK Scholar").

But I will say that there is most definitely something fishy about the thousands of five-star reviews that O'Reilly's book gets at Amazon.com. I have no proof, but those short reviews sure look rigged to me, just to hike the overall "star" rating for the book. But, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe there are several people every single day of the year (sometimes as many as 15 or 20 people per day) that have a desire to go to the Amazon site and write a very short, two-line blurb (almost always just two measly lines) to rave about O'Reilly's "good read". But it sure looks strange to me. (And I'm not just saying this for the first time today either....)

"A few weeks ago I noticed that there is definitely something very strange about all the 5-star "reviews" for Bill O'Reilly's book. It looks like Bill has his people very busy writing hundreds of fake reviews for his new JFK book. A shame. The tip-off is the fact that almost all of those short, one-paragraph 5-star "reviews" represent the FIRST and ONLY review ever written by the reviewer at Amazon. A few of the reviewers have 2 or 3 other reviews, but the vast majority have zero other reviews, which is a sure sign that something's rotten in the state of "Killing Kennedy Review Land"." -- DVP; November 21, 2012

Edited August 23, 2013 by David Von Pein

[Ron Ecker]

Give O'Reilly a break. He needs the money.

[David Von Pein]

Give O'Reilly a break. He needs the money.

Yeah. After all, he's got to pay 20 reviewers a day to write all those fake reviews. Can't be cheap. (But, then too, maybe the publisher takes care of that stuff.)

Edited August 23, 2013 by David Von Pein

[Bill Charleston]

Where's Kevin Costner when you need him? JFK and Thirteen Days are calling out for a completed trilogy, one that goes even further toward the truth, with or without Oliver Stone.

Has anybody with any connections thought of running a third JFK picture past Kevin Costner? I have some ideas if anybody would back me and put me in a position to pitch them.

Add this information to your film and it will finally make sense.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6NfgTEi12p0