Killing Kennedy: The End of Camelot (The Killing of Historical Figures) Killing Kennedy discussion


140 views
Clearly Controversial

Comments Showing 1-21 of 21 (21 new)    post a comment »
dateDown arrow    newest »

Beth Unlike the case of Lincoln's assassination, the party or parties who are truly responsible are still in doubt, even after almost 50 years. I understand that Mr. O'Reilly is putting forward the Lone Gunman theory, which is the "official" explanation for what happened that day in Dallas(I don't accept this theory myself). I'm looking forward to the rebuttals to this arguement. I don't know if the crime will ever be solved to anyone's satisfaction - if the culprits have escaped definitive justice after all these years, it's unlikely the true smoking gun will ever be exposed after all these years. But then again, you never know.


message 2: by Dan (new)

Dan I am flabbergasted at the volume of good reviews for Bill O'Reilly's book, "Killing Kennedy" I mean come on people, you scroll down the page and see how people give it one star and say that he completely ignored 49 years of research as if it didn't exist. Its really sad to see grown ups rating this book with phrases like "it hit the mark" DON'T YOU REALIZE HES DOING EVERYTHING BUT HITTING THE MARK?!?! STOP WATCHING FOX AND GRINDING YOUR BRAINS THROUGH A CHEESE GRATER.


Ellen I think some can't stand to think that a loser like Oswald could, all by his sick self, take down a powerful man like Kennedy. Would make more sense if there was a conspiracy involving multiple gunmen and sinister plots. But I think Oswald was alone in it; Jack Ruby respected his President and wanted to avenge him;and that's all there is. Not much of a plot, eh?


Beth After reading this book, I feel like O'Reilly gave some really strong evidence why the CIA, the Mafia, and even LBJ all had motives to kill JFK - but never acknowledges it. No, his killer is some no-one whose motivations, thoughts and feelings are largely unknown to us. Since we have no concrete record of Oswald, O'Reilly has to invent one - inserting Oswald's "thoughts" as he's pulling the trigger.

This book is supposed to be non-fiction but reads more like fiction because almost everything Oswald is conjecture - inference, speculation. Whatever word you want to use. Unless there is some secret interrogation file that is not available to the public with Oswald's confession in it, this is not a definitive account of how Kennedy died at all. I don't look for conspiracies everywhere I look - but clearly there is more to the story than just one lone wacko with a gun.


Debbie Beth wrote: "After reading this book, I feel like O'Reilly gave some really strong evidence why the CIA, the Mafia, and even LBJ all had motives to kill JFK - but never acknowledges it. No, his killer is some ..."

I agree with you on this...I still believe it was more than one person.


Chris This is supposed to be a place to discuss and rate a book yet some have to bring politics into everything. Fox News has shows that are opinion shows. If you don't like them don't watch them. Discuss the book and not your hatred for Fox and those who are on the network. If you hate them so much then why do you even bother to read a book by an author who had a show on the network. Clearly you are already biased before even starting to read the book.


Trebor Watch the Zapruter film! It shows the viewer clearly that there was more than one shooter. Oswald was definitely involved in some way, along with many others who will never be proven conplicit. The book points out many who had a hatred of the Brothers, but never goes any deeper. I found the book to be a real let down in that respect.


Debbie I have always thought more than one
Person killed Kennedy!! Oswald looked stupid!!


Sean There were 4 shooters, Jack Files was one of them. Look him up, JFKMurdersolved.com He was on the grassy Knoll and made the head shot from the front using a weapon called the fireball. The orders were that it wasnt over until there was a head shot. It was well known that an attempt was going to be made. Jack Files admitted to it and went silent. He is in prison at this time and has been a career criminal. The Govt is quiet and Jack has had threats on his life unless he keeps quiet. Oswald was involved but not a shooter, he's a patsy whos hit was planned afterward only postponed by the officer who was not shot by oswald but by Files close friend whos job it was to get Oswald at the theater which was the meeting place. Nicoletti made the shot from above. Files made the final kill shot from the front in his right temple and walked away.


David Selcer This one's better than his book on the Lincoln's murder, which wasn't very good.


Robin Still not decided on what really happened. Cannot deny that o'reilly does a good job with this book. I enjoyed the book, but he was not able to make me decide on one shooter, and oswald as the shooter.


Debbie I know


David Selcer I agree with you Robin. What about the McGruder tape?


message 14: by Nathaniel (last edited Mar 24, 2013 05:41PM) (new) - rated it 1 star

Nathaniel Compare the reviews that JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters by James W. Douglass got from actual authorities in the field of intelligence history.

People like Daniel Ellsberg of the Pentagon Papers, Marcus Raskin, top aid to McGeorge Bundy in the Kennedy White House, and Ray McGovern, former CIA pdb to President George W. Bush have written some very interesting comments.

Then look at the footnotes. All 2,800 or so and from Academic history sources, and primary documents recently declassified from from the more than 6,000,000 by the congressionally appointed Assassination Records Review Board.

The contrast in professionalism with the amount of media coverage is revealing. Now look at how the Bill O'Reilly "book" without a single footnote was reviewed even by the New York Times, although it was their retired TV critic.

Nothing to see here, folks keep on walking.


message 15: by Beth (new) - rated it 2 stars

Beth Nathaniel wrote: "Compare the reviews that JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters by James W. Douglass got from actual authorities in the field of intelligence history.

People like Daniel Ellsber..."


Sounds like something I need to read! Thanks for the recommendation!


Marge Martin Dan wrote: "I am flabbergasted at the volume of good reviews for Bill O'Reilly's book, "Killing Kennedy" I mean come on people, you scroll down the page and see how people give it one star and say that he comp..."


Debbie I read the book, but I feel that Oswald didn't kill Kennedy by himself!!


message 18: by N (new) - rated it 5 stars

N I do not think O'Reilly has necessarily bought into the lone killer theory. Just read at the end of the book what happened when he, as a reporter years back, went to interview Marina Oswald's Russian male friend! The man had been subpoenaed to testify when the JFK assassination case was brought up again for Congressional review. The guy killed himself...while O'Reilly was at the door! And there is evidence the man had previously phoned the CIA asking for protection. Eh, that all seems pretty drastic for someone who was innocent of any involvement. JFK was killed by Oswald, but someone else was involved. Someone or some organization.


Licha People just blast on O'Reilly because of who he is. There are so many theories out there, but yet there are people who get on here and want to insult others for liking the book or buying into O'Reilly's theories. O'Reilly wrote a good book in a way that made me enjoy reading history. Whether it's accurate or not, I don't know. All I know is that there are so many other conspiracy theories out there. He sparked enough curiosity in me to want to research some more. His reputation would be at stake if his research were as shoddy as some people claim the book to be. For me, it's another theory amongst the many, but at least O'Reilly entertains while presenting his view.


Sophia James Ellen wrote: "I think some can't stand to think that a loser like Oswald could, all by his sick self, take down a powerful man like Kennedy. Would make more sense if there was a conspiracy involving multiple gun..."


Sophia James I suspect you are right. No one will ever be sure and there are some very convincing theories but the most boring one is just that Oswald was a loser who just wanted attention. This is not the theory people want to believe but it is more convincing than any other.
I liked the book and I think O'Reilly explores the other theories well. I would be interested to know what he believes.


back to top