Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

O'Reilly's "Killing Kennedy" a colossal travesty

100 views
Skip to first unread message

hmalt...@gmail.com

unread,
Dec 1, 2012, 2:43:24 PM12/1/12
to
Talk about a shameless, exploitative, money-grab, that's O'Reilly's
vacuous "Killing Kennedy." Obviously, one of O'Reilly's graduate student
assistants cobbled together the abomination.

I'm confident the book will sell well among O'Reilly's lunatic fringe
fans, but will be quickly remaindered once that source has been exhausted.

Ace Kefford

unread,
Dec 2, 2012, 1:44:59 PM12/2/12
to
Well, in any case, he sure sold a lot. I haven't read it and don't intend to, but if it is as bad as you indicate, then he's laughing all the way to the bank.

claviger

unread,
Dec 3, 2012, 10:06:27 PM12/3/12
to
What exactly did he get wrong? Was he gullible to any "factoids" listed
by the John McAdams website?


groov...@gmail.com

unread,
Dec 6, 2012, 11:48:10 PM12/6/12
to
It doesn't embrace conspiracy factoids, if that's your concern. But it's
terrible. I looked through it at Costco. The fact it was at Costco kinda
made me sick to begin with. There are many serious researchers on this
case, both LN and CT, but O'Reilly and his co-writer aren't two of them.
And yet they'll get all the exposure, and sales. Basically, it's a
confused rehash of the Warren Report mixed in with a lot of salacious
gossip about Kennedy's sex life, etc. It's crap. It presents Oswald as the
shooter, no surprise, but presents him as shooting from a standing
position, which every researcher LN or CT knows is nonsense. Well, how
could they make such a mistake? Here's a guess: they had no idea what they
were writing about, and just took what they thought others had said and
gussied it up. Shameless.

dcw

unread,
Dec 16, 2012, 5:44:37 PM12/16/12
to
Didn't Brennan say he thought the shooter was standing? They just took
his word....

dcw
0 new messages