Dismantling Bill O’Reilly: The last chapter


CNN’s Brian Stelter explains the questions about the suddenly silent Fox news host. I provide some answers. And, mercy mercy mercy, Bill O’Reilly doesn’t have a word to say.

It reminds me of the time when I was 11 years old, there a was a big bully in my apartment building named George. He would just get in your face and make fun of you. He thought it was funny. One day this other kid, Andrew, just leaned back and clocked George in the face with his fist. Next time I saw George he had this huge black eye and he never bullied us again. That felt good.

I know O’Reilly is sure to bully again, but I hope he has learned something.

32 comments

  1. I didn’t want to read KILLING KENNEDY even before this came up, but now I certainly won’t.

  2. Dan says:

    While we are on the subject of transparency and accountability, now that Jeb Bush has called for Hillary Clinton to be transparent about her e-mails as Secretary of State, JFKFacts should call on Bush and Clinton (and other candidates for President) to support release of remaining secret JFK assassination records.

    • Ramon F Herrera says:

      “JFKFacts should call on Bush and Clinton (and other candidates for President) to support release of remaining secret JFK assassination records.”

      ================================

      Furthermore, it would be great if some well known media outlet (Politico would be perfect) sent a representative from JFK Facts (who better than Jeff Morley?) to one of the presidential debates.

      This would be extremely pertinent, since on Thursday, October 26th., 2017 some of the remaining documents will be released.

      I say *some* because the president will have the final say.

      • Dan says:

        The current legal situation is that as of Oct. 27, 2017 all withheld JFK assassination information will be released under the JFK Act. Agencies are permitted to appeal to the President to continue to postpone information beyond that date.

        Perhaps there should be a Presidential debate during the primaries devoted to transparency issues. I nominate Jeff Morley to be on the panel of questioners.

        • Ramon F Herrera says:

          [Dan:]

          “I nominate Jeff Morley to be on the panel of questioners.”

          ======================

          Dan, let’s say that the whole JFK community (the union of all JFK related web sites and organizations) gained the necessary momentum and embraced the once in history (not even lifetime!) opportunity to send a questioner to one of the upcoming presidential debates.

          It would be natural that us, JFK Facts members, nominated the founder of this site as the person representing us. That would be our first, instinctive, impulse. After all, Jeff Morley has already been seen as a legitimate narrator and leader of people, on CNN (too bad MSNBC and others missed this!! That is tragic… 🙁

          We should not forget, however, about the minorities! It is not a coincidence that the most important of the Federalist Papers is No. 10.

          http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fed_10.html

          With that in mind…

          There are at least three people:

          – Our Esteemed Ever Combative Photon
          – Jean Davison
          – “Rule of Law”
          – (not sure, who else?)

          who may want to nominate somebody from their side. While I don’t want to appear as presumptuous, it is obvious that they may want to consider:

          • Gerald Posner
          • Vincent Bugliosi
          • Jay Edward Epstein
          • Bill O’Reilly
          • John McAdams

          As the representative of the Extended JFK Community to those debates of historical visibility.

          To the 3 respected participants above, we should ask: Who would be a proper representative to the 2016 presidential debates, in your view? In addition to the 5 gentlemen above mentioned?

    • Yes indeed, Dan. By the time the election gets close, I hope there will be opportunities for readers/posters to draft our idea of a general statement JFKFacts can use.

      • Dan says:

        This morning Jeb Bush is quoted as saying “Transparency Matters”. Let’s make transparency apply to the remaining secret JFK assassination records (which are the most sought after records at the National Archives).

  3. PKM says:

    If this story can serve as an impetus for the release of records that already have been concealed too long, something good will have come from this obvious discrepancy. Such a release arising from the unmasking would also be a fitting tribute to Gaeton Fonzi.
    Can anyone suggest a thorough review of “Killing Kennedy” by a responsible critic?

      • Roy W Kornbluth says:

        Thanks, Ronnie. Great link for the looong Jim DiEugenio review and essay. Also that long analysis and theory by Stephen Courts is wow. Great comments by Robert Morrow.

      • Ramon F Herrera says:

        I concur with Roy. My only observation is about this:

        [Di Eugenio:]
        “The book describes Dr. Malcolm Perry’s attempt to revive President Kennedy at Parkland Hospital by cutting a tracheotomy over his throat wound. What the authors omit is the fact that later on that day, during a press conference at the hospital, Perry said that this wound in the front of the neck was one of entrance and therefore could not have been fired from the rear.”

        Along the years, Dr. Perry has been very reluctant to talk (Dr. McClellan chastises him and wonders why) but very quickly describes -as if having an internal conflict between being prudent and being truthful- the large gaping wound in the back of the head.

        ====================

        1963: “… and a large wound in his head, in the right posterior area.”

        (Minute 1:08″)

        ====================

        1967: “I noted a wound when I entered the room, which was of the right posterior portion of the head.”

        (Minute 3:00″)

        ====================

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LaNUeYYbYAs

        I agree with him: Frankly, the throat wound could have been entry or exit. I prefer the theory that the front shooter was to be enabled only if the head of JFK was still attached to his body after a certain point. This was supposed to be done entirely from behind, in order to avoid a messy faked autopsy.

  4. leslie sharp says:

    My apologies to Jeff for having suggested he limited his description of O’Reilly to “entertainer,” when in fact he emphasized that a “lot of people take what he [O’Reilly] says on faith.” That’s the significance of this breach of journalism ethics. Mea culpa.

  5. jim ludgate says:

    Hey Jeff,OReilly just tweeted that he did some research, and there was no one named George or Andrew that lived in yur building, more on the Factor! 😀

  6. Mark N. Giles says:

    Help me understand the space given to the ‘ O’Reilly Affair ‘ ! Why is it important to this site whether he misrepresented his whereabouts on a given day? I have read good debate about the entire assassination and the hundreds of CT’s here, and the mob mentality to prove he lied, embellished, whatever you want to call it simply has nothing to do with what happened on 11/22/63. Let’s get back to uncovering the truth where it actually matters !!

    • Ronnie Wayne says:

      This does matter. O’Riley lied about his “investigation” of the JFK assassination, the subject matter of this website.

    • Ramon F Herrera says:

      “Why is it important to this site whether he misrepresented his whereabouts on a given day?”

      ========================

      Because Mr. O’Reilly has declared himself as candidate to be one of the leaders in the JFK issue. He threw his hat in the ring, as it were. It is our duty (the JFK community) to respond in the strongest possible manner to his insult to us.

      As Jeff said in the interview: “O’Reilly is not a valid narrator”. Morley is. Even Posner and Bugliosi are.

      Let me put it this way: Can you imagine how many times there were no tape recorders around? Are you aware that the tape from Marie Fonzi shut (finally!!) the man up?

      This site has bragging rights about that discovery, and the Joannides discovery.

      If you are still unconvinced: You CLICKED, didn’t you?

    • leslie sharp says:

      Mark N. Giles, the significance is subtle and profound at once. If O’Reilly claims that he was on the doorstep of the Tilton Mansion and that he heard shots, the inference is he didn’t witness anyone leaving the mansion which supports the official version that deMohrenchildt committed suicide.

      If you had been standing at the front door, you heard shots, would you have 1) rushed into the home to determine the source; 2) fled the scene and phoned the authorities; 3) walked the perimeter to determine if there was any nefarious activity in play.

      We don’t know what O’Reilly did because no one has asked the question, and no one asked the question because …. they didn’t believe O’Reilly’s version from the outset or what?

      I feel the same way I felt at the KOA camp site the morning of 9/11 watching as the 2nd tower collapsed. ‘Does anyone realize what’s goin’ on here?’

    • Ramon F Herrera says:

      Mark:

      The question you have posed does not have an easy answer. The issue in general is complex. A similar case is language. Dealing with it can become very complicated because we are using language to study *language*. Or the brain to understand the brain.

      In this particular case we have media debating about media.

      Have you seen the number of hits about this news in Politico?

      http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2015/03/cnn-publishes-oreilly-tape-203331.html?ml=po

      14,000! and we -the source of the discovery- are supposed to just shrug?? Because the issue is not directly related to the events of 11/22?

      Other than the cruelty, horror, human suffering, historical curiosity, a salient issue is that we are being lied to by institutions that we are suppose to respect.

      Mr. O’Reilly is -in more than a sense- a spokesperson (a loud one, at that) for those lying institutions.

    • Fearfaxer says:

      First, this lie is on the magnitude of someone (e.g., myself) claiming that I was in Dealey Plaza at the moment JFK was murdered. Second, someone hearing that gunshot and not witnessing anyone fleeing the scene is very strong evidence that George de M committed suicide, which some people dispute. Third, if someone tells such a lie this brazen and this easily exposed, it is proof positive that they will lie about anything and you can’t ever take them at their word. Fourth, by telling this lie, O’Reilly has further muddied the already too murky waters of this historical incident. It’s just one more bit of deliberate disinformation that helps to make finding the truth even more difficult.

  7. gerald campau says:

    I see that O’Reilly will be 66 years old in Sep. Not to old to write the true history of JFK assassination, as assassination was a Operation Northwoods ultimate coup d’etet it would be very dangerous to write such a book in todays enviorment were whistleblower are thrown to wolves. It maybe his only way to regain respect.

    • Ramon F Herrera says:

      “It maybe his only way to regain respect.”

      ===========================================

      Gerard: Mr. O’Reilly is the most respected political commentator on American TV… according to his viewers, that is.

      He has no interest whatsoever on gaining your or my respect. In fact, is he so much as moves one centimeter in that direction he will be fired on the spot. Not unlike Ms. Palin, he is playing his role perfectly.

      He is the 2nd. highest source of income for the adequately labeled Faux (topped only by “The Simpsons”). He is the Goose of the Golden Eggs.

      Some sectors (call them Social Conservatives, Far Right, Teabaggers, etc.) are totally convinced that they are being lied and cheated (“Obama could not possibly have been elected fairly!” “He is a Muslim, born in Kenya!” “The Republican Party is a nest of Che Guevara guerrillas! We are being invaded!” — peppering the dialog with “treason”, “treason”, “treason”) and *therefore* they are entitled to twist the truth or state an outright lie, such as “I heard the gunshot”.

      This event most likely increased his audience.

      You are invited to take a close look at the Politico forum, specially when there is an article about racism, immigration, Israel, gays, etc.

      • Ramon F Herrera says:

        I am watching Jeff being interviewed in CNN. The full interview. (I wish I could extract it from my DVR and post it here! – JFK Facts has a very short version).

        After Morley, they had Al Franken and a professor of journalism: Jay Rosen, who had some remarkable comments.

        Jay Rosen: “People often advise me to see O’Reilly as an entertainer, but I think it’s more accurate to say he’s kind of a performance artist. His medium is television, the genre is resentment news and what makes it go is his performance every night shooting down Liberals and expressing the anger and resentment that certain portion of the country feels towards another portion of the country.”

        He closed with:

        “Since his aim is so true and he hits that cord, his stories don’t have to be true”.

        The business plan decision aspect by Fox was also mentioned.

        • Vanessa says:

          Hi Ramon

          The thing I don’t understand is this: Bill O’Reilly’s relationship with his own audience is based on trust. They trust him to tell him the real story about what is going on in this world of liberals run rampant. So if he can be shown to have lied about that then I would think that has to be an issue for his audience and for O’Reilly.

          • Ramon F Herrera says:

            Vanessa:

            I used to post this “ad” in political forums:

            “If you like to hear…

            • what you want
            • all you want
            • nothing but what you want

            no iffs, thens or buts…

            … we are your man!!!”

            -Signed: Fox News

            ========================

            The typical FAUX watcher is not interested in the truth (as recognized by people based on rational, academic grounds), they want satisfaction, retaliation.

            I will see if I transcribe more from the Rosen interview. He explains it so well!

          • Ramon F Herrera says:

            Dear Vanessa:

            I cannot stress this enough.

            You *have* to see what Jay Rosen had to say about Fox and Mr. Trust Me. As luck would have it, the full video (more precisely: Morley, Franken and Rosen) should be soon in a screen near you! In all its glorious details.

            JFK Facts is working in the technical minutiae as we speak.

            See here, where you are mentioned:

            http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/news/in-defense-of-bill-oreilly/#comment-732444

          • Vanessa says:

            Dear Ramon

            As you may shortly be the only one on here who is still speaking to me 🙂 I would like to thank you for the effort you have put into getting us a longer version of Jeff’s interview. I look forward to seeing it. I have tried to send you 2 previous posts on this but they have flown under the radar of the moderator.

            And it wasn’t me that caused that thread on the Education Forum to be locked either…..honest. 🙂

        • Ramon F Herrera says:

          [RFH:] “The business plan decision aspect by Fox was also mentioned.”

          =======================

          Comparing ESPN’s Olbermann (who was in hot water and apologized) with O’Reilly:

          Rosen: “Yes, except that even at ESPN, if you divide the audience, if you offend a portion of the audience, that’s a problem. At Fox News, if you divide the audience and offend a portion of it, that’s not a problem: that’s a programming strategy”

          ———————————-

          I would have used “American people” instead of “audience”. But it was excellent.

    • Ramon F Herrera says:

      “It maybe his only way to regain respect.”

      ===========================================

      Hi Gerard.

      I prepared a short clip for you and the other JFK Facts participants who still have any lingering doubts about the nature of the channel that viewers with high standards have decided to baptize “Faux News”.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iliH-67pvyk&feature=youtu.be

      I am sorry that it took me 2 months for a reply, but that is the advantage of cyberspace. We defeat time and space.

  8. Ramon F Herrera says:

    [Vanessa:]

    “Dear Ramon:

    I would like to thank you for the effort you have put into getting us a longer version of Jeff’s interview.”

    ========================

    Hi Vanessa:

    I have some news for you and all forum participants who would like to see the full video that is part of our history… within the realm of JFK Facts, anyway.

    Many out there know that Comcast (my provider) and cable companies in general were not exactly thrilled by the idea of us users transferring the material in our cable box (DVR: Digital Video Recorder). They treated it as a bank’s vault. Things have changed so much in the last few years!! Providers now are competing and beg us viewers:

    “No, Vanessa, get the video from _our_ box/service/web! It has higher quality! Pleeeeeeese!!”.

    In a remarkable demonstration of how capitalism works so well, the tables have turned around. Economists call this “a buyer’s market”.

    My cable box is of the previous generation, so I have employed all the tricks in my repertoire to bring you:

    – The full Morley interview
    – Senator Al Franken
    – Amanda Terkel – The Huffington Post
    – Jay Rosen, NYU [you’ve gotta see this one]

    CNN placed 4 1/2 minutes in their YouTube channel. This is all we have, for now. The material relevant to JFK Facts is 26 minutes long.

    There is a surprise bonus as well: in my almost forgotten recordings I found the program “The JFK Assassination – Definite Guide” from the History Channel and guess who was one of the interviewed experts? Our own, Jefferson Morley!

    I still have to do some video editing, remove the commercials, etc., plus send the DVD disk to the JFK Facts’ audiovisual department but here’s is a short, sneak preview:

    http://s18283067.onlinehome-server.com/~ramon/cnn-reliable-sources/Al-Franken.html

    http://s18283067.onlinehome-server.com/~ramon/definite-guide/Morley-Crime-Circumstances.html

    Since this is still at the experimental stage, you may want to try these two MP4 links as well:

    http://s18283067.onlinehome-server.com/~ramon/cnn-reliable-sources/Al-Franken.mp4

    http://s18283067.onlinehome-server.com/~ramon/definite-guide/Morley-Crime-Circumstances.mp4

    • Vanessa says:

      Hi Ramon

      Thanks again for doing this. It’s really very kind of you to take the time and effort to do all this.

      I have to say the films on the first 2 links still seem to cut out after a few seconds even when I access directly through JFKFacts. And I can’t access the second 2 links at all.

      It could be my home server though. It is truly hopeless. I’ll have another go at work tomorrow.

      Franken does seem to be bending over backwards not to criticise Fox and O’Reilly though in the small bit I’ve seen.

  9. Ramon F Herrera says:

    [Vanessa:]

    “Franken does seem to be bending over backwards not to criticise Fox and O’Reilly though in the small bit I’ve seen.”

    ===========================

    To be fair … and balanced 🙂 you need to watch the Senator’s segment, complete. This is a fuller one:

    http://s18283067.onlinehome-server.com/~ramon/cnn-reliable-sources/Fuller-Franken-for-Vanessa.html

    You may want to try this other link, in which the file is streamed directly (not HTML involved) to your PC:

    http://s18283067.onlinehome-server.com/~ramon/cnn-reliable-sources/Fuller-Franken-for-Vanessa.mp4

    A faster computer definitely makes a big difference in videos.

    I am experimenting, trying to determine the best combination of image quality vs. file size: the most unforgiving of trade-offs.

    • Vanessa says:

      Hi Ramon

      Thanks again for doing that. I feel awful though that you are making the time and effort to do that – it is very kind of you though.

      Franken really seems to be holding his fire on O’Reilly. The libel case was a ‘misunderstanding’. As if!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

In seeking to expand the range of informed debate about the events of 1963 and its aftermath, JFKFacts.org welcomes comments that are factual, engaging, and civil. more