19 thoughts on “O’Reilly debunks O’Reilly: ‘I’m coming to Florida’”

  1. Expose O’Reilly for the morally corrupt mouthpiece he represents (this fellow appears to have form in the lying department – there are whispers about many claims he has made as a front line journalist). We need inquiring minds and people with integrity exploring the questions that the powerful and corrupt institutions fail to do.
    That the truth of history; the mysterious deaths of those who were on the verge of disclosure; and the death of a president could be so systematically covered up should concern more than interested parties in this debate.
    GDM’s alleged suicide is still considered by many to be mysterious, and not as black and white as the official record.
    Thank’s to the exposure of such villains as Bill O’Reilly, perhaps more people will open their eyes to the propaganda and falsehoods.

  2. “Not sure why folks on this website are obsessed with what he says or does”

    photon, Your folksy attempt to deflect attention from the significance of O’Reilly’s lie about being on the steps of the Tilton Mansion as shots rang out is transparent. Flash words like “obsessed” are guaranteed to catch the eye and ear of the uninformed but your somewhat desperate protestation is obviously an effort to distance lone assassin theorists from O’Reilly now that he has in a word, blown the pooch.

  3. Whether GDM killed himself or was ‘suicided’ the bottom line for me has always been the timing. Fonzi tracks him down, he was called to testify, he knew Oswald during the key time frame, and he is dead before he can talk. Doesn’t really matter who did it, the why still screams loudly…he had something to say.

  4. O’Reilly truthers: you have a point, but it’s at best on the very outer periphery of this site’s purpose. Now let’s get back to the real issues: who assassinated John Kennedy, and why?

    1. Fair point, Rule of Law… (I was one of those that came out and pointed out how irrelevant O’Reilly’s newly exposed lies were.)

      But, I have to say that I find me. Morley’s exposure of O’Reilly’s GDM lie is extremely useful in bringing GDMmissue back in to the spotlight.

      As Bruce Adamson shows in his meticulously documented research in his Timeline volumes, GDM, whose connection to Oswald stands undisputed, was not only connected to (or was part of) the CIA, but had direct ties many of the suspected conspirators, including LBJ.

      It’d be fantastic to have a new thread on GDM to discuss.

  5. Of course O’Reilly plays loose with the facts. His books are superficial and are written for a mass audience , not people knowledgable about the various topics. He is an entertainer and a blowhard, not a journalist or an historian. I detect more than a little gloating from Stelter; CNN has certainly had its own credibility issues in reports that they have broadcast that were not factual. Is that the same as making up a story in a book that has nothing to do with the actual facts in the case? Only if you consider O’Reilly a serious journalist-and I doubt that many of his fans do. Unfortunately , factual embellishments and outright falsehoods seem to be the norm in pop historical books and biographies. Even Obama’s book had similar inaccurate stories and events written with “artistic license ” It doesn’t make it right, but might help make a sale.
    Now how about similar concerns about the multiple false statements from actual participants in this story?

    1. Ramon F Herrera


      “His books are superficial and are written for a mass audience, not people knowledgable about the various topics.”


      Mr. O’Reilly has the potential to influence the selection of the president of the United States and many other acts of national importance. He calls himself a journalist.

      Conservatives must constantly be reminded about the fundamental principle that they ignore, either by choice or by nature:

      The more power, the more responsibility.

      The fact that he is now (albeit not in 1992) on your side in the JFK issue (and forever politically?) is not an excuse to give him a pardon. His lies are simply inexcusable for any responsible audience, although proper -and to a certain extent expected(*)- in the media outlet that employs him, and made him rich and famous.


      (*) Will elaborate on this later.

      1. I think that O’Reilly has zero chance to influence any election. His popularity is more a reflection of his personality and entertainment value ( and the horribly weak level of competing programming ) than any political influence that he might have. Not sure why folks on this website are obsessed with what he says or does
        I suspect that the overwhelming majority who contribute to this site have never seen the program.

        1. Ramon F Herrera

          “I think that O’Reilly has zero chance to influence any election.”


          … and therefore -following your logic- Faux has the same minuscule level of chance.

          Do you know who is the 2nd. biggest money maker for Rupert Murdock? O’Reilly (he is only beaten by the Simpsons). Do you know who is the most watched political (commentator or whatever he is) in this country?

          You just denied the influence of TV, next you will deny that of Limbaugh and claim that the typical Republican voter reads profound treatises before making a decision.


          I gather that you have not seen the signs in the Tea Party events:


          There is video of the FNC producers directing the Tea Partiers to shout.

          It is widely acknowledged that the TP has 3 parents and Fox is one of them. The other two are the Kochs and Dick Armey from FreedomWorks.

          Gee, you don’t even know your own party!! 🙂

        2. I own a copy of Bill O’Reilly’s book, “Killing Kennedy.” I have read it.
          About sixteen years ago I bought a copy of Gaeton Fonzi’s book, “The Last Investigation.” I have read that book twice, and still own it as well.
          I have watched Bill O’Reilly. Friends of mine who think that there was no conspiracy to kill JFK sent me Bill O’Reilly’s book to bolster their case. They also referred me to John McAdams’ website, and to Bugliosi’s book, which I have read, but don’t own. Twenty years ago the book “Case Closed” by Posner was cited by my denier friends, who said: “See? Nothing there.” When I offered to show them my set of books that raised questions, they said they didn’t want to read them.

          I think Bill O’Reilly, Gerald Posner, John McAdams, Bugliosi, and other deniers know exactly what they are doing: Defending the military intelligence state from internal dissent, from questions by free thinking people, who wonder if there has been any corruption happening over the years, JFK’s assassination being one of the “red flags” that highlight this corruption. When I asked one of my denier friends if he could in any way see a domestic coup, after I made my case (just as Seven Days in May made the case in a fictional film), he just shook his head, saying: “Of course if COULD happen, but not in the United States. We just don’t DO THINGS LIKE THAT.” So there you have it: Denial based on an almost child-like faith that nothing corrupt or bad could ever happen, not based on free inquiry or on testing of facts. I think a lot of deniers are of this mindset. Another aggregate group does think this could have happened, but denies it because they want to keep the truth hidden, keep the lid on this terrible scandal, afraid of what might happen to CIA and other institutions they are invested in if this truth leaked out into broad daylight.

      2. On one hand Bill O’Reilly is resident bully with a microphone that reaches tens and tens of millions of Americans to influence the storyline of every critical public debate in this country, but on the other hand photon and Jeff attempt to relegate O’Reilly to “entertainer” as if to argue his falsifications don’t really matter other than perhaps on principle.

        Jon Stewart ‘entertains.’

        O’Reilly, Limbaugh, Coulter and their ilk ‘inform’ the minds of millions upon millions of US voters.

        To suggest otherwise is to diffuse the significance of O’Reilly’s lie about his whereabouts when deMohrenschildt died. Anyone can fill in their own blanks related to the circumstances of deM’s death – this issue deserves more than a sound bite on Jeff’s site let alone the MSM. Were I Marie Fonzi and had I taken the brave step of sharing these tapes I would find it unsettling that their significance is being relegated to ‘well ya know, after all, Bill’s an entertainer.’

        The timing of Bill O’Reilly’s book, “Killing Kennedy” coincided with the eve of the 50th anniversary of the assassination; it was published by Henry Holt. The history of MacMillan’s branch Henry Holt leads back to Holt Rinehart Winston. Holt Rinehart published “Field and Stream” that carried the Manlicher Carcano advert, the same as the one A. Hidell or LHO are alleged to have responded to thru another magazine whose name escapes me just now. The small board of Holt Rinehart based in Tulsa OK in the early 1960’s included John Dabney Murchison, son of Clint W.

        Did Bill O’Reilly’s claim that he was just outside the door of the Manalapan Mansion as the shots were fired add credence to the assertion that deMohrenschildt committed suicide? After all, if Bill was outside the door, who would ever suggest that George deM was murdered because … Bill was there and certainly he would have encourntered the perps as they fled the property.

        Nothing is as it seems in this drama and the reporting of this has only touched the surface. (fwiw and as long as we’re discussing fact checking, deM’s daughter Alexis did not own the Tilton Mansion.)

        1. “Did Bill O’Reilly’s claim that he was just outside the door of the Manalapan Mansion as the shots were fired add credence to the assertion that deMohrenschildt committed suicide?”

          Great point Leslie. Not only does it imply that there was no monkey business that day, but it goes beyond that. If Bill O’Reilly was that dogged in his mission; if he was “on it” to the point where he was all over the facts on the ground as they happened, on the very doorstep even, and he comes to the general conclusion that it was a LN’r, then if I believe that lie, I should also trust his judgement. After all, how could someone so ostensibly suspicious, so skeptical in every way, ever come to that conclusion unless his elevated awareness of everything that was happening and had happened, dictated that conclusion? Well, it didn’t, he lied about being on the doorstep. He had no elevated awareness; no special information, so he trumped up a lie to make it look like he did. That’s not entertaining an audience, that’s lying to a receptive audience that is looking for, and trusting in, his “truth”. That’s how it looks to me anyway.

          1. Frank, I agree, and I have to apologize to Jeff because he made a significant statement in response to Stetler’s ‘does this really matter?’ After acknowledging O’Reilly is an ‘entertainer’ he went on to say that “a lot of people take what he’s saying on faith,” (approx. 4:20) so Jeff did indeed bring home the point of why this matters. My apologies to Jeff for suggesting otherwise.. .

    2. O’Reilly has an MA in Journalism – I’m not sure why it’s ok to forget ethics when you’re writing history that isn’t meant for the post-grad crowd.

      I think the obvious point you’re avoiding is that so many of the criticisms of the critics apply to defenders of the government position.

      1. Just shows you the value of a Masters in Journalism-or lack of any correlation with journalistic accuracy and integrity .

  6. Ramon F Herrera

    Let’s hope somebody puts Jeff’s interview in the web. I recorded it in my DVR, but it’s not easy to extract.

Leave a Comment

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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Scroll to Top