Deprecated: Function Elementor\DB::is_built_with_elementor is deprecated since version 3.2.0! Use Plugin::$instance->documents->get( $post_id )->is_built_with_elementor() instead. in /home/cnw9flf6e/public_html/wp-includes/functions.php on line 5379
Why Bill O'Reilly would lie about JFK > JFK Facts

Why Bill O’Reilly would lie about JFK

Journalist Hugh Aynesworth told his theory to  Dallas Observer blogger Jim Schutze..

Aynesworth was in south Florida when George De Mohrenschildt, a friend of Lee Oswald, killed himself in March 1977. De Mohrenschildt thought Oswald did not kill President Kennedy and was preparing to say that.

“I was there,” Aynesworth told Schutze. “I really was there. I was down there within hours of him shooting himself.

“I didn’t see him [O’Reilly] there. I was at the police department or that house for hours, and he just was not there. He wasn’t in Florida, I’ll put it that way.”

via Hugh Aynesworth Talks About Why Bill O’Reilly Would Lie About JFK Assassination 

39 thoughts on “Why Bill O’Reilly would lie about JFK”

  1. In addition to Bill O’Reilly’s whopper of a falsehood about being at George DeMohrenschildt’s door in Florida when George committed suicide in March of 1977, there’s another really odd thing going on with respect to the tidal wave of “5-Star” reviews that keep coming in every single day at Amazon.com for O’Reilly’s 2012 book, “Killing Kennedy”.

    I noticed this weird “cookie cutter” trend in the reviews for O’Reilly’s book over two years ago when the book first was released. And it seems to have gotten weirder recently. As of the time when I’m typing this message on the night of March 1, 2015, on just the first three pages of “Most Recent” reviews for “Killing Kennedy” (that’s a total of 30 reviews), there are FOURTEEN (14) reviews that merely have the words “Five Stars” or “Four Stars” in the title of the review (even though they were supposedly written by different people). That’s almost HALF of the first thirty reviews featuring the say-nothing titles of “Five Stars” or “Four Stars”. That’s nuts. It can’t be kosher or legitimate. It’s become the “cookie cutter review page” at Amazon. Those reviews are ridiculous….and they are obviously phony.

    And the kicker is: evidently after churning out dozens of these one-line, say-nothing “reviews” of praise for O’Reilly’s book PER DAY, the phony so-called “reviewers” now aren’t even attempting to be different or to even hide the fact that these crazy reviews are bogus. That’s obvious by the fact that many of these so-called “reviewers” are now using the very same two-word titles for their reviews—over and over again. Does anyone really think that *separate legitimate reviewers* for the same book would be using as the title of their review the exact same words (“Five Stars” or “Four Stars”)? Not a chance in the world.

    I can’t understand why Amazon.com doesn’t do something to stop this obvious “ballot stuffing” for O’Reilly’s book. But perhaps Amazon doesn’t have the software or the resources to screen out this sort of blatant fraud in the review system on its website. But it’s been a disturbing trend on Amazon’s “Killing Kennedy” page for more than two years now. And it would be nice if it could be stopped. Because those reviews are as phony as an 11-dollar bill and anyone who reads just a few of them can easily verify that fact for themselves (check the link below).

    http://www.amazon.com/Killing-Kennedy/product-reviews/0805096663/ref=cm_cr_pr_top_recent?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=0&sortBy=bySubmissionDateDescending

    1. Von Pein,

      Amazon itself is a biased organization, a large corporation with corporatist interests, which translates to PR. That is, Amazon is a part of the official Public Relations Regime.

      I would posit that it is Amazon itself that is making up these 5 star reviews, because it is in corporatist interests to play to the “Lone Nut” bullsh!t.
      \\][//

      1. I’m with David Von Pein on this one. Amazon is not part of any conspiracy to push O’Reilly’s book. It is being manipulated by outside sources, almost certainly paid for by O’Reilly’s publisher. As I recall, when O’Reilly’s book came out, he blew a fuse over some of the negative reviews, and asked his viewers to bombard Amazon with positive reviews, whether they’d read the book or not. That this continues years later suggests that someone or something has made it part of an organized and ongoing plan.

        As far as Amazon, some years back the director of my youtube video series decided he wanted to get some money back for his efforts, which amounted to a hundred hours or more of work. We decided to put a DVD together of the videos, add in a power point presentation, and sell them on Amazon. We were amazed to find that Amazon’s system started promoting the DVD along with other JFK-related DVD’s, and that it did so for a number of months. I don’t believe Amazon would have done this if it was part of an organized effort to suppress conspiracy-related material.

        1. Well Pat, Amazon has a profit motive as well, I can’t dispute that.

          I began my posting on the web career on Amazon Political Forums. These were policed by anti-conspiracy types heavily. You were allowed to go only so far before being bounced.

          But you may be right about O’Reilly instigating 5 star reviews. Thing about that is, you have to have bought a book from Amazon to do a review.
          \\][//

          1. WILLY WHITTEN SAID:

            …you have to have bought a book from Amazon to do a review.

            DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

            No you don’t. All you need to do is create an “Amazon account”. In order to create an account, however, I *think* you need to provide Amazon with a valid credit card number (but not 100% positive about that part of the sign-up process).

            But, anyway, you aren’t then *forced* to purchase an item from Amazon in order to have an account created that will then permit you to post reviews and leave comments on the Amazon discussion boards, etc.

            March 2 update (at 6:00 PM EST) —- 6 more “positive” reviews posted for O’Reilly’s book today at Amazon (mostly 4 and 5 stars), with one of the 5-star reviews saying pretty much nothing and with the standard “Five Stars” used for the title (which is very silly in the first place, because everybody can already see the five “stars” lit up next to the words “Five Stars”; so it’s pretty obvious that O’Reilly’s shills are simply running out of new and varying titles to use for their bogus reviews).

          2. I have an Amazon account. I still cannot post on the book review threads.

            Yes you need to provide a valid credit card.

            I spoke with customer service about this. She said that until I order a book, I cannot remark on the book reviews. I still cannot I have tried.
            \\][//

          3. I’ll be dipped, Willy. I didn’t know that about being forced to buy an item from Amazon before you can become a reviewer. I thought just an open account was enough. I stand corrected. (Dumb policy, IMO. But I guess that’s the way Amazon wants it.)

          4. They are probably dipping in to some O’Reilly fan club mailing list or something.

            The consistent pattern of the”reviews” with the “XStar title + two brief praises suggest that it is probably a bot. If one had the time to sift through them, chances are there will be a lot of repeat “praises” as well.

            In any case, a very fitting PR scam operation for Mr. O’I was there…

            But also, a terrible PR advice… Could become yet another cause for further embarrassment now that he is on the chopping block.

          5. It was an honest mistake, David vonPein. The question of Amazon pumping up sales is a distraction; we all know that the executives do not have a clue about the assassination, and for the most part could not care less. If all of us remain alert, we can interrupt the spread of the virus of disinformation to that generation.

            The concern at the moment should be whether or not Henry Holt, publisher of Bill O’Reilly’s “Killing Kennedy” has launched a public relations campaign to support their book that was published just months before the 50th Anniversary. They apparently continue to stand behind O’Reilly’s version of events in Manalapan.

            O’Reilly’s claim that he was on the doorstep of the Tilton Mansion as shots rang out from inside introduced on a subliminal level that because Bill didn’t witness anyone exiting the mansion – after all, he would have pursued the perps, right? – George deMohrenshildt clearly was not murdered but rather shot himself in the mouth with a 40+” shotgun as posited in the official version of his death.

            Check out the history of Henry Holt publishers, now a division of MacMillan with deep roots in distribution of school textbooks, Dallas 1963.

            To quote a wise investigator, “this is not rocket science.”

          6. Additional Amazon Footnote—

            I’ve now been noticing that the recent “cookie cutter” style of say-nothing reviews featuring the silly “Five Stars” and “Four Stars” titles is not limited to just Bill O’Reilly’s “Killing Kennedy” book.

            Upon looking at several other JFK-related book pages at Amazon–“conspiracy” and lone nut” books alike–I noticed (with my mouth agape in near disbelief at how many of these I was able to find almost immediately) the exact same type of ultra-short and essentially worthless “reviews” for many other books too, including all of the following Kennedy books….

            Stephen King’s “11-22-63” (Scribner Publishing; 1st Edition);

            James Douglass’ “JFK And The Unspeakable” (Touchstone);

            Roger Stone’s “The Man Who Killed Kennedy” (Skyhorse);

            Lamar Waldron’s “The Hidden History Of The JFK Assassination” (Counterpoint) [with 6 of the latest 9 reviews for this book, as of 3/3/15, falling into what I would consider to be the “bogus” category, including the last 4 in a row, which ALL feature the words “Five Stars” or “Four Stars” as the review title];

            Richard Belzer’s “Hit List” (Skyhorse);

            Philip Shenon’s “A Cruel And Shocking Act” (Henry Holt & Co.);

            James Swanson’s “End Of Days” (William Morrow);

            Phillip Nelson’s “LBJ: The Mastermind Of The JFK Assassination” (Skyhorse; 2nd Edition);

            Jerome Corsi’s “Who Really Killed Kennedy?” (WND Books);

            Clint Hill’s “Mrs. Kennedy And Me” (Gallery Books);

            Clint Hill’s “Five Days In November” (Gallery Books);

            Gerald Blaine’s and Lisa McCubbin’s “The Kennedy Detail” (Gallery Books);

            Jesse Ventura’s “They Killed Our President” (Skyhorse);

            Jim Marrs’ “Crossfore” (Basic Books; Revised Edition);

            James DiEugenio’s “Destiny Betrayed” (Skyhorse; 2nd Edition);

            Bonar Menninger’s “Mortal Error” (CreateSpece; 2nd Edition);

            Judyth Vary Baker’s “David Ferrie” (Trine Day);

            Larry Sabato’s “The Kennedy Half-Century” (Bloomsbury USA);

            and Mimi Alford’s “Once Upon A Secret” (Random House).

            So it would appear as if a lot of publishers are attempting to improve the overall average ratings for their books by having people write useless “reviews” too. ~shrug~

            Now I suppose it’s *possible* that I’m wrong and that all of the many, many short and shallow reviews that appear on each of the above Amazon book pages are, indeed, legitimate reviews written by people who are giving an honest (albeit brief) opinion of the book’s contents. But if that’s the case, then those reviewers have achieved something quite remarkable — they’ve made honest and legitimate book reviews look exactly the same as counterfeit ones.

            David Von Pein
            March 3, 2015

  2. Credibility is subjective based on the proof in my view. Until proof is offered we are just offering our opinions. If there is evidence I happy to see it. It still does not disqualify information regarding O’Reilly.

  3. I read that Hugh Aynesworth was not really credible, couldn’t be counted on for always telling the truth. Aynesworth was the man who claimed that Oswald had been an FBI informant, for the Dallas FBI. Later in February 1976 he admitted in Esquire Magazine that he had lied and made up the entire story in an effort to draw the FBI out on the issue.

    1. I’ve read he has never admitted how he got ahold of Oswald’s Diary. One story was that he and asst. DA Bill Alexandar “liberated” it from the DPD property room. Another story was that he turned up with it after consoling Marina for about a month after the assassination. None the less he profited from the sale of it to I believe it was Life magazine.
      He does consider doubters of the official story as “fruitcakes and frauds peddling hokum”. Pat Speer took exception to this on the edu forum, calling him a blind hypocrite.

    2. That’s interesting, Sammy, since in Jim Tague’s book(again), readers will note that after some discussio, the WC decided not to investigate it(The Oswald/FBI connection).

  4. “May I ask who exactly is to be regarded with such Standards”.
    The press, a few still have an ethical standard to report the unbiased truth to the American People.

  5. I did not say Mr. Aynesworth is a wholly reliable source I am just unwilling to dismiss him because some in the community are not supporters. We all have the rights to our opinions, yet that does not mean they are compelling in my view. Should we rule out the testimony of everyone who has an official connection? That would rule out quite a few people, including Jim Garrison. May I ask who exactly is to be regarded with such a standards? Just because he is feasibly wrong about a conspiracy does not mean he does not know about O’Reilly. If he made the claims asserted then indeed he should answer for them, I am more than willing to review proof of such.

  6. I’m certainly not an O’Reilly fan — but I don’t put too much stock in ANYTHING Aynesworth says. You might want to take a look at what reporter Bob Sirkin wrote in Sep. 2012 (2+ years before all the controversy) about his being in Florida WITH O’Reilly at the time DeM died. Bill Kelley has posted it on his JFKCountercoup blog.

    1. I applaud Mr. Aynesworth’s coming forward in this manner. now, if we could only get him to admit men like Arlen Specter were just as willing to lie as O’ Reilly, we might get somewhere.

      I mean, c’mon, Specter went to his grave calling the back wound a neck wound, and no one thinking Oswald acted alone dared call him the liar that he was.

      How about it, Hugh? Would you be willing to admit the LN side has its share of liars?

      1. Maybe since Aynesworth has come forward on the O’Reilly story, he might begin to see that some of the conspiracy theories he debunked in Jim Tague’s book LBJ And The Killing of Kennedy aren’t theories after all. But I don’t know-Aynesworth really went after CTers in Tague’s book.

        1. Mr. Aynesworth was interviewed numerous times for the 50th anniversary. In several of these interviews he complained about conspiracy theorists and the vast amount of money they have made off the assassination. At no point of which I am aware did he complain about Vincent Bugliosi, Bill O’Reilly, or James Swanson, who made millions off the assassination, with the latter two making their millions without contributing a single fresh idea or bit of research.

          1. Yes, postulating that LHO was not the sole assassin is a gateway to tremendous riches . . .what rubbish. Most researchers are dedicated to discovering the truth in spite of the fact that they’re subjected to a tremendous amount of abuse from the mainstream media, and the likes of John McAdams, Aynesworth, Bugliosi, and their ilk.

          2. While making a few buck’s off it himself. Starting with selling Lee’s Diary, procured by questionable means.

    2. Steve Stirlen

      Gary,

      Pardon me for asking, but is this the same Gary Shaw that ran the assassination center in Dallas back in the day? If it is, I have a story to tell you about meeting you and how wonderfully welcoming you were to me when I visited Dallas to say hello to my brother. If it is not, please forgive me for the intrusion. Hope to hear from you.

      Steve

  7. My dad worked for LTV for over 10 years and Bell Helicopter for another 7 or 8 as a lower level engineer in the 50’s-60’s. To my knowledge he never met Mac Wallace, Paine or Dorenberger. My curiosity naturally spiked when I read of them years later in relation to the JFK assassination.
    It would be great to see Aynesworth address a few other issues too. Like volunteering his services to the CIA through Dallas SAC J. Walton Moore in 1963. The same Moore who instructed De Mohrenschild to contact Oswald. Or his role as a FBI informant. Or his role feeding sensitive information to Clay Shaw’s defense team during Garrison’s trial of Shaw.

  8. It has been written that Hugh Aynesworth was the aviation/aerospace reporter for the Dallas Morning News. If accurate, this would put him in a position to know quite a bit about James Ling, D. Harold Byrd, Ling-Temco-Vaught (LTV) and related defense contracting issues. Mr. Aynesworth should write on this topic.

  9. So because some disagree with prior contentions this corroboration is not adequate? May I suggest reviewing the large amount of problems with O’ Reilly’s many assertions. Just because some may disagree precisely how do they affect the current statements?

    1. I don’t doubt O’Riley lied about being on the doorstep. It’s verified in Jeff’s article, the tapes, Fonzi’s book (which I have). In addition I watched Tracy Rowlett do the news in D/FW for years. A balanced, unbiased reporter with no agenda. If he says it didn’t happen and “no other way to describe O’Riley than a ‘phony'” I believe him. The Falklands war zone and the Nun’s being shot only add credence to this issue. I’d just like to see some verification Aynesworth was there, like an article he wrote at the time, from Florida.

  10. Maybe he explains it in his book, which I’ve not read, but why was Aynesworth himself there “within a few hours”? Did he fly in as soon as he heard about it? Was he nearby on vacation, working on another story, or, to interview Dr Mohrenschild (like Epstein, Fonzi, and O’Riley.

    1. While I’ve read a very little of Aynesworth’s work, my questions come primarily from Destiny Betrayed by Jim Di Eugenio.
      Per it, he claimed to be in Dealy Plaza, at the Tippitt murder scene, at the Texas Theater when LHO was caught, and, in the DPD basement when Ruby shot LHO. But very little evidence of such can be found. Did he report from Florida?

    2. Huge Aynesworth was merely trying to elevate himself as someone concerned with the truth in debunking Bill O’Reilly’s fabricated tale about being in Florida when De Mohrenschildt was shot. The genuine investigative reporter who kept evidence that O’Reilly wasn’t in Florida was Gaeton Fonzi, who was in Florida at the time and who kept a recording of his telephone conversation with O’Reilly wherein Fonzi told O’Reilly the news about De Mohrenschildt. Fonzi’s widow, Marie, made the recording that exposed O’Reilly falsehood available to the media, and some stations even picked up the story, even if they were more motivated by animus toward O’Reilly than exposing the truth. Fonzi’s telephone recording is available on YouTube.

      But Hugh Ayensworth deserves no credit or even mention in connection with O’Reilly’s falsehood. Ayensworth is merely pointing to a little lie to conceal much bigger and more important ones. Listen to the following video to see Ayensworth lying in action:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rTaz95ni22E

      You’ll note that Hugh Aynesworth does NOT answer the key operative part of the question put to him: Are you or have you ever been a CIA media asset? He only says that he did not take money from any federal agency, but that too does not help to answer the question, and, in fact, is a MISLEADING answer because the CIA very often pays its assets through business intermediaries and other such non-government fronts.

      I will give Aynesworth credit as a very skilled liar, however, with his cleverly deceptive and evasive answer that appears to be “sincere.” But his complete failure to answer the question in a forthright, honest manner merely further supports those who assert that Aynesworth has been a CIA media asset.

      Obviously, CIA Document 1035-960, issued in 1967, is still being carried out today in an effort to preserve the official government lies about the JFK assassination. This CIA document, which coins the term “conspiracy theorists,” stated the following, in pertinent part:

      “Conspiracy theories have frequently thrown suspicion on our organization [i.e., CIA]. . . The aim of this dispatch is to provide material countering and discrediting the claims of the conspiracy theorists, so as to inhibit the circulation of such claims in other countries. . . [The CIA should] employ propaganda assets to [negate] and refute the attacks of the critics. Book reviews and feature articles are particularly appropriate for this purpose.”

      In exposing O’Reilly’s act of lying, Ayensworth has merely revealed that he’s better at it than O’Reilly.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published.

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

Scroll to Top