No, I graduated from high school in 1962 so I remember the Kennedy event first hand. There have been so many accounts of conspiracy that I was ready to hear something new; however, that was not the case. It was the same version that I had read in the newspapers.
Yes. Killing Lincoln was great and would listen to it again.
The whole book was great.
I enjoyed the book, but I was not blown away by it. It is a good story of Kennedy's presidency, and I learned a lot. It is not one I would listen to again. It was not as good as Killing Lincoln.
Just before Killing Kennedy, The End of Camelot by Bill O'Reilly, I had (again) listened to The Grapes of Wrath by John Steinbeck. In my opinion, both books are equally descriptive, informative, sensitive, detailed and important. O'Reilly has the very rare knack of looking into the historical background of each character and connect them all into a totally understandable story. I think this is a well done and very fine book that many "folks" will understand and appreciate.
Not applicable to this book.
Outstanding and professional in every respect. Fine clarity, diction, proper empathy and emphatically precise.
Audible has allowed me to enjoy books again.
More details into the conspiracy of Kennedy
Story itself is the interesting part. Least interesting is OReilly reviewing the history. I was looking for more details of the conspiracy
He did a good job
Conspiracy theory additions
Don't think it hasn't been an little slice of heaven, 'cuz it hasn't.- Bugs Bunny
The story is based on real history, of course, so I would listen again to hear about some of the characters I didn't know about. I have even done some research on some of them. For those of us who weren't born yet or into politics when this was happening, the authors really make it all accessible and very interesting. Bill O'Reilly was a history teacher, and it shows.
Well, sadly, we all know the ending. What I liked best was the exploration of the main characters, Jack and Jackie, and how they showed the reader their complexities as well as the good parts of their personalities. They didn't write another hagiographic, glossed over version of the Kennedy administration. Fascinating details about "Camelot" are revealed.
The book doesn't vilify the Kennedys. It is a sober look at what really happened, from the fantastic to the mundane. It is all there.
They wrote about what was happening in the last three years of both JFK and his assassin. It is obvious that they had copious primary references, and instead of spitting out what they found, they turned it into a thriller. It was delivered in a fast paced, exciting style, yet they maintained respect for the subjects of the story.
He was fantastic. He was a history teacher and you can tell by his performance that he truly loves history.
I couldn't put it down. And I knew the ending!
For those of you who don't like Bill O'Reilly because he is an Independent with conservative leanings, get over it and get this book. You will love it and you will learn more than you expect to.
In the book we as the readers/listeners really get a chance to relive not only the moments of JFK'S death and immediately after, but we also have the opportunity to experience his entire presidency.
For me the most memorable moment of the book was right after the president was shot. I felt as if I was with Jackie. Being able to feel her pain and the terror that was in her. I have to say it brought on more emotions then any other book I have read.
Bill being Bill.
I am a lover of history. I hope that millions will read/listen to this book and allow themselves to become part of the story. The way Bill writes can allow normal people to truly understand the magnitude of who JFK was and what his death means to us all even in 2012.
Writer, economist, stand-up comic
O'Reilly never seemed to tie together the hints he dropped through the book of various conspiracy theories surrounding the assassination of John Kennedy. He hints at why Fidel Castor, the CIA, the Mafia and even Lyndon Johnson might have wanted JFK dead but merely assumes the reader already knows all were suspected (to varying degrees).
The only thread he picks up consistently is JFK's active sex life and he seems obsessed with it. It felt as if he couldn't go three minutes (of listening time) without referencing Kennedy's libido. He left me with the impression he was envious.
O'Reilly broke no new ground in telling this story -- except to insert himself into it claiming that he was the "young reporter" who showed up at the door of one of Lee Harvey Oswald's patrons just as the patron shot himself.
O'Reilly is an accomplished TV host with a news-like, staccato delivery, reminiscent of Walter Winchell's radio. He didn't use those talents or any talents he has/had as a reporter.
No spoiler: Kennedy was killed in Dallas. The question of whether Oswald acted alone or who might have been behind him is never addressed.
I had hoped this book would be either a detailed examination of the assassination or a journalistic investigation. Instead it was what reporters describe as a "clip job," a story put together by reading newspaper clippings.
One of the most interesting Historical books I've listened to. The account as I actually remember it, having been alive through the largest % of the information presented, is reasonably accurate and fills in some blanks that were considered speculation at the time they actually took place. A reasonably believable account of what happened.
I found the relationships between JFK and Jackie, and JFK and LBJ to be different than I perceived them; of course I was a teenager at the time and the MEDIA was as enamored with the Kennedy's as it is was with Obama when he was elected. Of course when the truth about the Kennedy's came out, it was somewhat ignored just as it is with Obama. It's good to see that someone is writing FACTUAL accounts of what happened instead of glossing it over with the hype that today's media propagates in an effort to dumb down the masses, and forward it's agenda. I also found a lot of the background information on Lee Harvey Oswald to be interesting and informative.
A good account of the Kennedy administration and what lead up to his assassination. Although we may never know the truth about the actual assassination, the information presented seems to point to Lee Harvey Oswald, although JFK had enough other enemies that any of them could have been responsible for it, including, but not limited to LBJ, the Mafia, the Castro regime, even the CIA, FBI, or members of the Military Industrial Complex. A very interesting way of presenting the Facts, at least as seen by Bill O'Reilly. Very well read and presented by O'Reilly; easy to listen to and easy follow the time lines as he presents them and the circumstances that made them important to the story. Well Done. I'm looking forward to listening to Killing Lincoln, and Killing Jesus.
Although it makes sense for the author to read the book and although that author is a profession newscaster, it does not make him fit to narrate a book. He pauses in odd spots (maybe ran out of breath at that point?) that makes his sentences jerky and somewhat hard to follow.
What disturbed me most about this book is that it is introduced as being based on facts and facts alone. That is very far from the truth. I felt like I was reading a tabloid version of a by-and-large true narrative of history.
The story contained details and information and dialogues that would never have been documented or overheard and therefore cannot be facts. There is a lot of hearsay and gossip thrown in when the facts spread thin or cannot be substantiated.
Knowing quite a bit about Kennedy's presidency and assassination, I was disappointed that the book contained no new information on the events. I was expecting O'Reilly to introduce at least some of the wide-spread conspiracy theories, if not come up with his own. But he went for the same conclusion as the Warren commission: Oswald did it alone. He mentions the phrase "magic bullet" once without explaining why it is called that. He didn't even toy with the idea of any other theory.
What bothered me the most is that the assassination attempt on General Walker was never solved. Up to this day we don't know for a fact who shot at him on April 10, 1963. Describing the events from Oswald's point of view and never mentioning that it is just a hypothesis based on circumstantial evidence and random comments that Oswald may or may not have made is just falsifying history.
Not even mentioning Abraham Zapruder's film as being the ONLY video documentation of the events was a huge gap for me and a major disappointment.
There have been several movies made about the Kennedy assassination, thankfully none based on this book.
I find it disturbing that O'Reilly's "Killing ..." books are treated as non-fiction history. It worries me that people read this and will treat it as a source of information on the same par as much worthier works by established historian. It is books like this that contribute to the manufacture of the kind of "history for the masses" that eventually results in a dumbed down version of very complex events...
The question is whether the chicken or the egg was first: are readers in need of such "history books" or are such books called for by the audience...?
Just knowing that lee Harvey wouldn't have shot him if he and his girl would have made up that night. Crazy
Where the other gun shot came from.
I love all of Bills stuff he is one of the best narrators I have heard.
All the stuff they had to deal with in the few years.
Very Great Read. I liked Killing Lincoln best, then A toss up with this and Patton.