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.
Probably not. Most of the information I already knew that which I learned was interesting but was not that important in the whole scheme of things. It was worth the listen, but having listened to it I probably would have put it a little lower on my priority list and listened to some others I intend to hear first.
Killing Lincoln was a much better book, but probably because it was more easily researched where there is a lot of speculation surrounding JFK's assanination.
Obviously Kennedy's death is the main point of the book, but the connection with Kennedy's past is so interesting.
This book basically ignores all talks of any conspiracy, and takes the Warren Commission at face value. While I would have liked him to talk more about the conspiracies, the book did motivate me to learn more, which is great.
Yes, it was a great book and was narrated well.
There were a couple instances where O'Reilly referred to the president as Lincoln instead of Kennedy.
I would definitely recommend this title. After watching an entire week of documentaries and coverage of the 50th anniversary of Kennedy's death, I still found this book very interesting, and it succeeded in giving me even more information I didn't know. This was a great follow-up to Killing Lincoln, and O'Reilly is wonderful at telling a story without pushing agendas or bias. He has a gift for producing fact-based writing while still making it interesting.
Bill O. writes an amazing historical book on an amazing period of American history. I am a Factor fan and am used to Bill's voice on his show. It took a little time to adjust to him reading this. But it is so interesting I forgot it was him and got into the story.
Yes, to make sure what I learned sticks and to hear O'Rielly say nice things about a democrat.
Bill O'Rielly, Jackie and even JFK. I'm 25, I didn't really know much about any of them. Jackie is enchanting, her character is so perfect it seems like she's made up. As O'Rielly tells it JFK goes from cheating husband and cowardly president to a wonderful father, husband and strong leader.
85% of communication is nonverbal. His tone, the inflections in his voice add to the mystique of the Kenndys. I could hear the admiration in his voice for JFK and Jackie. When JFK failed O'Rielly was matter-of-fact but when JFK succeeded, again, O'Rielly's admiration shown through.
All the fun of Bill O'Rielly without most of his opinions.
O'Reilly's narration is terrible. O'Reilly's politics shows immediately.
O'Reilly continually stopped mid-sentence and mid-thought and read in a sing-song voice.
Bill O'Reilly cuts through all the nonsense and gives the straight story behind the Kennedy assassination. Well researched and fascinating. Great book.