Good news, you guys. We solved that whole "Kennedy conspiracy" thing. We can all breathe a sigh of relief. Bill O'Reilly has written the final word. Or, at least he wrote it that way for his melodramatic historical non-fiction book, "Killing Kennedy."

O'Reilly is the first to admit he's no historian. "Not really. That's not my discipline," says the host of the Fox News TV show, "The O'Reilly Factor."  But hey, why let facts get in the way of good writing? O'Reilly's earlier book, "Killing Lincoln," sold more than 2 million copies since it was released a year ago. Churning out another historical drama was likely a no-brainer.

Co-written by Martin Dugard, who did most of the research, "the best researcher I could find - and I talked to all the top guys," says O'Reilly, "Killing Kennedy" finds little to no value in practices traditional of most credible historical writing. As with "Killing Lincoln," the book doesn't make much fuss over naming names and citing sources. The writing was left up to O'Reilly, whose approach was to write "history that's fun to read" in a "populist way. No pinheaded stuff, just roar it through!"

While "Killing Lincoln" dominated bestseller lists, some historians questioned its details, and its lack of documentation, O'Reilly, who is a former high school history teacher, replied that any errors that were corrected in later editions, were "picayune," crediting any criticism to jealousy.  Rae Emerson, deputy superintendent at Ford's Theatre, site of Lincoln's assassination, cited seven errors in the book, like references to Lincoln in the Oval Office, which wasn't built until 1909.

"These guys toil in obscurity their whole lives, and a punk like me comes along and sells 2 million copies. They're not happy," says O'Reily.

O'Reilly invited anyone who challenged his facts to appear on his TV show, but no one would take him up on his offer, he claims.

"Killing Lincoln" also got mixed reviews. A Washington Post review praised the book's "narrative flair," but further criticized it for lacking any direct citations for any of the assertions it made.  

O'Reilly says he's chosen to write about history "to get people engaged with their country." The TV personality credits his boredom with most history books to the motivation behind his hyperbolic retelling of the Kennedy asssasination.

"Even the really good ones, by Robert Caro and these guys - I mean, they're brilliant guys, but to get through 800 pages, you either have to be retired or on vacation for six weeks," says O'Reilly.

While the juiciest portion of "Killing Kennedy" is spent discussing the events the day of the president's death, roughly two-thirds of the book deals with Kennedy's presidency and private life, including his extramarital affairs. "I wanted to show the good and the bad," O'Reilly says.

O'Reilly's ultimate conclusion? Oswald probably acted alone. "I know that Oswald killed Kennedy. Now, was he pushed? Encouraged to do it by outsiders? Possibly. Possibly. Was he sitting down with Fidel Castro? No."

Fans can take-him-or-leave-him, and O'Reilly is just fine with that. "I don't want to sound defensive, but either you believe what we wrote, or you don't," says O'Reilly. "I'm not writing a Ph.D. dissertation." 

"Killing Kennedy" is available today.