Well, now it’s time to write about the Kennedy assassination. It’s the same pattern as when I was in school, isn’t it? I would research and research, and put off writing the paper that was due. The research was the fun part! The writing was the hard part. Now I’m going to write, and see what comes of that.
I can write from both computers as long as I post to Conversations with Dio. What happens when I try to produce this book, though. What happens when I need to assemble files and put everything together? Well, it’s not so hard to put all the files on one computer or the other. I think you should try to put the files on the PC, not the Mac.
This keyboard is awfully loud! I wonder if I can find a quieter one in the house? I suppose I could just pound a way at this one, and make as much noise as possible.
Now I have a new keyboard installed, and it is better than the one I had before!
What is your goal in this book? Focus on the the internal or content goals you have for this book, not the external ones. The external ones are easy to state: have it ready for 2013, the 50th anniversary year, and use this book to learn about the resources available at Amazon’s KDP.
Now what about those internal goals? Much of the content you would like to include in this book is already written. You just need to assemble it in a Word file and arrange it. Then you want to edit it. You can make it good.
The big hold back here has been the so-called literature review. I have such ambitions for that, but it is so difficult. Why? Because fifty years is a long time! Alright, so you will limit yourself to just four years: 2009, 2010, 2011, and 2012. That is just 48 months of publishing. You can start with publication of Douglass’s book and continue through publication of books that come out right up until you are ready to publish yourself.
Make it simple, Steve. Let’s say you have an average of twelve books per year for four years. That’s about fifty books during this period. That’s a manageable number. For each one, all you need is the title, author, publication date, and a product description. You do not need a cover image or reviews. You can include a review if you find an especially good one, but that is optional. You do not have to write your own literature review, nor do you even have to write much of an introduction to your book list. Just list the books!
You can include book from before 2009 if you like, but only if you have a good reason to include it, and if you have time.
You are coming up on 500 words here, and it is time to go to sleep, so goodnight, my friend!
Remember too that you want to type the notes you wrote at Ponkapoag on MLK weekend. That is the only thing you have written that is untyped.
Oh yes, you wanted to write tonight about John Connally’s wounds. He was wounded in the back, the wrist, and the thigh. Kennedy was wounded in the back, and twice in the head. Twice! Interestingly, Robert Harris does not explain the wound in Kennedy’s throat.
Tonight you watched a long video by Robert Harris titled What Happened in Dealey Plaza, or something like that. The film is over an hour long, and in brings together a number of shorter pieces he posted when YouTube had a length restriction. Here is a summary of his conclusions in the film.
A shooter in the Daltex building fired three shots. The first two missed. The third shot hit Kennedy in the back, and hit Connally in the back as well. That is the shot that throws Kennedy’s elbows up as the car goes behind the traffic sign. That is the bullet that hits Connally as the car emerges from behind the sign.
Harris analyzes a shot that comes from the Texas School Book Depository. He theorizes that it came from the left side of the building, not the right side, as you face the building. He suggests that Oswald may have fired a warning shot from that building.
Perhaps the most important conclusion in Harris’s analysis is that Kennedy was hit in the head twice. The two shots hit at almost the same time. He wonders whether the second shot came from a storm drain to the right and in front of the car. He does not think it came from the grassy knoll because no one could hide there. He does not consider the possibility that someone might have fired from behind the fence at the back of the grassy knoll.
Interestingly, Harris does not analyze the origin of the first head shot. He says it comes from behind, but does not draw a definite conclusion about the location of the shooter who fired it. I believe he thinks it came from the TSBD, but he gives more emphasis to the idea that a shot from that building passed well over the president’s car.
Harris also does not discuss how Connally received wounds in his wrist and thigh. Instead, he talks about the pristine magic bullet, the one found on the gurney in Parkland hospital. He spends quite some time on the subject of that bullet.
Harris is quite convincing about the idea that you had three shots from the Daltex building, two misses and a hit, to start things off. He is also convincing about a flurry of shots coming into the car after the initial hit that resulted in back wounds for Kennedy and Connally. I wish he had given a little more attention to the first bullet to hit Kennedy’s head, the bullet that hit from the rear.
Altogether, Harris’s analysis is careful, and detailed. He certainly has thought about this subject for a long time, and he has spent some time on this problem! You have to admire people who stay with a problem for so long. You put Douglass’s account together with Harris’s, and you have quite a picture. Harris suggests, however, that the Mafia was the prime mover behind the hit, whereas Douglass suggests that the CIA planned the assassination. Of course, the specialists the CIA relied on for the assassination may have trained in the Mafia. They may have trained with the anti-Castro Cubans, too.
Remember that Robert Harris’s YouTube channel is bobharris77, or something like that. You can view quite a few videos about the Kennedy assassination on YouTube. Don’t get drawn in, though. Watch only high quality ones like Harris’s.
Harris’s introduction and his overall approach remind us of a couple of things. We do not need to over-analyze the Warren report. It’s just not worth it, given the weakness of the investigation and analysis that underlie its conclusions. That leads to Harris’s second point. We just need to find an explanation that fits the evidence, and the explanation must be internally consistent. That is, the conclusions we reach, and the reasons we give for those conclusions, have to be consistent. We should strive for that standard, and not try to find inconsistencies or weaknesses in the Warren report. Critics of the Warren report can show that the report does not yield an adequate explanation, but still not have a better one of their own. To avoid that difficulty, analysts should try from the start to build an adequate, consistent explanation of their own.