12-10-2014, 11:03 PM
You asked for suggestions. I hope you will accept my suggestions in the spirit in which they are intended, to make your presentation more effective.
"The evidentiary purpose of the trip was to secure an in-transit visa for passage thru Cuba to Russia for himself and his family." "evidentiary" is probably not the word you are looking for there, maybe "evident" ? "Ostensible"? "apparent"?
I would move the mention of the Chicago plot to later and concentrate on the fundamentals of your argument early on.
You should identify Win Scott before using his statements. (JFK researchers will of course know who he is but you should allow for less informed readers as well.)
To preserve your writing credibility, you should mention Oswald's use of aliases in multiple contexts before you describe why this particular use is suspect. Probably needs a separate section, but I think you should decide whether or not your discussion is ordered in time (with the three parts) or by topic. If you order by time, save the discussion about aliases until the point in the narrative where Oswald supposedly uses an alias.
"Over the Labor Day weekend while Oswald and family are in New Orleans with the Murrets (Lee's mother's sister and husband), two men arrived at the door of one Robert McKeown, a self confessed arms dealer who worked in similar circles as Jack Ruby, had supplied arms for Castro's cause and was a close friend of Castro himself." (you got too many people in this compound sentence for it to be obvious who was a friend of Castro. Might want to also mention that Murret is a Mob-connected person.)
Your discussion of the events of Sept 20-23 preceeds your discussion of events on September 18.
I would remove from the photo, the red marks over the Kennedy images.
You should identify Nagel before discussing him.
You have done a good job adding the pictures (and citations) where needed, but you shouldn't assume that your readers are familiar with the body of JFK research. I'm looking forward to Part 2.
"The evidentiary purpose of the trip was to secure an in-transit visa for passage thru Cuba to Russia for himself and his family." "evidentiary" is probably not the word you are looking for there, maybe "evident" ? "Ostensible"? "apparent"?
I would move the mention of the Chicago plot to later and concentrate on the fundamentals of your argument early on.
You should identify Win Scott before using his statements. (JFK researchers will of course know who he is but you should allow for less informed readers as well.)
To preserve your writing credibility, you should mention Oswald's use of aliases in multiple contexts before you describe why this particular use is suspect. Probably needs a separate section, but I think you should decide whether or not your discussion is ordered in time (with the three parts) or by topic. If you order by time, save the discussion about aliases until the point in the narrative where Oswald supposedly uses an alias.
"Over the Labor Day weekend while Oswald and family are in New Orleans with the Murrets (Lee's mother's sister and husband), two men arrived at the door of one Robert McKeown, a self confessed arms dealer who worked in similar circles as Jack Ruby, had supplied arms for Castro's cause and was a close friend of Castro himself." (you got too many people in this compound sentence for it to be obvious who was a friend of Castro. Might want to also mention that Murret is a Mob-connected person.)
Your discussion of the events of Sept 20-23 preceeds your discussion of events on September 18.
I would remove from the photo, the red marks over the Kennedy images.
You should identify Nagel before discussing him.
You have done a good job adding the pictures (and citations) where needed, but you shouldn't assume that your readers are familiar with the body of JFK research. I'm looking forward to Part 2.
"All that is necessary for tyranny to succeed is for good men to do nothing." (unknown)
James Tracy: "There is sometimes an undue amount of paranoia among some conspiracy researchers that can contribute to flawed observations and analysis."
Gary Cornwell (Dept. Chief Counsel HSCA): "A fact merely marks the point at which we have agreed to let investigation cease."
Alan Ford: "Just because you believe it, that doesn't make it so."
James Tracy: "There is sometimes an undue amount of paranoia among some conspiracy researchers that can contribute to flawed observations and analysis."
Gary Cornwell (Dept. Chief Counsel HSCA): "A fact merely marks the point at which we have agreed to let investigation cease."
Alan Ford: "Just because you believe it, that doesn't make it so."