Giovanni
Yes, sometimes the details are dry and add little to the overall picture, but having a detailed, definitive account of the events is valuable. One aspect that surprised me was the list of "unheeded signs" that supposedly preceded the Dallas visit. In a scientific account of the events, I would have expected a comparison with other presidential visits. Were there similar tips, threats, and reports of plans to kill the president during other trips? One would assume so. Were the signs in Dallas different in terms of number, credibility, or source? This critical evaluation is missing; only the Dallas "signs" are presented, without comparison to other visits. This gives the impression that the assassination could have been easily prevented. Maybe that is true, but in my opinion, the evidence here does not support it.
Yes, sometimes the details are dry and add little to the overall picture, but having a detailed, definitive account of the events is valuable. One aspect that surprised me was the list of "unheeded signs" that supposedly preceded the Dallas visit. In a scientific account of the events, I would have expected a comparison with other presidential visits. Were there similar tips, threats, and reports of plans to kill the president during other trips? One would assume so. Were the signs in Dallas different in terms of number, credibility, or source? This critical evaluation is missing; only the Dallas "signs" are presented, without comparison to other visits. This gives the impression that the assassination could have been easily prevented. Maybe that is true, but in my opinion, the evidence here does not support it.
