Subject: Re: The Single Report Theory
Date: 9 Aug 1998 07:28:13 -0500
From: stugrad98@aol.com (Stugrad98)
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk

He DIDN'T misrepresent the issue.  The Lopez report WAS an HSCA report--
it's name was created by researchers after the fact.  What is in an HSCA
report, last time I checked, is an HSCA opinion. I brought up the WC for
one very simple reason:  to argue that the Lopez report can't be
considered as an HSCA report is like arguing that WC commission hearings
isn't part of the WC.  And what is obvious from the WC report is that
there conclusions sometimes completely contradicted the testimony found in
its volumes.  If I said that the WC had Jack Dougherty saying that he
didn't see Oswald enter the TSBD with a package, would I be incorrect.
Dougherty testified to this in the hearings.  The conclusion said the
exact opposite.  If I said in a sentence "The WC established that Jack
Dougherty did not see Oswald enter the TSBD with a package" would I be
misrepresenting the WC report.  The Lopez Report is an HSCA report,
there's no way around that John, as much as you'd like to separate the
two.  So Newman is absolutely correct in saying that the HSCA reported
that Oswald was impersonated in Mexico City.  He apparently thought that
Lopez, Hardaway, and their investigators, all being HSCA paid with an HSCA
sponsored report, were actually part of the HSCA.  What a
misrepresenation.

And you conveniently sidestep the most important fact that undermines your
criticism:  NEWMAN AGREES WITH WHAT IS IN THE CONCLUSION.  He believes
that Oswald visited both Embassies.

-Stu