In December I posted an HSCA draft report on the question of whether Lee Harvey Oswald was a CIA agent.
Obviously, James DiEugenio was taken by surprise -- he had never seen nor read this report.
What is interesting is that the Lopez Report was written to be part of the Final Report of the HSCA. Here is Dan Hardway and Edwin Lopez speaking at a 2014 AARC conference:
You can also watch directly on YouTube. The relevant segment is here.
Here is an excerpt from a transcript: (1:07:32)
Dan Hardway: That’s highly relevant today to what's going on with the Senate report [five-year Senate investigation of the CIA’s secret interrogations of terrorism suspects]; they did the very same thing to us. Eddie's report, the Lopez report, was -- was written to be part of the final report -- that is a draft section of the final report of the committee that never got released because the CIA did the same thing that they're now doing to the Senate Intelligence report.
I believe this is true. You can see this in the part of the Lopez Report that mentions the report on Oswald and the CIA: (page 142)
It mentions the report on the CIA "is detailed in another section of this final report."
Another footnote is about the usage of the name Lee Henry Oswald: (page 39 of the footnotes)
The authors of the Lopez Report were very much aware of what was in the draft of the final report on Oswald and the CIA. I don't know if they wrote it or not.
Here is what I initially missed. The draft report on whether Oswald was an agent was edited and included in the Final Report of the HSCA.
The language in the draft is very similar to the language in the final report. For instance, the draft report says:
Clearly, it was important to get some clarification from Dan Hardway and Edwin Lopez.
Would they claim that they wrote a different study about Oswald and the CIA and came to different conclusions than the HSCA? If so, what was the basis for their conclusions? Why haven't they discussed this in the past?
So, no smoking guns!
The HSCA Final Report has been public for several decades. The 'fast one' was only noticed because of a Fred Litwin post?
Yeah, right!
By the way, I reached out to Dan Hardway and I asked him "Is there another report asking whether Oswald was an Agent of the CIA? Did it have different conclusions?"
His answer: "Not that I am aware of."
I also sent an email to Ed Lopez but he did not reply.
James DiEugenio owes us some answers - of course, on this issue, but also on the fake Oswald handbills used in JFK: Destiny Betrayed.
Previous Blog Posts on the Fake Oswald Handbill
An analysis of the handbill used in Oliver Stone's so-called documentary, JFK: Destiny Betrayed.
An examination of where the fake handbill came from.
A look at James DiEugenio's use of the fake handbill.
Jefferson Morley is the latest researcher to use a fake Oswald handbill.
Don't miss the Viewer's Guide to JFK: Destiny Betrayed and JFK Revisited: Through the Looking Glass.
Over the past several months, I have shown in multiple blog posts how Oliver Stone's documentary series, JFK Revisited and JFK: Destiny Betrayed, misleads viewers. In fact, despite months of work, there are still many more misleading segments that need to be addressed. It's no wonder that the fact checkers of Netflix nixed the airing of the films.
There is a choice between four hours of tendentious nonsense (JFK: Destiny Betrayed) and two hours (JFK Revisited: Through the Looking Glass). As a handy guide for viewers, here are all those posts in order of their appearance in JFK: Destiny Betrayed and JFK Revisited: Through the Looking Glass, preceded by some general critiques.
The Viewer's Guide has now been updated to include the sources from my new book, Oliver Stone's Film-Flam: The Demagogue of Dealey Plaza.
