The Lopez Report

[Mark Wengler]

What is the difference between the report released in the 90's and the one released in 2003. I have the one from the 90's. Do i need to buy the report over again?

[Michael Clark]

5 hours ago, Mark Wengler said:

What is the difference between the report released in the 90's and the one released in 2003. I have the one from the 90's. Do i need to buy the report over again?

"The so-called "Lopez Report," written by staffers Dan Hardway and Edwin Lopez, had a number of redactions removed in 2003. These included "CIA A" (Daniel Flores aka Luis Aparacio), "CIA B" (Thomas Keenan), "CIA F" (Robert Zambernardi), LICHANT/1's true name (Manuel Carvillo), and the previously blacked-out crypts ZRSOLO and ZRJOINT. It also revealed the name of a Mexico City CIA Chief of Station, Larry Sternfield. Many redactions remain."

https://history-matters.com/archive/contents/hsca/contents_hsca_lopezrpt_2003.htm

Mark, I assume that more, if not all redactions will be removed in October, If you can wait.

Cheers,

Michael

Edited April 5, 2017 by Michael Clark

[David Josephs]

One of the Lopez report's biggest shortcoming is its acceptance of the WCR conclusion that Oswald was actually in Mexico City

despite the evidence being so heavily tainted by FBI/Gobernacion hands...

When they start with that accepted assumption, even though they acknowledge the impossible conflicts, it certainly changes the approach.

They conclude based on the signatures on the original and carbon copy of the application, that he was most likely there on Sept 27 - I find that conclusion inadequately defended within this report and the greater likelihood he was in Dallas...

First off the signatures don't match, and secondly, the carbon does not match the original... and the FBI could not find any location where Oswald would have had those photos taken, in Mexico City.

 

[James DiEugenio]

Nice work David.

 

But when you say they don't match what are you referring to precisely?

Edited April 6, 2017 by James DiEugenio

[David Josephs]

I'm saying 

1) the signatures themselves are not the same, not even close;  Sylvia claims the signature is original on both forms

2) this was supposed to be a carbon copy.  Except there does not appear to be a way to line this up so the carbon and original are in sync

I've tried - maybe I haven't tried hard enough... but if we assume the "779" was written on the original and copied via the carbon (which I lined up on the right) the rest of the form doesn't line up...  

More significant is the mismatched signatures and the lack of a location to acquire those photos.  Does it not seem strange that he expects to get a visa quickly yet does not bring photos.

Finally, the blurb under page 349 suggests THIS is the original while the other is the copy (it's vice versa).  Only on page 350 are we told this is an original signature of Lee Oswald - on the original or copy?

CORNWELL - Just one. The ... I believe I asked you this, but just to be sure, although the application was typed with a carbon to make two copies with one typing, did he have to sign both independently? Or did you allow them to use a carbon to sign the paper?
TIRADO - No, no. It was the original.
CORNWELL - Two original signatures. All right.
TIRADO - Yes.

 
 

[James DiEugenio]

Thanks for the clarification.  Fishy as an aquarium.

[Steve Thomas]

On 4/5/2017 at 10:29 AM, David Josephs said:

 

First off the signatures don't match, and secondly, the carbon does not match the original... and the FBI could not find any location where Oswald would have had those photos taken, in Mexico City.

 

 

David,

 

Technologically speaking, a photograph wouldn't bleed through to a carbon copy would it, seeing as how carbon paper works?

It would on a Xerox copy, but not carbon paper right?

Maybe that's a negative of a Xerox copy instead of the carbon copy second page of an original. 

 

Steve Thomas

 

 

[David Josephs]

7 hours ago, Steve Thomas said:

David,

 

Technologically speaking, a photograph wouldn't bleed through to a carbon copy would it, seeing as how carbon paper works?

It would on a Xerox copy, but not carbon paper right?

Maybe that's a negative of a Xerox copy instead of the carbon copy second page of an original. 

 

Steve Thomas

 

 

I hope I did not imply it was the photograph which was carbon copied...

Each photo and signature is supposedly original.

Regarding the carbon not matching - I refer to the "779" which appears on both and how if one lines that up, nothing else on the carbon matches the original in terms of placement.  If you line up the text "779" is not even on the page and the rest of the text implies an amazingly sloppy line up the carbon and backsheet...

The "negative image" is what I do to contrast the two for easier viewing...  the text on p349 and p350 seems to be backward...