Yes, says the author, and keeps saying so; it's argument by asseveration. He refers to dissenters as ""the lunatic fringe,"" psychoanalyzes them, and even objects to the copiousness of their research. But since he never summarizes the critics' views, it's hard to take him seriously. He does mention Garrison, whose findings would merely ""fill in"" the Report. Mainly he contrives caricatures and straw men, claiming that a real counter-rebuttal would be too long and ""tedious."" White (who worked on the CBS News study of the Report last winter) concedes that the Commission's makeup and its work were biased and hasty and deprived of key evidence. But a new investigation would just revive pain and encourage the ""fringe."" ... It's hard to agree with him that belief in Oswald's guilt entails belief in the Report; the critics and the public deserve something more rigorous than this.