Not sure what your post means. But I probably shouldn't have lashed out. Sorry Bot, please forgive me

Now, regardless of what any report created by those who have agenda and need to cover their hinders supposes and hypotheses with all sorts of complexity, when the principle actor comes back with simple corrective testimony to clear up inaccuracies in said report you have to give his claim about himself which is logical and in his own voice some credibility. To justify the report being of superior truth over primary later testimony requires all sorts of special circumstance. Proof, not speculation. You have to realize UBL read the report and commented to it.

If we are not honest about the actual facts, solutions will be more difficult. Denial is not a good strategy. Suppose for the sake of argument it is only what UBL's followers believe. That in itself is their truth, and matters.

Or, feel free to rewrite history in any speculative manner that you like.