Paul Kerrigan
-
Posts
139 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Paul Kerrigan
-
-
Mr. Davy,
Were you aware that Dave Reitzes wrote a rebuttal to your response of his review (I don't know if that made sense, this back-and-forth thing is confusing). Do you have any intention of writing another response? Here is Dave's response.
http://www.jfk-online.com/davy1.html
If you do choose to respond to him, good luck trying to make him understand sense.
-
Prof. Mellen,
I have a question regarding the Habighorst controversy. There is one thing about that whole incident that still bothers me. Why would Clay Shaw so stupidly admit that he had an alias, completely contrary to the advice of his lawyers who told him not to admit nor say anything?
Thanks!
-
Note that the Klein's ad shown above lists it as a 40-inch rifle, and also note that the ammunition--which LHO did NOT purchase--is Italian military ammo, NOT Western [uS-made]...but the offer DID include a 6-round clip.
My point, I suppose...is that LHO allegedly bought the rifle from Klein's, and the pistol from Seaport Traders. Yet he could just as easily have bought BOTh from Klein's...or, since the revolver came to Seaport via Empire Wholesale Sporting Goods, Limited, of Montreal, why would LHO not have similarly sourced his rifle from the same folks...ESPECIALLY since, according to WC testimony, Empire kept NO serial-number records on THEIR Carcanos, and therefore they WOULD have been untraceable.
Curious stuff, indeed.
Just a caveat...this is apparently a 1964 Klein's ad, since they're offering a 1964 edition of a manual in the ad.
This add has erroneously led many to the wrong clonclusions, which it would appear was intentional.
Check the order form reportedly completed by LHO. It called for the "CT" on the numbers, which was for the 36 inch Carbine, and for which Kleins reportedly had received.
The Warren Commission described the rifle like this:
"The rifle...was a bolt-action, clip-fed, military rifle, 40.2 inches long and 8 pounds in weight."
-
Paul
They keep showing this fiction they call a documentary in the
hope that the longer it's on the air, more people will fall for it.
Researcher Richard Smith showed how this program actually proved the
SB Theory could not be duplicated. In a review of the program,
which Richard taped, he showed how the bullet went through JFK's
chest, and not his throat. There were many things wrong with
that documentary.
I would rather they present "The Guilty Men" by Nigel
Turner. That to me is much more valid than the nonsense
Peter Jennings and company presented. "The Guilty Men"
actually had witnesses corroborating what Turner presented.
It's too bad that the History Channel and its conglomerates
caved in to Jack Valenti and his henchmen. I understand
that "The Guilty Men" will never be shown on television again,
and that sales of the program have been suspended. Is this
what freedom of speech has come to in the U.S.?
Bill C
Do you know where I can find Richard Smith's analysis of the program?
-
Where did this assumption come from? It is false. The Director and I were the ones who decided in 1994 (soon after I was hired) that the Museum gift shop SHOULD carry some conspiracy titles. The guidelines were simple: titles and content must be up-to-date, accurate, fair and objective, properly sourced, and are primarily an examination of the historical record, not pushing some pet theory. The Museum does history, not theories.
[/color]
If Gary Mack's agenda is not to push a "pet theory," why is "Case Closed" in stock? If he wants to eliminate conspiracy books because he claims they promote an agenda, he must be made aware that that rule applies to lone guman books as well.
-
Peter Jennings propaganda "Beyond Conspiracy" is on The History Channel.
http://www.historychannel.com/global/listi...4&page=listings
EDIT: Well, I guess you can watch half of it... I came to it right in the middle and didn't realize that it was two hours long.
-
Jim, Tom is correct in that the bullets were never tied to Oswald's gun. The shells recovered at the scene, however, were. Strangely, however, the officer who claimed to have initialed those shells couldn't find his intiials on them later. This is one of the many reasons people suspect something's fishy with the Tippit slaying.
I have resigned myself to the probablity it was Oswald.
An often-overlooked element of the Tippit slaying is that the number of shots fired conflicts with the earwitnesses. While the doctors discovered four bullets, and the police discovered four shells, the shells didn't match the bullets. This meant there was one shot fired that no one found and one shell used that was never recovered. (Unless of course the shells were a DPD plant.) This led the WC to conclude there were 5 shots fired. Amazingly, however, the majority of earwitnesses heard only 3 shots. That the WC failed to acknowledge thiat something similar could have happened in Dealey Plaza is indicative of its bias, IMO.
Officer J.M. Poe testified to marking the shells and his superior Sergeant Gerald Hill also testified that he told Poe to make "sure" that he marked the shells. In addition, Hill, when examining the shells determined that they were from a .38 automatic. It is difficult to claim that Hill was mistaken because .38 automatic shells are marked .38 AUTO at the bottom of them.
-
We can add to the list of killed the hundreds of thousands killed by Suharto in his genocidal campaign against East Timor. Suharto's rise to power was a direct result of the 1965 Coup.
-
I believe the the "secret government" referred to by this person is more along the lines of the "Shadow Government" discussed in this article:
-
Does anyone know if and when Joan Mellon's biography of Jim Garrison is coming out? The last I heard of it, she couldn't find a publisher. Since then, I haven't heard anything else. Are there any updates on it?
-
Of course it was a war crime; Harry Truman was the war criminal. Truman would not accept anything less than an unconditional surrender from the Japanese, despite the fact that Japan was frantically making attempts to end the war in any way possible, short of an unconditional surrender. The Japanese were only concerned in maintaining the status of the Emperor. Despite numerous peace proposals, Truman was convinced that only an unconditional surrender would be sufficient.
The man who basically thought up the entire idea for an atomic bomb, Leó Szilárd, begged Truman's point man on nuclear matters, James Byrnes, to demonstrate the bomb's power on an empty target before turning it on civilians. Byrnes in a nutshell replied that all the money spent on creating the bomb could not be justified if it was not unleashed on Japanese cities. Truman gave the order that nuclear weapons should be used against Japan. Truman's decision clearly stemmed from hatred and bigotry of the Japanese people. Take a look at an excerpt from Truman's diary, dated July 25:
"We have discovered the most terrible bomb in the history of the world. It may be the fire destruction prophesied in the Euphrates Valley Era, after Noah and his fabulous Ark.
Anyway we "think" we have found the way to cause a disintegration of the atom. An experiment in the New Mexico desert was startling - to put it mildly. Thirteen pounds of the explosive caused the complete disintegration of a steel tower 60 feet high, created a crater 6 feet deep and 1,200 feet in diameter, knocked over a steel tower 1/2 mile away and knocked men down 10,000 yards away. The explosion was visible for more than 200 miles and audible for 40 miles and more.
This weapon is to be used against Japan between now and August 10th. I have told the Sec. of War, Mr. Stimson, to use it so that military objectives and soldiers and sailors are the target and not women and children. Even if the Japs are savages, ruthless, merciless and fanatic, we as the leader of the world for the common welfare cannot drop that terrible bomb on the old capital or the new.
He and I are in accord. The target will be a purely military one and we will issue a warning statement asking the Japs to surrender and save lives. I'm sure they will not do that, but we will have given them the chance. It is certainly a good thing for the world that Hitler's crowd or Stalin's did not discover this atomic bomb. It seems to be the most terrible thing ever discovered, but it can be made the most useful..."
The "warning statement" was basically the routine "surrender or be utterly destroyed." Not surprisingly, the Japanese didn't surrender. The bombs at Nagasaki and Hiroshima killed at least 140,000 people and injured over 100,000 people, not to mention the fact that tens of thousands more would die from injuries and radiation poisoning within two years.
On August 9, Truman delivered a speech to the American people about the use of the atomic bomb:
"The world will note that the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, a military base. That was because we wished in this first attack to avoid, insofar as possible, the killing of civilians. But that attack is only a warning of things to come. If Japan does not surrender, bombs will have to be dropped on her war industries and, unfortunately, thousands of civilian lives will be lost. I urge Japanese civilians to leave industrial cities immediately, and save themselves from destruction."
It is rather hard to believe that Truman actually thought that Hiroshima was a military base, considering that 90% of the people killed were civilians.
-
Peter Jennings, the ABC news anchor who hosted the controversial special on the JFK Assassination has died. The 67 year old recently announced in April that he had been diagnosed with lung cancer.
-
Well, what did Robert Daniels have to say about the "accident?" Did he deny accidentally shooting his friend?
-
Well Ron
I suppose that JFK was right. Too bad that he didn't have enough time to smash it into a thousand pieces and toss it to the wind.
It seems that we have created a beast that is devouring us. A beast with unrivaled power, a limitless unaccountable budget, and most certainly a license to kill coupled with an obvious propensity to do so in a flaunting and flagrant manner. All of this and accountable to no one. Neither the KGB nor Hitler's SS ever had it so good. Yes, that is who I compare them with!
This might be easier to take if I thought that they were at least doing a good job. Even an adequate job.
I well realize that often we have no way of realizing when they are successful, but their obvious failures have been paramount.
Other than being a semi effective Murder Inc., I don't know of a great many kudo's that could be sent their way. These people are capable of devouring their own young!
These offsprings of Harry Truman are most certainly not what he envisioned.
Charlie Black
Democracy isnt what it used to be in America. This article pretty accurately details my feelings about who really holds power in this country.
-
There is a special on the Discovery Channel on the Magic Bullet on right now. It is from that Unsolved History show. I'm skeptical about the program because they've already dragged out Dale Myer's animation.
-
Thomas Hale Boggs was a member of the Warren Commission. Boggs originally agreed that John F. Kennedy and J. D. Tippit had been killed by Lee Harvey Oswald and that Jack Ruby was not part of any conspiracy. However, later he began to have doubts claiming that "Hoover lied his eyes out on Oswald, on Ruby, on their friends, you name it."
Thomas Hale Boggs disappeared while on a campaign flight from Anchorage to Juneau, Alaska, on 16th October, 1972. No bodies were ever found.
The Los Angeles Star, on November 22, 1973, reported that before his death Boggs claimed he had "startling revelations" on Watergate and the assassination of JFK.
Boggs was also one of three Warren Commission members to reject the single bullet theory which is of course the foundation of the Commission's conclusions. The other two members were Richard Russell and John Cooper.
-
John, it seems unlikely since it had showered in the early morning
before the motorcade; indeed Sam Holland speaks of observing
footprints in the wet dirt behind the fence and mud on the bumper of
the adjacent car as if the person had stood up on it.
Seems like unlikely conditions for dust to be an explanation?
And didn't Holland find cigarette butts as well? Lee Bowers said that he saw two men behind the fence and that they were there at the time of the shooting.
-
I have just finished reading Shakespeare's play The Taming of the Shrew and I am confused about Katherine's taming. Did Petruchio actually tame Katherine? Did she play the part of submissive wife with that speech at the end to control Petruchio by understanding what he was trying to do by starving her and depriving her of sleep? Was the whole marriage just a ruse so Katherine could find happiness in her prescribed social role and so she could gain respect from her peers?
Thanks for anyone that has answers!
-
I hesitate to post my comments, at the risk of being branded a "nazi," but here goes. First of all, let me say that this is John's forum, and he certainly has the right to set the rules. I appreciate very much his efforts and value the forum as an educational tool. That being said, I also believe completely in free speech and a free press. The whole issue of WWII has become increasingly sacrosanct, even among those who are willing to debate and discuss the most controversial topics imaginable. This does not merely apply to the holocaust, but to such tangential issues like Pearl Harbor, and the increasingly obvious indications that FDR had advance knowledge and/or goaded the Japanese into attacking us. The level of debate in such cases is best summed up by the reaction of historian Barbara Tuchman, whose idea of rebutal was to state, "Toland is a nazi," after Pulitzer Prize winning historian John Toland wandered into the revisionist waters with his "Infamy" book about FDR's role in allowing the Japanese attack to happen. I had to read "Infamy," after reading Tuchman's vicious and infantile response to Toland's well- researched and thoroughly documented work. It convinced me. If that makes me a nazi, or perhaps a "jap" somehow, then so be it.
I am therefore sympathetic to any revisionist claims about any historical incident. It bothers me that so many otherwise open-minded people want to exempt this one particular historical event from free discussion. Why? If the case for the nazis exterminating six million jews is so convincing, then the debate ought to be quick and easy. Calling those who dispute any particular part of history a "nazi" or "anti-semitic" or "racist," or whatever, isn't constructive and frankly diminishes your own credibility.
I am still a novice to this whole subject, but I have taken the first step in examining this subject in at least some depth. Many of you may not be aware of the plight of one Ernst Zundel, a former Canadian teacher who is, believe it or not, in his second year of SOLITARY CONFINEMENT in a Canadian prison. His crime; he "denies the holocaust." BTW, what kind of bizarre, Orwellian term is that? That sounds like a term from the middle ages for those who denied the church or something. When I first heard about this, I was appalled, even though I thought he was probably a nut to deny the nazi atrocities. While reading about Zundel's history (he has already been tried twice for this "crime"), I discovered that he had commissioned an expert, during his first trial, to go to Auschwitz and examine the gas chambers, the soil, and anything else what could prove or disprove that the exterminations had taken place. The guy's name was Fred Leuchter, and he was not a nazi, an anti-semite, or political at all. He was considered the nation's foremost expert on capital punishment devices, having consulted with many prisons and advised them about their gas chamber systems and electric chairs. To make a long story short, Leuchter came away convinced that no gassings had taken place at Auschwitz. He wrote the "Leuchter Report" afterwards, and if you are really interested in historical truth, then I urge you to read it. I think it can be read in its entirety (it's not that long) online. If you just use a search engine, you should be able to find it easily.
I hope that I will not be banned from this forum for speaking out. I don't know Mr. Astucia at all, but I do support everyone's right to free speech. Unless someone is coming out and advocating the extermination of a particular race of people, or saying that a particular group of people ought to be rounded up and imprisoned because of their race, religion, height, weight, or whatever, and as long as they aren't vulgar or incomprehensible in their arguments, then I think responsible people who hold a different view ought to feel free to engage them in civil discourse.
BTW- for the record, I don't admire Adolf Hitler. I don't think the nazis were cool. I don't like heiling anyone and woudn't want a dictator ruling me. That being said, I think the historical revisionists may have some valid points and they shouldn't be thrown in jail, or legally penalized in any way, for stating them. I also think that suppressing these views plays into the hands of real anti-Jewish feeling; if you believe "the jews" control the world, then this feeling will reinforced by name-calling and censorship. Anyhow, those are my feelings. Now please be kind....
"He was considered the nation's foremost expert on capital punishment devices, having consulted with many prisons and advised them about their gas chamber systems and electric chairs. To make a long story short, Leuchter came away convinced that no gassings had taken place at Auschwitz."
Leuchter and his report have been discredited and debunked over and over again.
-
I share your concerns. Looking at his website Salvador would appear to be a Holocaust Revisionist and probably a neo-Nazi as well.
Gary:
You and other people keep bringing up issues that I have not mentioned in this forum. In an American court of law, if an attorney for one side brings up a particular topic, then discussion on that topic is fair game for the opposing attorney. Why did you mention Holocaust Revisionism? Are you willing to discuss it? If this were a court of law, your comment would make the Holocaust a topic of open debate.
So I will put it to the moderators. Will you (moderators) grant me permission--in advance--to start a discussion thread about Holocaust Revisionism? The main topics of discussion would be as follows:
- Is the death count (six million Jews) accurate?
- Were gas chambers the primary means of killing inmates in Nazi camps?
Seriously, I do not expect the moderators to allow such a discussion, regardless of any evidence I might produce. But sometimes making a request is just as important as the response received. I only ask the question because Mr. Buell introduced the topic of the Holocaust as a means of discrediting me. But if given an opportunity to back up his comments with evidence, I have every confidence that he would suddenly fall mute.
Regards.
Salvador Astucia
-Yes it is accurate
-No that is not the only way the prisoners were murdered. Most prisoners from the Eastern Front were simply shot and buried in mass graves
Since when has Holocaust Denial had a place on this forum?
-
"The Dallas police officer who captured Lee Harvey Oswald in the Texas Theater the day President Kennedy was assassinated, died Thursday in an Arkansas hospital."
http://washingtontimes.com/national/200501...20626-2804r.htm
Wasn't it Officer McDonald who manufactured the story of Oswald attempting to shoot another officer? I find it hard to believe that Oswald tried to kill another police officer and yet the Dallas Police did not think to charge him with attempted murder.
-
I am currently reading The Bay of Pigs by Haynes Johnson, Manuel Artime, Jose Perez San Roman, Errique Ruiz-Williams. I have found their interpretation of events very interesting:
Here are a couple of passages that are worth looking at. The first refers to a speech made by Frank Bender:
Then it was Frank's turn to speak. They were to hold the beach for seventy-two hours, he said. And what were they sup¬posed to do after that? "We will be there with you for the next step," Frank said. "But you will be so strong, you will be getting so many people to your side, that you won't want to wait for us. You will go straight ahead. You will put your hands out, turn left, and go straight into Havana."
Frank made a sweeping gesture with his arm that no man present that day will ever forget. There was a great shout from the Cubans. Some had tears in their eyes.
When it came to support, Frank was equally emphatic: there was no question they would have air superiority. Nothing was said about United States air support, or about jets. It was said that the enemy would not be able to get to the Brigade; that it would be destroyed from the air; that no trucks or troops would be able to get through the roads because all the roads would be bombed; that "every five minutes there will be a plane over all the major roads of Cuba." The Brigade cargo ships were loaded with thirty to forty thousand gallons of gasoline so its air force could begin immediate missions once the field at Giron was seized. The air missions were already planned for that moment: the operations order called for them to destroy the main rail¬road and highway bridges in "the zones of Havana, Matanzas, Jovellanos, Colon, Santa Clara and Cienfuegos in order to iso¬late said areas from enemy operations."
Operation Pluto also included plans for a diversionary landing in Oriente Province by a commando group of 168 men, led by Nino Diaz, and a simulated attack, or "feint," in the vicinity of Pinar del Rio. The "feint" would be accomplished with special sound equipment that would make it sound as if a great battle were being waged.
When Frank had finished, there was a brief moment of silence and then a stir as the Cubans realized it was over. The plan sounded so good, the Cubans were so confident, that no one asked any questions. As Pepe said, "We didn't want to ask these men we knew any embarrassing questions."
Frank had said earlier, in response to a question, that if anything went wrong the Cubans should communicate with the rear base and he would give them instructions. Nothing was said about an alternative plan and as this is written, only one of the four leading Cubans knows that such a plan existed; he learned of it two years after the invasion. Later, in a secret toplevel administration investigation that followed in the wake of the invasion, it was learned that the CIA decided, on its own, not to give the Brigade the alternative plan. The explanation was given that it might weaken the Brigade's resolve to keep fighting, that they might choose the alternative plan when the going became rough, even though the invasion still had a chance of success. The most charitable explanation that can be placed on this reckless action is that the CIA assumed such terrible responsibility with the best of intentions: it was convinced the Cubans would win and therefore in the classic sense the end would justify the means.
It was five o'clock in the afternoon on Friday, April 14 when the officers left the briefing area for the pier. At the last moment Frank took Pepe aside. He told him that if he were ordered to halt the invasion while the ships were at sea he would send Pepe a radio message saying: COME BACK, DON 'T GO AHEAD.
That meant the opposite: it was really clear; they were to go ahead.
"But if I send you a message in code that says the bird-the Guatemalan bird, the quetzal-'The quetzal is on the branches of the tree'-that means Fidel is waiting for you so you will have to come back."
One of Frank's assistants named Phillips handed Pepe a big briefcase, locked and without a key, and told him to sign a receipt for it. Inside, he said, was $35,000-$10,000 in American money and $25,000 in Cuban. It was for use as the need arose. Pepe rejoined his staff and they prepared to board the ships.
Was the Phillips the CIA's David Attlee Phillips? Does anyone know Frank Bender's real name.
Frank Bender worked with E. Howard Hunt in keeping track of the various anti-Castro exile groups in the United States, mostly working to ensure their support for the invasion of Cuba. Bender also approached anti-Castro leaders in the guise of a representative of a group of wealthy businessman and offered financial assistance for operations against Cuba and Castro. I believe his real name was Gerald Droller. I also believe he went by the name Felix Drecher.
-
John Ritchson Posted Yesterday, 11:53 PM
I've been offline for most of this past month due to a rather serious run-in with a Brown Recluse spider which bit me on the leg making it difficult to negotiate the stairs to my PC. However, I am on the mend and I'll start participating a bit more vigarously
Mr. Hynonen, To quote your past inquirary:
Were silencers available in 1963? Assuming the varying types of possible weapons (hunting rifles, high velocity deer rifle) the assassins might have used, were there silencers available for such weapons? Would such a silencer considerably slow down the speed of the bullet? The answer to the last question may help understand why some of the wounds on President Kennedy's body were not direct through - through wounds. For example the neck wound did not appear to go through, also the back wound did not appear to go through his body. Also some wounds in Gov. Connally were not all through wounds (thigh wound quite shallow). Or might this suggest that different types of weapons were used?
In a nutshell, yes sir there were a great many types of so-called silencers in use well before 1963. Some of the first truely silenced weapons were built by Mitchel Livingstone Warbell III and if memery serves this was accomplished in the 40's and 50's and used as assination weapons.
There exists a device called a Muzzle-Brake which acts to reduce a bullet's velocity below that of the speed of sound thus when used in conjunction with a silencer produces a truely quiet weapon. However, this weapon system is of limited value in terms of range and accuracy.
With respect to the JFK murder, there is no way to mask the super-sonic crack of a high velocity in flight. With that in mind however, snipers sometimes use a silencer to mask their location by silencing the Muzzle-Blast of their weapon as well as not kicking up any soil or debris thus allowing them those critical few moments to effect their escape. [This does not appear to be the case in the JFK murder. The assassins didn't seem to be concerned with such details since the FIX WAS IN as it were.]
Personally I believe there were at least three different high-powered weapons in play that day. The weapon I believe produced the Magic bullet was a 6.5x54mm Mannlicher Schoenauer 6-groove sniper's rifle with a 1 turn in7" twist which was previously fired into a ballistic water-tank, retrieved and PLANTED at the scene.
Based upon my analysis of the bullet fragments from national archive photos I feel John Connley was shot by two different bullets from different directions because there is no way of duplicating those wounds as proposed by the Warren Commision, Mr Meyers and the LN crowd not withstanding. I have personally varified to my satisfaction that a .222 Remington Fireball could have done the job although I remain skeptical of the James files Scenerio. I feel however that the weapon that actually killed JFK was a much larger caliber hot-loaded sniper rifle like a model 70 Winchester or 700 Remington chambered for the 300 Magnum cartridge and firing at least a 180 grain boat-tail spitzer bullet. This is based upon my interpetation of of the Z-Film killshot sequence. In my opinion the throat-shot is far more consistant with being impacted by a .22 caliber bullet that any other bullet type, mercury loaded or not. I also know from personal experience that the human gullet can and will deflect throat-shot impacts, usually downward especially if the bullet's initial trajectory is downward at the point of terminal impact. finally, I believe there was a shooter on the roof of the Dal-Tex building that got off at least one shot with a 30'06.
I hope this addresses your questions in this matter and I of course can and will elaborate on any of the points I have made. But, for the sake of brevity and my aching leg I will restrict myself to this very basic reply.
With Respect:
John Ritchson
John Ritchson;
Thank you for your reply. That does clear up what I had in mind.
Especially the part where you said: "With respect to the JFK murder, there is no way to mask the super-sonic crack of a high velocity in flight. With that in mind however, snipers sometimes use a silencer to mask their location by silencing the Muzzle-Blast of their weapon as well as not kicking up any soil or debris thus allowing them those critical few moments to effect their escape. [This does not appear to be the case in the JFK murder. The assassins didn't seem to be concerned with such details since the FIX WAS IN as it were.]"
I do agree that there were 2 or 3 assassins with probably at least 2 different weapons.
Silencers, Sniper Rifles, & the CIA
-
Wath the videoclip here:
Bill Hicks on the JFK Assassination
"I have this feeling that whoever's elected president, like Clinton was, no matter what promises you make on the campaign trail - blah, blah, blah - when you win, you go into this smoky room with the twelve industrialist, capitalist scumxxxxs that got you in there, and this little screen comes down... and it's a shot of the Kennedy assassination from an angle you've never seen before, which looks suspiciously off the grassy knoll.... And then the screen comes up, the lights come on, and they say to the new president, 'Any questions?'
'Just what my agenda is.'
-Bill Hicks.
William Davy: Let Justice Be Done
in History and Political Books: Debates with Authors
Posted
Mr. Davy,
Thanks for the response and taking time to be here and answer questions because I have another one. In the chapter on PERMINDEX, you say that a French newspaper by the name of Les Échos may have ran a series of articles regarding PERMINDEX's possible connections to assassination attempts on Charles deGaulle's life. However, because you never saw the articles, you can't testify to their existence or veracity. In a footnote, you urge readers with any access to French newspaper archives to look for these articles. Since then, have you been able to locate or verify these articles?
Thanks!