re: Stolen History - Lifting the Veil of Deception (Doc Part 1 - Introduction)

quote:

---

Test your hypothesis.

As I told a poster earlier in the thread, I got involved in some McKinley research several years ago. I relied on a number of contemporary accounts. I can assure you they do exist. Google books or the Library of Congress are a good start. There are a number of contemporary newspaper resources. Many of these are free.

---

I appreciate your contribution and opinion on this thread -- though we support divergent opinions.

McKinley though fascinating -- is a whole different subject.

FWIW...I *have* "tested" my hypotheses with thousands of hours of research ad nauseam -- established, amplified and reinforced by those many who have also examined the "evidence" of both viewpoint and "testimony."

Though I regular peruse LOC sources (check out the two photos of New Orleans (1851/1885) just up-thread, Tigah -- they are directly from the Library of Congress -- good stuff is found there -- I whole heartedly agree.

But then again, WHO ARE those who've run the LOC? The Smithsonian? And every establishment / institutional / academic source of "History"?

IS it possible that they ALL share the same agenda? IS it possible that they would be lock-step in supporting that very same Timeline? Series of Events? (or sandbagging, censoring, eliminating documents that contradict the "Historical" Timeline & account?)

Heck -- whether at the Library of Congress OR Smithsonian, OR other sources for "historical" docs, photos and "confirmation" of/ for perosns, places or things, such evidence/docs simply don't exist.

In short, I'll simply repeat what's already been said without belaboring the point:

There has been Historical / narrative / event / achievement manipulations, inventions, and eradication of so much truth by tPTB that very little of it can be believed at face value. Moreover, research has proven outright LIES in far too many cases.

Documents and explanations (even at LOC and Smithsonian etal extremely light. Sources and "testimony" are produced -- but not nearly in sufficiently or thoroughly. (THIS is why all this stuff -- like 1851-1915 World's Fairs narratives are being challenged. STRONGLY. They don't make any sense.

FWIW, I love this photo you've provided of the "planning" committee for the Buffalo World's Fair; But again -- IMO this photo "proves" nothing.

Why can't it just be a photo op that's created in order to support the notion of a "newly created" buildings, grounds, and layout? ALL that same architectural buildings (ironically and *very* coincidentally) is so similar to what stood at the Paris Expos of 1878, 1889, *and* 1900.

(I'll eventually find them and post it.)