Unsourced? His grandmother's mouth isn't a source? That raises the delicate epistemic question, "If Lee Harvey Oswald shoots Jack Kennedy dead, but The New York Times refuses to run the story, did Jack Kennedy really die?"
I played these "sourcing" games with my cousin for a couple of years. She refused to believe a Canadian divine was on trial for harming homosexuals by preaching Leviticus from his pulpit, and that said divine was in possible peril of imprisonment for his preaching hatefulness. She refused to credit anything that appeared on a church-related or ministry-supported website, as if their opinions must obviously be as suspect as the pus running from a leper's open sores. It was years before she reluctantly accepted a link to a regional Canadian daily in the town where the trial was even then being held, and yes, prison was a possibility. The minsterial webpage had neither misinformed nor disinformed, and it had done no worse than to present its own POV -- something that my kinswoman was quite ready to overlook in the pages of The New York Times or The Nation, but which rendered material offered by the Right instantly Unclean, and contaminated.
I haven't let her forget that.
Throw in some bogus graphics analysis on the digital cert, self-promoting opportunists such as Philip Berg and Andy Martin, and various other nonsense, and it turned into a three-ring circus in a fever swamp that credible journalists, bloggers and talk show hosts refused to touch.
Oh, bull. They should so have "touched" it. They should have investigated it all very thoroughly, condemned any shoddy journalism or fraud attempts, and very thoroughly laid out the truth of the matter -- verified documents in hand, or documents to contradict the claims of those claiming to have documents.
We've been through all this before. It wasn't the Right that offered bogus docs in 2004, it was Dan Rather and CBS.
He's still in court on that one.
lentulus —
Frankly, I have no idea what you’re talking about.
Facts, and truth, are our friends. “Should,” “would” and “could” are our defeat.