I'm just saying that the media's tactics to discredit something is to immediately call it a "forgery" which has nothing to do with the content itself, just that it was not the original source. You see this a lot with historical documents that people would rather not want to be acknowledged.
I haven't actually read it myself, just seen the knee-jerk response that happens when somebody isn't willing to outright dismiss it. And with the recent amount of things being "debunked" that tends to mean you should give it pause, but obviously not totally believe it because of that alone.
I'm just saying that the media's tactics to discredit something is to immediately call it a "forgery" which has nothing to do with the content itself, just that it was not the original source. You see this a lot with historical documents that people would rather not want to be acknowledged.
I haven't actually read it myself, just seen the knee-jerk response that happens when somebody isn't willing to outright dismiss something.
Doing a quick search from a pdf the only instance of "Napoleon" from it seems to have is:
A sketch of the course of the symbolic serpent is as follows: Its first stage in Europe was in 429 B.C. Greece, where, in the time of Pericles, the serpent started eating into the power of that country. The second stage was in Rome in the time of Augustus about 69 B.C. The third in Madrid in the time of 41 Charles V. in 1552 A.D. The fourth in Paris about 1700, in the time of Louis XVI. The fifth in London from 1814 onwards (after the downfall of Napoleon). The sixth in Berlin in 1871 after the Franco-Prussian war. The seventh in St. Petersburg, over which is drawn the head of the serpent under the date of 1881.
I'm just saying that the media's tactics to discredit something is to immediately call something a "forgery" which has nothing to do with the content itself, just that it was not the original source. You see this a lot with historical documents that people would rather not want to be seen.
I haven't actually read it myself, just seen the knee-jerk response that happens when somebody isn't willing to outright dismiss something.
Doing a quick search from a pdf the only instance of "Napoleon" from it seems to have is:
A sketch of the course of the symbolic serpent is as follows: Its first stage in Europe was in 429 B.C. Greece, where, in the time of Pericles, the serpent started eating into the power of that country. The second stage was in Rome in the time of Augustus about 69 B.C. The third in Madrid in the time of 41 Charles V. in 1552 A.D. The fourth in Paris about 1700, in the time of Louis XVI. The fifth in London from 1814 onwards (after the downfall of Napoleon). The sixth in Berlin in 1871 after the Franco-Prussian war. The seventh in St. Petersburg, over which is drawn the head of the serpent under the date of 1881.
I'm just saying that the media's tactics to discredit something is to immediately call something a "forgery" which has nothing to do with the content itself, just that it was not the original source. You see this a lot with historical documents that people would rather not want to be seen.
I haven't actually read it myself, just seen the knee-jerk response that happens when somebody isn't willing to outright dismiss something.
Doing a quick search the only instance of "Napoleon" from this pdf it seems to have is:
A sketch of the course of the symbolic serpent is as follows: Its first stage in Europe was in 429 B.C. Greece, where, in the time of Pericles, the serpent started eating into the power of that country. The second stage was in Rome in the time of Augustus about 69 B.C. The third in Madrid in the time of 41 Charles V. in 1552 A.D. The fourth in Paris about 1700, in the time of Louis XVI. The fifth in London from 1814 onwards (after the downfall of Napoleon). The sixth in Berlin in 1871 after the Franco-Prussian war. The seventh in St. Petersburg, over which is drawn the head of the serpent under the date of 1881.