I absolutely understand - no need at all to look through all the links etc. I was really just trying to show enough to illustrate my difficulties when personally trying to verify this info. I hate that the only option is to trust - I want to check for myself!
> I do think you're at risk of reading into some of this "evidence" for foul play. Ken Thompson's lecture "Reflections on Trusting Trust" comes to mind for reasons that escape me.
Absolutely fair enough too. I now have very low levels of trust. But then that is because I bear in mind that people really do play tricks. I mean there are so many examples... do you remember weapons of mass distraction, Hans Blix, etc? Or Snowden? Did you know Zelensky is referenced in the Panama papers? Etc.
My low trust levels are based on my research. Eg the sort of historical research I presented above. There is always scope to doubt a story.. and perhaps, if you do not 'default to trust' there are hints at how the tricks may be being played. Perhaps such is the nature of power - ie that is it is a series of deeply considered, well-executed trickery to manage the masses. Perhaps the idea of faking commonly perceived truths is something that has a long pedigree - perhaps 'power' has used tricks to manage people from the very beginning. Perhaps trickery is actually to world's oldest profession :)
All the best, thanks for your thoughts.