Last week, I read something about a U.S. Korean War Vet agreeing that he couldn’t actually have seen a massacre, after a wire service (AP?) dug up documents that showed he wasn’t in the area.
It was a “teaser” quote, with nothing more. Does anyone know what this was all about?
All of this is from memory of a Washington Post write-up a couple of weeks ago that reported on the soldier who turned out not to have been there:
The report said he is now confused and upset, almost to the point of tears, because he had been so sure he had witnessed what he said he saw.
He admitted that the evidence was overwhelming that he had not been in the area, and that he had relied on second-hand rumors to build a false memory. He seemed to be quite ashamed that he had fooled himself into believing a false memory.
The paper (too lazy to look it up right now) that originally broke the story of the alleged massacre, and won a couple of Pulitzers as I recall, stands by its report. The paper in question believes it has enough other evidence to corroborate the story without the eyewitness accounts.