Pygmalion Conspiracy question

Anyone who reads my books will realize that they are fictionalized prehistory of a part of this galaxy we live in. However, it is told as if it is a real history. Much like Edgar Rice Burroughs who wrote the Mars books and the books about Pellucidar, I used a mechanism to tell the reader how I came upon the information. I felt telling that made the information appear more real. I felt so strongly about that that I seriously considered not admitting the work was fiction. I found that such a deceit was quite impractical and gave up the idea. Still the first two chapters of the first book describe how I found everything I write about in my mothers papers and hidden away in a barn in Hew Hampshire. My mother's papers truly did have interesting stuff about her history; the barn does or perhaps did exist and had material my parents had stored there. After my father unloaded the barn of his stuff and without teaching me mine, I did go and hunt for material left behind, Unlike in the book I dis not find anything.
All through the books I make reference to the papers I found and to the authors of these papers. I am really curious as to whether my readers found that this attention to the source added a feel of reality to the narrative, Did authors find this a useful technique?