Phat's old friend writes:
The only proof we have that the Battle of Waterloo
ever took place is that we have had reports to that effect. These
reports are not given us bv people who saw it happen, but are based
on other reports: reports of reports of reports, which go back ulti-
mately to the first-hand reports given by people who did see it hap-
pening.
As someone who knows a bit of history I call bullshit. Obviously any battle of that magnitude leaves a huge amount of physical evidence. In the case of Waterloo the evidence is mainly bullets, cannon shell fragments, military knickknacks like coat buttons, and if lucky, discarded weapons and so on. In addition, there is no law that prevents a given individual from reading a primary source. Since they were there and the testimony is an eyewitness account, such testimony is considered gold-standard by historians, unless such an account conflicts with others. I know this because I have read several.
Phat, your old friend is full of shit, period.
.
Edited by anglagard, : Clumsy sentence unworthy of a technical writer. Edited by anglagard, : Screwed up the edit, time to wind down and go to bed,
The problem with knowing everything is learning nothing.
If you don't know what you're doing, find someone who does, and do what they do.
Republican = death