Quote:
Originally Posted by Kurfürst
Problem is, the burden of proof is on you. Which is why just about anybody with a brain is unconvinced of your claims and have noted that your documentation is way insufficient to make the conclusions you are trying to make.
|
This as you know is rubbish. If you and I were to each submit a research paper on our opposing views I would be able to quote a mass of published works from different historians, participants in the battle, official papers, prime sources of data, publications from engineers, combat reports, station reports and others to support my case.
You would be limited in the extreame. Little more than an over emphasised minute from one meeting, an operating manual for an engine that had been out of production some time before the BOB and not a lot more
Now I agree that doesn't automatically mean that I am right, but the burden of proof is on you to support your case with facts not theories.
I have said many times that the case for is a strong one not a perfect one but its a heck of a lot better than he case that you have