[Bubba Ho-Tep]

Not only do you overly defend some publication, that by its existence you would like to think lends credibility, when it does not, but you continue to defend an article that makes assertions that are not attributed and cannot be found by others who have researched them.

So you're calling him a liar, then.

I see no reason to doubt the word of a true witness that was on board one of the ships in question, attribution already provided.

A witness who has already proved to be unreliable in other aspects of the engagement, writing decades after the events.

You try to cloud the issue again with the "shot heard out to sea" red herring, and then use the "higher authority" of the author who does not footnote the quote you used, while saying he does.

First, off, I said the author offers a bibliography, not footnote. For a "noted historian" you seem to have trouble distinguishing the two. Second, the shot heard at sea report was brought to the table by Rustbucket. You say "red herring," I say "corroborating fact." Do you have some other explanation for the shot, or were the confederates who reported it lying, too?

And what footnoted corroboration do you offer? Basically none. Apparently your style of history is to demand meticulous documentation of every detail when it disagrees with your regional prejudice, but if it agrees, then it gets a pass.