History, and truth, is not limited to what is acceptable in a court of law.
Lindbergh's diary came out in 1970, when plenty of veterans were alive to protest any inaccuracies. The fact that there were not thousands of veterans protesting the publication, enraged that their sacred honor was being trashed by Lindbergh, speaks volumes.
Obviously Lindbergh was telling the truth, and the veterans of the South Pacific new it.
new it = knew it
And you would presume to know the nature of truth?
Tell me, what is the difference between a soldier who kills on the battlefield, and a criminal who murders their neighbor, and by what immutable moral principle do you distinguish the two.
Absent context, History and truth are meaningless, abstract concepts, and contingent to what we are discussing here, it certainly is limited to what is acceptable in a court of law.
Lindbergh's diary came out in 1970, when plenty of veterans were alive to protest any inaccuracies. The fact that there were not thousands of veterans protesting the publication, enraged that their sacred honor was being trashed by Lindbergh, speaks volumes.
And one person's deductive inference is another persons logical fallacy. As I said before, for someone who is so interested in the truth, you have an odd way of showing it.......