“Have you?”
Nope, but I am not on here basically calling people liars without having seen the actual evidence.
Please note that I am simply pointing out that the link that was given leads to a typed, marked version which does NOT make it correct.
But you are assuming that Glen HAS seen it and has a ‘correct’ copy, based upon his say so.
If you haven’t seen the evidence why are you condemning someone else who at least has apparently looked at more than one website.
Just because something is posted online, does not make it inaccurate. To be fair, it doesn’t make it accurate either, but if there are inaccuracies and more than one is posted, chances are VERY good that an accurate copy can ALSO be found online.
BTW, historians and history students ARE allowed to use primary sources posted online in research and academic (peer review) papers and assumed to be accurate as long as it is from a reliable source or verifiable via some other method. Much of history is done in cyperspace these days and there are some very good sites with primary documentation.