You will note that
in the post following yours most of Brotherhood's strawgrasps are demolished. The story--and "story" is the only word for it--has Darwin ill abed, not healthy and visiting London. This does not fit what we know of Darwin's last days. Thus, it is very much of a piece with my example of Roosevelt visiting Hitler.
You say yours is better because "She documented it." No, "she" said it, and there's even doubt as to who "she" is.
The Lady Hope Story first appears in an American Baptist newspaper the Watchman Examiner on August 15, 1915. The author was identified only as a "consecrated English woman", "Lady Hope", but research by L.G. Pine a former editor of Burke's Peerage found no other Lady Hope other than Elizabeth Hope who was adult in the 1880s and still alive in 1915.
"She" never owned up to being "Lady Hope." What kind of documentation is that? A story that doesn't fit the known history of no certain authorship? That's my "Roosevelt visited Hitler" example. The proof I'm right is you can't prove I'm wrong. That makes it a historical fact by TheBrotherhood's standards.
// A story that doesn't fit the known history of no certain authorship? That's my "Roosevelt visited Hitler" example. The proof I'm right is you can't prove I'm wrong. That makes it a historical fact by TheBrotherhood's standards.//
Well that goes back then to when one (on your side)said I could not prove the Civil War had ever happened based on that I had great relatives still alive in the early and mid '60s and they gave me first and second person accounts of this period of time.
But anyway back to your "Roosevelt visited Hitler" example still does not work for all the logistics that would be involved for it to happen. That was what I meant when I said orders of magnitude from //Roosevelt visited Hitler// to a visit of private citizen ill and dying at home in the late 1800's.
Wolf