Yoshida: 14

Everything about the date of Napoleon's defeat at Waterloo is wrong.

There are massive archives complete with inventories of supplies, bills of lading, troop movements, munitions production, uniform manufacturing and so on, so it is not the same as examining whether the date of the beginning of Genghis Khan's conquests is accurate. I deemed such an investigation to be implausible with just a cursory inspection.

The Prussians were completely out of sorts in 1815, horribly positioned to support the British. Gebhard von Blucher's army was in chaos amid a tumultuous re-organization and could hardly be counted on to defeat anything or anyone, yet they were the deciding factor in the battle of Waterloo. If they had had a few more years to prepare I could see them mounting something formidable, but in 1815? Preposterous. (Below: Blucher)

The Duke of Wellington's forces were in similar straits. Even he, the leader of the army said of his own people that they were: "an infamous army, very weak and ill-equipped, and a very inexperienced Staff". Supply lines were fragile or nonexistent, morale was low, and I simply cannot see how it is possible that the coalition forces could respond so quickly to Napoleon's re-emergence after his brief exile.

According to the bills of lading, the rifles wouldn't be in the right hands at the right time. The gunpowder would still have been in Liverpool for the British and Prussia's entire supply of boots would have been in Berlin. What did Wellington's men shoot exactly? Did Blucher's infantry defeat Napoleon while barefoot?

Even the sociopolitical climate of the time gives every indication that this decisive of a battle could not have happened when it did and how it did. While these are far more subjective factors, the situation in Spain and Napoleon's relationship with Russia at this time both are indicative of something being drastically, dreadfully out of place.

It is wrong. Absolutely, totally wrong. I have never been confronted by an anomaly of this scope. I cannot sleep, I cannot eat. I tell people- even those few whose intellects I respect- about what I see, and they laugh at me. It is the sort of problem that if you are looking for it you cannot fail to see it, but if you are not asking the questions you could not hope to see the answers. How can this be? Does history mean nothing? I go over the numbers again and again, and they tell a consistent tale- one that has nothing to do with the final story in the history books. I have taken a leave of absence from my job. I cannot leave my apartment. It makes no sense. If they would only look at the numbers they could see that I'm right, but the date and the history of the event is so well established that no one will believe me. How could the Battle of Ligny have taken place then when the Prussians had no horse tack? Did their cavalry ride bareback? How could Napoleon not have registered the Prussians retreat from the battle when they were literally right in front of him? Even the personal journals of the men are nonsensical. There were no cannonballs prepared for the French artillery at that point as they had disarmed the year before, so what did Napoleon's men fire, cantaloupes? Nothing about it makes sense. Nothing about this makes sense. Nothing. If I had a hundred years to study it it would not be enough. When you know what to look for you cannot help but see it, but they will not look no matter how I beg them, deeming it absurd and beneath them. If one date is off the other must be. If only there was more raw data from the time of the Mongol expansion I could determine more, but it was too long ago and the difference in time was only one year, with the supposed date of conquest being 1206 while you believe it to be 1207. Being from a nomadic society, the Khan, while organized, still did not possess the same means or interest of recording information as in the Napoleonic years. If one is off then the other must be. Are there other dates that are wrong? Dates that have been accepted as being true for hundreds and possibly thousands of years? When is the earliest example? When is the latest example? Is there a date where history becomes firmer and more concrete? Have the dates changed only recently? To what possible purpose would this have been done, if it was done by someones will instead of as an act of nature? It is impossible. The date of the battle of Waterloo is wrong. I would send the raw mathematical data and the equations I used, but anyone capable of understanding them refuses to look at them. I am not insane. Why won't they even look at them? I know I am not insane.