Documentation is recorded by fallible and biased human beings. Much of history is not accurately recorded, whether due to a) not having all the facts, b) trusting the word of third-party sources who may be lying or themselves not be in possession of all the facts, and/or c) being biased to record the history from one's preferred one-sided perspective rather than including both sides of the story verbatim.

Any piece of documentation that was not witnessed first-hand by many individuals, with none of them disagreeing on the totality of the facts, is unreliable and forever suspect. The moment someone writes down a fact that was witnessed by someone other than themselves... that "fact" is no longer actual fact.

Please tell me about the facts of Jesus's time on Earth. Too far in the past? Fine, tell me exactly why the US occupied Iraq. No, not what you were told or what you read - the information you obtained in person during the decision-making process. Can you?

So, it sounds like you would dismiss all historic knowledge, including written history, even from multiple sources? That doesn't seem like a very good approach to learning about the past. Skepticism is fine, but, really, we have to work with the data we've got. We can put modern interpretations on that data, based on new knowledge and understanding of science, but disregarding all of it it seems rash.