Cooper goes to great pains to separate myth from fact
937803
In "The Truth About Tesla," Cooper delivers a highly polished and well researched argument that sheds real light on Tesla and his work. Cooper goes to great pains to separate myth from fact, which does a real service to historians, researchers, or just the general public who have only heard the "other side of the story," in regard to Tesla. Cooper delivers all of this is a handsomely bound, well documented, and illustrated text - making this book a great one for the casual reader as well as the serious student of Tesla's life. If we are truly to understand any historical figure, we must look at their life under the microscope, because we can't afford to solely believe myths - and that is what Cooper does in this work - he holds Tesla and his claims up under a bright light to see what can be seen about them, and in doing so we learn much about the man that was real, and much that is not. It is an important service that Cooper provides, because only by separating myth from fact do we arrive at true knowledge, and that is why we, as the public, should be indebted to Cooper for his work here.
257368
I read several years ago Pagels' "Beyond Belief," which is very helpful in understanding the so-called Gnostic Gospels. And this time too this book is very interesting; hence five stars. However, Judas of Iscariot remains still being the betrayer!
However the problems with these studies based on the archeologically old Christian documents are that (1) these documents were written well after the supposed year of Jesus' departure from this physical dimension, and (2) these documents may be very much distorted by the authors based on their beliefs. And because of these problems academic studies on Gnostic Gospels may continue for a long time to come for seeking the true story of Jesus. Is there any other way to know the true story? I think there is at least one way: psychical approach! Probably people interested in psychical research well know that the non-physical entity "Seth" talked about his controversial story of Jesus through the late American write-poet Jane Roberts (1929-1984) in his first book "Seth Speaks (1972)" in the last Session 591 of the book on 11 August 1971. Seth said to the effect that (a) Christ, the historical Jesus Christ, was not crucified, (b) He had no intention of dying in that manner; but others felt that to fulfill the prophecies in all ways, a crucifixion was a necessity, (c) the historical Jesus Christ did not take part in it, (d) There was a conspiracy in which Judas played a role, an attempt to make a martyr out of Christ; a deluded man who believed he was the Christ was chosen to be crucified. So in the Seth's story, the very Judas was the man who saved Jesus' life contrary to the canonical story of Judas being the meme of "Historical Betrayer." This may be a possible story as well, and I take the Seth's story because I believe the scientific study on "human reincarnation" by the late Prof. Ian Stevenson (1918-2007) as well as "the Great Memory" existing non-physically in other dimension as purported by F.W.H. Myers through the late Irish medium G. Cummins in the book "The Road to Immortality (1932)."
Maybe we can discover the true story of Jesus by the studies of academic people like Dr. Peagels, and also by psychical methods as well.
283618
I am going to give this book 5 stars because I really loved reading it.
however, i am going to post this from national geographic:
Correctly reasoning that she would be branded mentally ill, Marina has told her story only recently and now has a book. In last nights show she was subjected to all sorts of psychiatric and physical exams, and then taken to Colombia to see if her story held up.
Unsurprisingly, experts were extremely sceptical about Marina. But the evidence, such as signs of malnutrition in the bones at exactly the right age of development, won over each naysayer sufficiently to lend credence to many parts of her tale. Still, it turned out Marina might have concocted a false memory, particularly with regard to living in the jungle. This involuntary invention may be shielding her from an even more horrific past than the Tarzan story she remembers. Either way, what shone through, in spite of the plodding television, was that this quiet, modest and earnest woman was an incredible survivor who deserves our admiration and attention.
source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/tv-and-radio-reviews/10514565/Woman-Raised-by-Monkeys-National-Geographic-review.html
4688000
While I respect the author, I find his dismissal of Zecheria Sitchin's work disappointing. Also the dismissal of the early reports of the Dogon tribe is equally disturbing. To assume some 20 years after the reports of the Dogon story of Sirius first appeared, that the authors prompted the elders to describe something they could not have known is a stretch to say the least. To try to find a logical explanation is understandable but to assume the facts are based on the scholar's ego is the height of skepticism. The universe we live in is far more complex than the logical mind can allow. This book is worth reading and attempts to clarify what many consider to be myth.
3026862
Some events in history are so dramatic that they take on the character of myth and often with such force that myth replaces history.  Such is the myth that surrounds the end of the cold war.  The myth that America won the war alone and that it was led to victory by a tough confrontational approach led by President Ronald Reagan.  The problem with our popular understanding  is that it is almost entirely an invention of post-Reagan era neoconservatives with little relation to facts.  And basing foreign policy approaches to the problems of today on a fiction of what worked in the past can lead us to disaster.  Believing the fiction twists our foreign policy in so many ways it is difficult to estimate the impact that might result in our relations with those other nations.  The gritty reporting with story-telling style make this myth-buster work a great resource for understanding the real forces and people behind the incredible changes of 1989.  The stories of many former communists who were able to overcome their own prejudices and redirect their countries is inspiring.  The story re-invigorates one's faith in human nature without losing sight of the grim reality of evil in the world.  Well written, well researched, and clever analysis help us to reevaluate how the cold war was won.
4853485
In an age when writers are seeking to make the top dollars, historical accuracy can be compromised for the sake of a good story.  "Pop History", as some call it, surely make for a good read if the reader is willing to suspend disbelief; yet these stories often offer up a few slices short of the whole pizza pie.
The is irrefutible proof that the Imperial Treasure fleet was real, that it travelled around the Indian and Pacific Oceans, and that it was disassembled around the year 1421.  These facts, in combination with what Mr. Menzies believes to be proof of a Chinese pressence in the Americans, lead him to put forth several interesting theories.  Revisionist Historians, ex: Howard Zinn, have been searching for ways to discredit Columbus's discoveries, and Menzies's book seems to follow along with the current trends of thinking.  Eastern, rather than western, settlement of the "new world" would render everything Each AMerican learned in High School about American History,and face it folks isn't that the farthest that most of our fellow countrymen choose to pursue this path, wrong.
if it were true.
Although Mr. Menzies can tell a good story, he was unable to convince me of the soundness of his argument, however hard he did try.
2084258
So many misunderstandings. China, Japan, Vietnam, Korea. Educated men mislead by people of self interest. A legacy that continues to this very day. Current arguments about a one China policy, a belligerent North Korea, not mentioned in book but the debate on Okinawa. America has produced some really good experts, John service and John Davies on China, George Kennan on Russia, Archimedes Patti on Vietnam; men whose opinions were mostly dismissed because of their conflict with what this author calls a mirage. I see an arrogant man or men, standing in the door, blinded by oversize egos, refusing to accept or even listen to the other side of the story. Men with preconceived ideas of morality and white washed superiority. East coast elites looking through a glass and seeing countries, cultures and peoples that need to be taught and lead the right way. Of course it's their way and not self determination as defined by Jefferson. The wise men say it's a path to containment of a danger that will save not only them but us. Really!!! Whether it's a Roosevelt or an Acheson or a Dean Rusk, the end result is the same; conflict, spilling of blood, spending of treasure; finally an uneasy co existence where a suspicious mind in the head of a maniac is dangerous. Dominos, containments, us against them; words from the vocabulary of the creators of the neo con Cold War culture. Eisenhower's military industrial complex warning come alive. Acheson even called it an economic policy for the west. "Korea saved us" the author tells us Acheson gushed. At the same time, we have yet another warning about special interest groups. The main facilitator of misinformation for this authors work is the China lobby. Working with Americans like Henry Luce of time magazine, propagandizing an American public always seeking to help the down trodden. Putting out stories that were not true, slanted towards building and expanding the mirage. Painting the pictures of hero worship. Over two hundred thousand Americans killed in wars caused by this misreading of the oriental mind. Hundreds of billions of dollars spent building a dream that was not real. A grand illusion, this author says its a China Mirage. Finally, the most disturbing aspect of this story is the christian angle. Missionaries and state side churches saying things that were not true. Example being Chinas people are wanting to convert to the christian faith and become like America, turning back the heathen race. Sure according to this author, some people did convert but the vast majority did not. We're talking a population of 400 million in the 20's 30' and early 40's. People like Pearl Buck writting stories about peasant farmers, likening them to the American farmer during a time of the Great Depression. Her book became a best seller then a movie. The speaking circuit put her in more American minds.  Henry Luce, mentioned earlier, the son of a missionary, founder and head of the notable Time and life magazines empire, doing story after story, cover after cover on the "christian" Chaing Kai Skek. No where near accurate but used for the purpose of extracting money from the American government and the gullible christian public. A new China they said over and over again. An illusion, a great Oz behind the curtain moment that lasted for years and that In the end was a Shameful sin of the highest order. What a waste of money, people, energy and above all hope. It could have been much different. The ones that knew the truth were on the inside looking out but the bubble was a one way mirror.  A real good book that gives a series of great events some depth.
2064471
Hyman Maccoby develops a theory that systematically and methodically debunks all of the myths of Christianity which have plagued Western society for nearly 20 centuries.  The best part about the theory, though, is that Maccoby hits every point on the mark.  The fact is that Jesus was a Jew who died a horrible death.  The mythology and divination came afterward but were definitely not Jewish in origin.  Whereas I have always known that the New Testament has historical accuracy problems, I was unaware of how biased it actually is.  Furthermore, the notion that Christianity is Judaism with some pagan elements added in (e.g. Christmas coming from Saturnalia) is also not the whole truth; Christianity is paganism with a smattering of Judaism to make it sound legit.  Therefore, a Judeo-Christian ethic does not and cannot exist.  How can one ethic believe in the validity of law and the partnership between man and his Creator while simultaneously believing that man is tainted wi! th sin, to which divine law has no bearing, which can only be counteracted by a "faith" in the death of a savior?  Doesn't sound too kosher to me.  It doesn't to Maccoby either who, after elucidating the "theology" of Pauline Christianity, correctly concludes that Christianity has Paul to thank for its beginnings. Perhaps the Church should give him more credit, after all, Paul was the one who, in deciding that Jesus should have be more than just a messiah figure, made him posthumously a Christ.  Overall, an illuminating and substantial book which will greatly change one's perception of the history of the last two millennia and of modern day thought alike.  I recommend it highly to both Christians and non-Christians who are searching to make sense of Christianity by placing it in its proper context.
3237535
Cooper knows action, comradeship and Hero versus bad guys.
1088779
As a philosophy major years ago I always pursued the evidence without regard for the comfort level of its sometimes revelations. This book exposes an uncomfortable degree of attention on a topic that many would rather pretend does not exist. Who ever really wants to know that which is true from that which is false, must be willing to accept the evidence where ever it leads. The facts of racism have been with us since the slave trade was introduced to Europe by Ottomans from the Barbary Coast circa 1450 ACE. Thomas Sowell has researched and written comprehensively on this subject with the academic focus he so ably brings to his subject matter. The white guilt over slavery is a media tool for the gullible who lack the mental acuity and integrity to study for themselves what history so lucidly records.
2106856
Wise wrote an interesting account covering many years.  The factual components of the story appear well researched.  However, the author wanders off into speculation that the materials supplied by double agent Cassidy actually caused the USSR to develop more deadly nerve gas. Given the now disclosed facts that the USSR had a massive chemical and biological research and production effort, it is unlikely that any of the well scrubbed stuff given to the USSR had any real impact.

What is outstanding is the appreciation for the level of effort and detail put into a spy case.  The endgame is very inconclusive as the two Mexican leftists who were engaged in espionage on behalf of the USSR were allowed to depart the US and escape prosecution. Probably because the case came to a head at an inopportune time when the FBI was being scrutinized for searches and intelligence gathering related to anti war activists.

Cassidy, a non commissioned officer in the Army, does a great job under tremendous stress in convincing the Russians that he is really a loyal ( or at least loyal to the dollars offered) agent.  Hollow rocks, microdots, shortwave radios, scanning cameras and invisible ink are all introduced into the process.

Highly recommended.
3383321
To correct misinformation some seem to take as fact, Paul Johnson is NOT and has never been a historian.  He was trained as a journalist and became an editor for several years at the New Statesman (an English publication).  He has never been trained as a historian nor has he conducted what might be called peer reviewed research in his numerous writings.
The fact that Johnson is not a historian wouldn't really be an issue except in the case of Modern Times.  Why is this an issue?  Because by many Modern Times has taken on the aura of gospel as a history of the twentieth century.  Johnson relies quite heavily on various sources which he himself takes as gospel without vetting them for accuracy or bias.
That's unfortunate.  His writing is absolutely riveting.  The problem with Modern Times is that it really isn't a history per se, it's a political opinion piece written as a history.  And as an opinion piece it isn't bound by the parameters of accuracy and unbiased critical thought.
Not to say many of his opinions are without merit that would be untrue.  He makes many good observations about the general effects of the theory of relativity, Freud etc and their effect ont the political and cultural psyche.
His main fault, and a great one it is, is that he relies on faulty data.  Whether in his biographies of Gandhi or Lenin or when he calls Francisco Franco a "great man" Johnson has relied soley on biased data without balancing.  Calling Franco a great man is in itself an astounding comment when he is commonly accepted, even by conservative Spaniards, as an extremely mediocre individual.  His mistakes are countless; dates are given which do not correspond with the actual events, he often attributes incorrect comments to individuals and on and on.
As a political opinion piece this is great writing whether you agree with Johnson or not. As a history, based upon faulty or just wrong sourcing, it fails miserably.  And that's the tragedy of its popularity as a world history.
The job of a historian is to present the truth and let the chips fall where they may.  Unfortunately Johnson has chosen to present opinion as fact far too often for this to be a reliable guide as a history.  Great writing does not make great history.
4537753
Mr. McDougall's most recent book recounts the very interesting true story of the kidnapping of a German General on the island of Crete during WWII. Unfortunately, he goes off on many tangents that have been summarized in other reviews that are 1) of questionable relevance to the actual kidnapping, and 2) could be perceived as one-sided rants by the author regarding his theories on self-defense, nutrition, and training techniques for everything from mountain climbing to running marathons. He could have used an experienced editor who should have told him to focus on Crete and WWII and save the tangents for his next book. The book would have been much more enjoyable for me if it was written as narrative nonfiction with additional information about the Battle of Crete and the Cretan Resistance, as well as an index and footnotes.
1582610
Melzer makes a stunning number of claims in this book and while the weight of them seems impressive, I have serious doubts whether they've been adequately fact checked.  I can only comment with authority on the Michel de Montaigne items in the book.  There are 16 claims made about Montaigne, all but two are either badly out of context or outright erroneous.  I'll focus here on twoitems:

1) Melzer states on page 303 that "many scholars have pointed out Montaigne's very explicity critique of Mohammed's and especially Plato's doctrine of the afterlife: his true target was something else."  This comment is unattributed -- no footnote.  He goes on "As one critic put it: 'Montaigne stabs the Christian teaching ... through the body of Plato."  This "one critic" is David Schaefer, whose unorthodox opinions about Montaigne are more akin to conspiracy theories.  Schaefer is famous for picking random Montaigne quotes out of context to prove that he was an esoteric writer ... then making the wild claim that Montaigne was actually an atheist.  I've read every word of the essays multiple times and would eagerly debate anyone who wants to make a case for Montaigne's atheism ... it's simply not in the text.

2) On page 318, Melzer makes the even wilder claim that Montaigne's discursive style of writing is all a ruse to cover up a philosophical system. He writes "Montaigne is another classic practitioner of dispersal.  his essays, with its repeated claims of spontaneity and the deliberate avoidance of order, is a perfect vehicle for this strategy.  While pretending to allow his mind to simply wander where it will, he carefully plants the disassembled pieces of his systematic view.  As he acknowledges at one point: My ideas follow one another, but sometimes it is from a distance, and look at each other, but with a sidelong glance .... [note the four dot elipsis] It is the inattentive reader who loses my subject, not I.  Some word about it will always be found off in a corner, which will not fail to be sufficient, though it takes little room."

This quote pieces together three fragments from a very long Montaigne passage about poetic writing and why his essays ramble from one subject to another.  It's Montaigne essay 3.9 On Vanity. I encourage everyone to seek it out or to read an extended section of the piece that I've posted on my blog (http://mymontaigneproject.org/2015/02/16/103-second-take-esoteric-writing-on-vanity/)  Montaigne in no way makes an argument for writing in this style in hope of confusing his readers.  In fact, later in the essay, he makes this strong statement against anyone using such a method: "And there are humors so made that they despise anything which they can understand and which will rate me more highly when they do not know what I mean.  They will infer the depth of my meaning from its obscurity  a quality which (to speak seriously now) I hate most strongly; I would avoid it if there were a way of avoiding myself.  Aristotle somewhere congratulates himself on affecting it: a depraved affectation!"

What I find most disturbing, however, is the top part, where Melzer asserts a hidden Montaigne philosophical system without providing any argument for it or any citation from an authority.  The argument sounds so much like Schaefer's that he deserves attribution.  Personally, I doubt that Melzer has read anything more than scattered quotes of Montaigne.

As to the rest of the book, I take a genuinely Montaigne-like attitude towards it: I reserve judgment.  Perhaps the rest of the book is well documented and argued.  I just want to leave with this point -- given the shabby scholarship Melzer has shown towards Montaigne, are you confident that he's treated the hundreds of others thinkers fairly -- or is Melzer yet another Leo Strauss acolyte trying desperately to shoe horn the world into Strauss's zealous theories?
2028998
Anyone who's seen Radford and his ilk on the History Channel documentaries and such knows that, while he claims to be a fair-minded investigator, he is a professional debunker: while he accuses others of assuming the fantastic and working backwards to only those facts that support their positions, he does JUST THE OPPOSITE, viz., assumes the negative and works backwards to only those "facts" that support HIS position. His arguments always border on the ridiculous (e.g., the lake monster that all those people saw cavorting on the water _could_ be a log) and are "supported" by the most foolish of experiments (e.g., staged performances that prove [as if this bore any relevance] that people have difficulty judging size at a distance). That this man can face the camera with any seriousness and suggest that, e.g., a hunter with thirty years' experience can't tell a bear from a sasquatch at a short distance, or that a mobile, symmetrical object with visibly articulated musculature _could_ be a log, is an absolute disgrace. Radford is by no means a scientist, and as soon as he opens his mouth, your best policy is quickly to change the channel to something more reliable, such as Vince "I Can't Wear These Headphones All Day" selling his magic spill-sopping cloths.
1624016
I am crazy about this book, but I feel there's something that should come to the author's and publisher's attention. They should take a look at the footnotes regarding the spiritual life changes of Margaret Corey and Cat Stevens. Look at the facts presented as well as the tone. Corey who becomes the Hasidic Jew sounds crazy, an innuendo supported by the very inaccurate presentation of the facts regarding her apparent involvement with the Jewish burial society. To set things straight: burial society volunteers are among the most esteemed memebers of a community AND they do not 'spend their days' washing bodies. They might prepare a body once a week or even a couple of times a week and each ritual washing and dressing usually takes less than an hour. Cat Stevens, on the other hand, sounds like a spiiritual seeker. Why couldn't Corey have been a spiritual seeker too, and not crazy? (I hate to think that it's because she became something so outre to mass culture as a Hasidic Jew.) The fact--as presented--that she was on the burial society would lead an informed researcher to understand that she was stable, spiriutal, and secure.

Risa Miller
85880
My wife recently completed reading "Angels and Demons" and started immediately into "The DaVinci Code".  Even though she knew that it was pseudo-religious fiction, she nonetheless came away from the book with an impression about the church that was founded by the context of what was contained in these books.  The danger inherent in that is there are many people who, like my wife, are intelligent people who enjoy fiction, but may not have the familiarity or background to really distinguish what is factual from what is the fabrication of fact for the purposes of telling a story.  As the title suggests, the book really does fact from fiction.
The book is divided into two sections.  The first, titled "The DaVinci Deception, was written by Paul L. Maier who is a professor of ancient history at Wester Michigan University.  He examines the many claims in the book, such as the prospect that Jesus was married, and, using facts passed down through text and documentation that spans the centuries to debunk the fictional claims made in the novel.
The second section, called "But What Is Truth?" is written by Hank Hanegraaff, who is the host of the popular Bible Answer Man radio program.  He takes the "dogma" of DaVinci Code, and, using scripture, educates the reader on the real history from which the fiction in DaVinci Code was derived.
This book is a great companion for the novel "The DaVinci Code" by Dan Brown.  It does not attempt to criticize Brown's writing, nor does it discourage readers from engaging in the book as a piece of fiction, but rather it allows the reader a fuller understanding of what they are reading--what is really based on history/religion, and what is based on the fabrications of an author whose story has been hailed one of the great pieces of religious fiction.
A good, quick read, packed full of information.
-Scott Kolecki