I’m far from interested in this book simply because it invokes too much paradoxical references that cannot be proven because the evidence can be invented as shown in David Blights book. What if we were the ones being mislead and they were right? Even though that sounds like a unreasonable statement, the book accuses our memories which is the most reasonable source of evidence we can derive history from.

Who would benefit from this book? Who else? Historians, researchers, people who like this subject.

It sounded like Eric enjoyed this book very much because he is into the paradoxical nature of history.

Memory is something that can be implanted, manipulated and twisted. Our memory is as reliable as a the source it was taken from. Primary evidence from that time has been reinterpreted and given to us as students in a manner the interpreter wanted us to understand. Our history can never be untouched by tainted hands but that is something unavoidable and given time, not reversible.