I have to say that I agree with the previous reviews which are phrased very politely. I don't feel so nice after spending my money on three books of illogical drivel. I won't even read the other two, but will return them for a refund!
On page 42, Fanthorpe mentions Guirdham's book "The Cathars and Reincarnation," saying that Guirdham "very lucidly indicates many Cathars actually believed in reincarnation: if the evidence of Dr. Guirdham's principle informant is to be taken seriously, and there is much in her evidence that deserves careful and sober reflection, some Cathars actually succeeded in practising it."
Well, aside from being a non sequitur, I am not sure how a person "practices" reincarnation. But, then, Fanthorpe goes on to outline the Cathar beliefs just as though they are the one's derived from Guirdham's source... which they are NOT.
As it happens, I just finished reading Guirdham's book, and what Fanthorpe tries to imply (or wishes the reader to infer) as information from that source, is merely the same old anti-Catharist rant derived from the records of the Holy Inquisition. So much for Fanthorpe's honesty.
Next, in one of his snide jabs at Lincoln, Leigh and Baigent's excellent work (leaving out whether it is correct or not; it is still good research, and is well presented), Fanthorpe makes the most AMAZING statment I think I have ever encountered, to wit: "By invoking an argument as tortuous as any Orwellian... doublethink, "The Messianic Legacy" attempts to discredit any arguments based on subjective feelings and inner experiences. ...[Lincoln Leigh and Baigent protest] that when the feelings and beliefs that belong to this inner sanctum begin to 'distort, alter or transform historical fact' or when they 'derange dramatically the laws of probability' the believer cannot expect other people to 'condone the process.' This line of thought seems to presuppose that something called a 'simple historical fact' can ever be ascertained with the certainty which Baigent, Leigh and Lincoln ascribe to it. The simplicity is knocked out of most so-called simple historical - or any other kind of facts by the theory of relativity and its comments on the position of the observer." (p.46)
Fanthorpe then goes on to set up an example that has NO relation whatsoever to the issue. He describes a tramp hanging underneath a moving train looking up through the glass floor at two boys tossing a ball, with an observer on the platform, all of whom would describe the tossing of the ball in different ways because of their perspective.
This example has NOTHING to do with the idea of a person who projects a subjective feeling on the event, and who believes that the ball is holy or that keeping the ball in motion is necessary to preserve the universe intact!
Fanthorpe then goes on to toss in Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. He didn't seem to get it that, yes, Schrodinger's Cat can be dead or not dead until observed, but once OBSERVED, he is either dead or not dead; until it becomes a fact, it is not a fact, but once it has become a fact, you can't change it!
Fanthorpe seems to think that facts can be changed AFTER they are observed - and he certainly works very hard to make sure that this is the case in this book. Using Fanthorpe's reasoning, you could justify selling anything as a "fact."
Don't waste your money. Fanthorpe's "subjective feelings and inner experiences" are what you are buying, and they aren't worth two cents.
- Amazon Business: Make the most of your Amazon Business account with exclusive tools and savings. Login now
- Business Prime : For Fast, FREE shipping, premium procurement benefits, and member-only offers on Amazon Business. Try Business Prime free.
