Scanning the beginning few pages of text, which mostly consist of ad hominem assertions (which may or may not be true), the first thing I noticed was that there are no footnotes. Jan, being the diligent researcher that you are, did this not make you suspicious?
Let me quickly point out that there
are a few footnotes later on (not re the assertions that start the text), but in my view (see what you think) if you’re going to write a revisionist history of a much beloved historical figure like Albert Einstein, you ought to go out of your way to make your sourcing intelligible and easily accessible.
Especially so if you’re going to
begin your 2,800 pages with the words ‘Racist physicist Albert Einstein…’
It matters not what follows in this
first sentence: Jan, if you actually read this whole book… no wait,
I was supposed to have
studied it, not just read it, so I assume you did likewise…
But I’m getting ahead of myself (I really want to finish this up)…
There
are source notes, plenty of them, in the back (given the page length, waaaay in the back). But ok, giving the author as much of a break as I could, I looked for an assertion in the first few pages that should be clearly sourced. I picked the 1919 eclipse observation by Eddington and others described on pages 12-13, and which (according to the press) verified Einstein’s predictions about the bending of light by gravity. I already knew there were some doubts about the accuracy of the eclipse observation, so I expected to easily find the author’s source for referring to the observation and everyone involved as frauds.
Jan, I did my best with the book’s sourcing. I expected that the first claim in the text (‘Racist physicist Albert Einstein…’) would be covered in one of the first three source notes. Such was not the case. They dealt with the provenance of relativity theory. If you can find some evidence of Einstein being a ‘racist’ in those three sources…. I’m here and listening.
What I found was that the source notes were numbered but there was no way to know to what they referred…(There were also pages and pages in German.) In other words, in the practical sense the source notes were useless. Therefore, the book is useless. That’s the way it works, Jan, with research. Or don’t you know that?
Jan, Albert Einstein may very well have been ‘a fraud’ (many scientists are, by the definition of plagiarism), and his place in the history of science may very well be the result of his participation in a Zionist conspiracy, but…
1. Einstein was neither a moron nor a third rate mathematician.
2. That you expected me to
study a 2,800 page unintelligibly-sourced book that starts with the words ‘Racist physicist Albert Einstein…’ so you and I could ‘have a conversation’ indicates that you yourself have a screw loose.
Again, I’m looking forward to hearing from you. If you (or anyone out there) have trouble finding me, you can always use the contact link at
Banditobooks.com.