Review: Superficial and inaccurate
Rating: 2 out of 5
Date: 09 26, 2012
Because books about ghostly apparitions are usually anecdotal in nature, the absence of solid evidence, proof, facts, and the like, renders the whole topic entertaining to some and hokey to others, but ultimately conjectural at best.  Thus, when facts ARE available to an author in this genre, it is wise to get them correct. Otherwise he or she provides fodder for the skeptics.For example, in the very first sentence of the very first chapter of this book the author states that 51,000 soldiers DIED at Gettysburg during the three day battle of July 1-3, 1863. This is simply NOT TRUE as even the most superficial research would have revealed. That is the number of CASUALTIES, but casualties include WOUNDED and MISSING as well as dead. The number of dead from the battle is calculated to be from a low of 9,000 to a high of 11,000 (depending on a variety of factors). Either figure is a tragically huge number to be sure, but nowhere near the author's erroneous death toll of 51,000. So at the onset, IN THE VERY FIRST SENTENCE, my confidence in the veracity of this book is shaken. If this very basic piece of information is not only erroneous but greatly exaggerated, how do I know the rest isn't as well? Indeed, the book contains other factual errors and sweeping generalizations. Again about Gettysburg, the author writes: "All cameras, video recorders and cell phones seem to drain when in the battlefield area. This is believed to be from ghosts draining the electric currents they need to empower their presence." Isn't this a bit hyperbolic and speculative? I know many folks who live in the Gettysburg area and I have visited it often; they and I have never experienced any such unusual problems let alone with ALL the aforementioned devices. (So if electrical drainage is attributable to ghosts, then in this particular instance, no drainage =  no ghosts. Bummer!) Sweeping, all-encompassing generalizations are usually exaggerations at best and blatant untruths at worst, again shaking the reader's confidence in the one who makes them.Many so-called nonfiction books like this about ghosts never seem to let facts get in the way of a good story. Enjoyable or scary as they may be, the stories in such books are fiction UNLESS based on factual evidence (not hearsay). And if the author doesn't do his/her research and accurately present that which IS factually and verifiably true, and/or if he/she makes sweeping and exaggerated generalizations to summarize speculative, anecdotal reportage, the resulting product cannot be trusted. That is my problem with this book. It is erroneous, exaggerated and, therefore, unreliable. Such a book does a disservice to ghost-believers, ghost-doubters, and ghost-deniers alike. While it is free, by all means read it and decide for yourself. Although inaccurate and superficial, it IS somewhat entertaining. However, I wouldn't pay for it.