[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: Prince Henry
Greetings from a paragentic Sinclair.
As a member of Clan Sinclair Australia my best wishes to you.
Rob, I thought I was too tired to respond, but I am going to fire this salvo
off, to get some perspective on the Prince Henry detractors. We were
discussing this else where the other day. But, I can't help but go for it.
I am not sure I know where you exactly stand still.
I agree Prince Henry didn't discover North America.
IMHO he travelled there with fore-knowledge from his predecessors.
And I don't think Susan meant discovery of the American continent per se.
Given everything she put into her post about previous pre-columbian
occupation of America.
I read the word discovery less literally and assumed that this was about his
journey or re-discovery of his Norse connections and legends. But I
speculate on this moot point.
One day, I hope to visit the USA and Canada and find out if they actually
exist for myself.
>From what I see of the TV footage of the USA, it appears far too surreal to
be an actual place. I need to discover for myself if it could possibly as I
have seen it on TV and heard from others that say they have been there.
Prince Henry might have felt the same about it all thise years ago. A
wonderful but bizzare sounding place.
Apologies to the 90% of posters who live there. No criticism intended.
As far as discovery is concerned you do bang on about what he didn't do.
I am curious if in your opinion if he went to North America at all. I think
its Tim that feels he didn't, but detracting from Prince Henry is a
self-supporting argument, like saying I believe in God or not. Regardless
of if your for, or against, you can argue that the evidence of other
opinions supports one or other position. Same applies to myself.
But, then one must explain all the anomalies that are 'best' explained by
his presence which links them to a common source.
Else, one must say that artifact is faked by someone known or unknown.
Wetsford Kight; Gunn.
The next artifact was faked by some-else known or unknown. (iron
spear-head, stone gagoyle and carved boulder bearing coat of arms of Prince
Henry Sinclair 14th century all near lake Memphremagog)
The next artifact was faked by some-else known or unknown..(Zeno
Aloe & cactus carved in his grandson William's Rosslyn Chapel..etc
Kensington stone; translated by Hjalmar Holand matches Paul Kutson's search
for vikings in America 1355-1362AD.
Are all these mysterious un-related fakers involved in the same plot over
time, working individually during their lifetimes, for the sole purpose of
creating the myth that Prince Henry visited North America about roughly
1389AD give or take?
Prince Henry controlled a Northern Fleet.
Was twice related to Norse and Viking bloodlines; most closely through his
mother. His father's side from Normans, who were norsemen settling in
Prince actively was pledged and served both Scotland and more importantly
Norway; for Queen Margaret.
He attended courts new the viking histories, had the means (the ships), and
Yet, the protests continue that he didn't go according to some?
Yes, we tend to include too much of the 'evidence' to Prince Henry.
This is due to exuberance not conspiracy. And I am content to leave out
Newport Tower, RI, and Oak Island.
I agree there is no indication that these are associated with him. But
there seems to be plenty of concrete (or should I say stone) evidence to
support his presence.
Kindest reagards you Rob and to all.
Dave told me once;' If it looks like a duck, feels like a duck and smells
like a duck; I reckon its probably a duck.'
From: Rob Cohn [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: Tuesday, 26 June 2001 9:13 PM
Subject: RE: America's Stonehenge & NS Mystery walls request
Excellent post, except that Henry never "discovered" America under any
speculation I've seen......the whole point is that Henry didn't...many were
here before his voyage (which, at least until Dr. Tim Wallace Murphy's
upcoming book, remains unproved). At least the Norse Viking presence in
L'Anse Aux Meadows, Newfoundland, dating from the beginning of the 11th C.,
proves that Pre-Columbian exploration is a fact...
[ This is the Sinclair family discussion list, firstname.lastname@example.org
[ To get off or on the list, see http://sinclair.quarterman.org/list.html