Re: New Topic Crest

[jeffnpat <jeffnpat@nis.net>]

Dear Joe:

Thank you so much for your thoughts.

My article was necessarily cut to 1,000 words (from considerably more) in order
to fit the space available in the May issue of Fortean Times.  Whereas the
published article does indeed make it seem as though I leapt to my conclusions,
such was really not the case.  My thought processes, more considered and
step-by-step in the longer article had to be deep sixed, and I felt constrained
to publish really what amounted to the bare-bone conclusions.  I feel a twinge
of regret about that, but it has been done.

You'll note that in my article I mention applying to Historic Scotland for
permission to conduct a closer examination of the site, but have been refused
several times.  I live in the U.S., and my arms are short.  I do not think that
it is the voyage that is the problem area here, but the "holy bloodline"
material.  It's a can of worms that HS does not wish to open, whether it is
true or not.

I did, as you say, look "backward at the existing facts," when coming to my
conclusions, but that's the way it's supposed to work--the older facts (or
theories) supporting the newer.

There may indeed, as you said, be other anagrams and acronymns.  I have found
not just one, but three--and they all support what many of us already believe.
They do not stand alone and unsupported.  The ONE offered on the Gazetteer for
Scotland website falls apart upon examination (there is no provision for the AE
ligature, for one thing).  Mine include the AE ligature.

I feel no pressing need to come up with other proposed interpretations, since I
am presently satisfied with the ones I've already come up with.  My theories
having been proposed, it is no longer necessary for me to spend much time
proving them--they have been put forward, and it is now up to others to
DISprove them.  The ball is now in their corner.  That goes for my Bannockburn
article, too.

It would be helpful to us all, I think you'd agree, if Niven and Tim would
weigh in at this point with their thoughts on my theories.  My theories do (in
no small way) touch upon theories which have been near and dear to them both
for a very long time.  I would think that they could bring much to this table.

Once again, Joe, thanks for giving my website a look-see and some intelligent
thought.  It is heartening.  And even tho' the debate continues, that's what
debates were meant to do.

Sincerely,

Jeff

PS: I'm just a little confused about your usage of "unique."



Joe Erkes wrote:

> Jeff,
>
> I looked at your website.  Your theory regarding the interpretation of the
> inscription at Temple is plausible, (looking backward at the existing
> facts), but is not unique...  it would be much more convincing if it were a
> unique explanation or if it led to new discoveries...  after all, that is
> the way most theories are tested.
>
> With regard to uniqueness, it reminds me of a theory regarding astronomical
> alignments which was advanced  in the 60's by a splinter group...  In
> examining photographs of rich star fields, some observers had noticed that
> some of the the stars appeared to be aligned in linear and circular or

[ Excess quotations omitted. ]


[ This is the Sinclair family discussion list, sinclair@quarterman.org
[ To get off or on the list, see http://sinclair.quarterman.org/list.html