[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Knights Templar suppression
I've really enjoyed following this last set of threads on the topic of
separating Sinclair fact from speculation, and think is is very important to
continue it. Most of the readily information we have is second or third hand
(or worse) and is inconsistent or contradictory on many key points.
Collectively, the Sinclair posters seem to have access to resources well beyond
those available to any one of us. Collectively, if we hammer away at it we
have a chance to unravel "the truth". I am particularly encouraged by the
challenge-response interactions, (started by Sinclair, but picked up by many)
which have teased out information that seems not to have been understood
Your frustration at taking hits from academics and Sinclair enthusiasts is
understandable, but I would suggest that it may be worth it if progress is
made. After all, Troy was dismissed as fable until Schliemann came along.
I wish I could contribute more than cheerleading to those doing the heavy
lifting on this, but...
My thanks and appreciation to all...
Joe (upstate NY)
Tim Wallace-Murphy wrote:
> Dear Jeff,
> I find it amusing, if a little irritating at times, to be accused by the
> academic historians of beeing too reliant on 'alternative sources',
> mythology and legend on the one hand, and being accused of being too
> pedantic, authoritative and 'academic by my firemnds on the Sinclair list on
> the other. I suspect that this dichotomy indicates that I have the balance
> about right.
> As to discrediting Earl Henry's story, what else can be the result when
> claims are made that:
[ Excess quotations omitted. ]