Re: Beyond a Shadow of a Doubt- continued with 5 more

["Neil Sinclair" <rinsin@globalserve.net>]

Dear Neil o' New Scotland;

In addition to our Nivens 14 points, I add 5 more proofs. The circumstantial
perspective of much evidence that I assert adds to the storyboard of
evidence which has been accumulating. In doing so I take issue with 2 of the
points made by our esteemed authors but agree with their hypothesis totally.
I do so as a scholar of all the sources that have been published that I am
aware of and have access to, and as a well reasoned individual with a
multidisciplinary approach. I add the following proofs to those so well
articulated by Mr. Niven Sinclair. For want of a different word I use proofs
because my assertions I hope lead great credibility and plausibility to the
knowledge accumulating.

15. Our understanding and appreciation of  the history of navigation has
greatly improved over time, and the technology of navigation of the time was
far more comprehensive than we would have appreciated a generation ago.
Latitude was knowable in 1398, while Longitude was not available.
Cartography was involved with landmarks more than scale. If one takes a look
at the Zeno map in contrast to Fred Olsen's sight of land routes, the
journey to North America was mostly all within the site of land. This is a
Norwegian perspective but navigationally accurate and asserts for us that
not only was the transportation route possible, but probably used by others
well in advance of Henry. To this knowledge we add that the ocean currents
are very favorable to making this a regular transportation route and round
trip.

16. The historical Canadian perspective accepts with good archeological
evidence that the Vikings had been making this trip for some time and
settlements may have according to researchers of the University of Lund,
made it as far south as Nova Scotia.  There is solid factual understanding
of the settlements in Greenland and Newfoundland, well prior to 1398.

17. There is mention in the Zeno chronology of a location where there were
constant fires burring and Pohl asserts that this is in the vicinity of
Pictou Nova Scotia, Stellerton local. Geographical evidence is sound
co-oberative perspective if we accept the diary then we have a link to a
distinct geographical co-oberative approach. I assert with respect to Tim
the factual geographic and geological basis is both accurate and has strong
co-oberative value to the evidence as a whole.

18. There are few that would assert that Henry did not have access to such
navigational information and geographic knowledge as existed at the time and
to which an individual of is stature would have been able to obtain. In this
regard we reassert the historical perspective that he had direct
communication in some fashion with ship builders and sailors. Such oral
knowledge that existed at the time was available. In his position as
"Admiral" of Scotland he should have been in a position to know what
geographical and navigational science that was available at the time. We get
this 22nd century view that all knowledge is published for it to count!) In
1398, most knowledge was orally transmitted. We further assert that such
information as the Vikings and sailors of Norway had, was available and
accessible by Henry, both from his relationship with the Court of Norway and
from his inter relationships with the other Jarls and individuals of the
regions of what we now call Scandinavia.
The conclusion that a transportation route to what is now North America was
known and available is highly probable and well proven.

19. Economic context is another aspect and while speculation is consistent
with the economic circumstances of the time. A person with the largest
amount of ships under his command had a very great need. Ship building was
very popular and necessary all through Europe. His voyage was consistent
with this need.

Diverse Perspectives:
I take respectful issue with those thinkers that have tried to paint even
history as black and white, or take their knowledge asserted from only one
discipline. If we assume a perspective of history that all individuals
before 1300 were in a state of ignorance we do a disservice to the facts
which we need to take account of. The Viking histories while imbedded in
oral traditions are cemented in archeological science and are just off the
map of historical teaching traditions in Europe and North America because
they are not as well understood. But let me suggest that the Vikings that
settled Europe, traveled from North America to Africa and were consummate
traders and explorers were not ignorant savages. The were early
parliamentarians, well versed in science and art, and expert travelers.
Indeed we need more scholarship into this aspect of our collective world and
family heritage.

I take further issue with historical teaching that is indeed something that
treats knowledge as the possession of the intellectual authors. For example
because there was a diary with Columbus we have a better evidentiary proof
than the oral traditions of the Mikmacks or Norwegians. This is both
arrogant and unhelpful to the understanding of the world of knowledge, but
sadly our teaching methodologies have not served us well. Thanks be to the
social historians that are now uncovering so much culture of the past in non
literary societies.

I take issue with Niven in one point and that is an emotional bias against
Columbus. He does not do sufficient justice to his thesis when he blames
this individual with so much of the evil damage inflicted over the next
hundred years. Simply put there is a great deal of scholarship surrounding
Columbus that paints contrary views in a historical context. I for one do
not credit him with being the first to discover North America or even
setting foot in what is now the United States. I do credit him with the
discovery of the trade winds north of the Equator and geographical discovery
of the length of time that would be taken to reach land. Interesting points
of fact, after the trade winds were discovered many made the voyage all year
round. The Jews were one of the first to migrate to Mexico. So Niven with
greatest respect, a broad brush is not helpful when looking at knowledge
however your proofs when taken together establish a solid case for such a
voyage as taken by Henry Sinclair and it is my hope that good scholarship
has taken the matter far beyond who reached North America first.

Now I conclude with some page one issues of scholarship having a bearing on
history. As I suggested before  we can look at knowledge from a number of
perspectives. We can see cartography, navigational science, traditions of
story telling, social histories, archeological science, mythological
appreciation, geography, geology, and history appreciation and scholarship
all come into play when making such an assertion such as Henry made a voyage
to North America.

Let me suggest my conclusions from a reasoning mind and an appreciation that
evidence takes many forms of evidence, including co-oberative,
circumstantial and direct, as well as indirect. I will suggest three
conclusions or postulates from what I have previously asserted and my
agreement with Mr. Niven's proofs.

First that Henry Sinclair was neither the first nor the last to reach North
America. He had probable and sufficient cause to make such a journey which
was well within the scope of knowledge and technology available at the time
to him. Secondly he followed a route that was neither new nor unknown to
those living in the region, and he followed the path of others before him in
navigational methods. Third, there are proofs which have been suggested by
those who I respect namely Mr. Niven Sinclair, Mr. Tim Wallace Murphy and
Mr. Frederic Pohl among others,which while differing on the importance and
application of  specific proofs taken together as a whole introduce evidence
which is totally consistent with such a voyage having been made. Indeed in
the scientific context, social appreciation and scholarly reading and
examination of the evidence, I come to the conclusion that Henry Sinclair
made a voyage to North America in or about the latter years of 1300's.

Now the economic question to scholars of the 1350-1450 period. What was
Henry looking for as owner of a number of ocean going vessels and with a
relationship to both Norway and Scotland???
It is a plausible if not pragmatic answer well apart from the grail
mythologies and asserts that the voyage may have been one of necessity and
provides further evidence of such a voyage from a contextual perspective.
Enjoy!



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