[Up] [Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: The Henry Voyage

Dear Friends,

In repect of labehotierre's recent comments, plea not the folloing:

1) In respect of the nonsense that the crusaders brought back ches from the
east, I am in complete agrement with him.

2) In the matter of the true origin of the Miq'maq flag, he is again
perefctly correct. I have been battling since before the publication of Mark
Finnan's 'Simclair sage' to expose the truth about this matter. I cautioned
Finnan against giving this flag a Templar attribution - an attribution that
owes everything to the careless and slipshod so-called 'research' of John
Ritchie of Edinburgh than it does to fact.

3) However, while the carbon dating of the mortar of the Newport Tower does
place it after Henry, in fact in post-colonial times, that carbon dating
exercise was crude, inexact and highly flawed.
Firstly mortar, being pourous, allows an on-going interchange of atmospheric
carbon which completely invalidates the carbon dating. Secondly, the
sampling techniqes used leave a great deal to be desired as they did not
diferentiate efficiently bewteen older and newer mortar. Lastly, and perhaps
far mnore importantly, the whole test was condemned as invalid and
inaccurate by Professor Andre Bethune ( who worked on the Manhatten project
with the inventor of Carbon Dating) and the highly professional company of
Watchman-Data Inc.

To rely on either the Carbon dating tests on the Newport Tower or on
Godfrey's highly biased and flawed archaeological excavation  as a guide to
the true age of the tower would date this fascinating structure many yeasr
AFTER its first mention in the Colonial archives in Benedict Arnold's will.

Our work, when viewed as a whole, we submit proves the case when judged on
the principle of the balance of prababilities. My own honest estimation of
this controversial episode of very real history is that not only did one
voyage take place, but two. However, the difficulties in establishing that
have been considerably exacerbated by the mythology and fantasy that has
been woven into the story by well-intentioned but misguided people. Writers
such as Pohl - who hijacked the entire creation mythology of the Abenaki
people to add unecessary hour to Henry's name - or Bradley - with his
nonsense about the 'Holy Grail' - or Mark Finann - with the erroneous
Templar attribution of the Miq'maq flag - or the various others who tied
Henry St Clair to the completly fictitious 'Priory of Sion'.

Keep your collective fingers crossed, there is a possibility - and I cannot
putit higher than that - that a TV series might yet be made of our work.
Then the real debate can start.

Best wishes


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