>1) there is not one shred of evidence anywhere linking the St Clairs with
>Oak Island other than Niven and Malcolm's visit earlier this year.
Rob Cohn has sent a picture of that vist, which may be found as
http://www.mids.org/sinclair/pictures/robc/OakIsland.00.01.html
>2) Most of theories suggesting such a link come from highly imaginative
>(please not the careful phraseology) authors who tend to support oddball
>theories linking the non-existant Priory of Sion' to the St Clairs'.
The main reason I read those books is to observe the byzantine mutually
(and sometimes internally) contradictory conspiracy theories that
occur in many of them. It's particularly amusing when one book flatly
contradicts a previous book that used much the same evidence, and
also used much the same style of leaps to conclusions only sketchily
indicated by the evidence. This phenomenon is especially noticeable
in books that attempt to tie doings in the first century A.D. all the
way to the present. The authors of such books often seem unaware that
there are still other ways to interpret the same evidence depending on
the context that is brought to it.
There also tend to be a few new historical tidbits in some of these books.
John S. Quarterman <jsq@matrix.net>
[ This is the Sinclair family discussion list, sinclair@mids.org
[ To get off or on the list, see http://www.mids.org/sinclair/list.html