Jan. 5, 2001
Tim:
You have recently said the following:
--------------------
"The attitude of the wishful thinkers who obviously
do little or nothing at all to verify their repeated statements, is neither
constructive, instructive nor interesting. Let them cite verifiable sources
in support of their viewpoints. Lets see some evidence. Otherwise they stand
condemned as proponents of the old Nazi dictum 'tell a big enough lie often
enough and the masses will believe it."
"I have often used mythology and legend in the past as a signpost leading to
the discovery of evidence which has thrown a new light on a variety of
historical events. BHut that new light was based upon the evidence NOT the
legend or mythology."
"It is rarely productive if every new researcher is intent on
reinventing the wheel and going over the same old, tired and well-trodden
ground which has already been exhaustively investigated from every aspect by
other scholars approaching the subject from a variety of perspectives. I am
all in favour in questioning the conclusions of the past, but this
persistent instistence on reiterating discredited, incorrect or
'maufactured' mythology, discredits serious investigation, hinders or
completley obstructs the search for clarity and truth and, more frankly,
bores the pants off me."
---------------------
That last point first: I have not gone over "the same old, tired and
well-trodden ground." My conclusions, tho' sadly supported only by what you
would dismiss as "myth," are nevertheless brand new, have generated SOME
discussion of late, and therefore have earned SOME place at the debating
table, and deserve to be discussed directly, not obliquely. As I mentioned
in a previous post: I have presented my theories, and they have been
published. It is no longer required of me to spend any more time verifying
what has already been put forward. The ball is now in the OTHER court. If
anyone is there to receive it, I wish they'd pick it up. I have heard the
cheerleaders, but have yet to hear anything of substance to cheer about.
I could say, as you have said of your own work, "you'll have to wait for the
book" for my verifiable sources with regard to my translation(s) of the
inscription on the stone below the belfry of the ruined kirk at Tample. But
I don't. I refer you instead to the 1892 "Transactions" of the Edinburgh
Architectural Association, which organized a field trip to the site in that
year. You may find it interesting, and verifiable at the library of
Edinburgh's Royal Commission on Ancient & Historic Monuments in Scotland
(RCAHMS). The author of the association's report mentions the inscription
as follows:
"The inscription, which is to be observed on the base of the belfry, is in
incised letters filled with lead and has not yet been deciphered, but no one
supposes its presence in the position it occupies to be other than
accidental. The form of the lettering resembles closely that found on
fragments of altars, etc., of the time of the Roman occupation; but the fact
of the letters being filled with lead rather mitigates against that
conjecture, and, as I have said, no one has yet succeeded in deciphering
it."
I saw a door that had been closed to me when I read that, and started to
knock on it.
Why, I asked myself, when the stone is positioned VERY prominently on the
structure (when it could have easily been positioned with the inscription
turned in, with no one any the wiser) did no one in the esteemed Edinburgh
Architectural Association feel its "presence in the position it occupies to
be other than accidental"?
Other researchers may have closed the book on their own investigation at
that point, resigned themselves to the verifiable written record, and
accepted the association's opinion that the stone was indeed incorporated
into the architectural fabric of the structure purely by accident. I had
trouble with their opinion, and so refused to accept it as gospel.
Other researchers may have decided that since such an august gathering could
not decipher the inscription, then the inscription was not decipherable, and
so what chance would they have? I did not. Instead, I put on my "thinking"
cap, and came up with several translations that no one has yet refuted
(other than to say that because I have already come up with several, then
there could be more, e.g. they are not "unique").
I am sorry to say that my translations seem to support non-verifiable
"myth," but won't apologize for it. The myths are there -- the verifiable
"evidence" is not. Why should myth not be used to support my theories?
Myth, while rarely accepted as proof of anything by academia, still cannot
be regarded as fantasy -- especially when the academics have nothing better
to offer in its place. I continue to stand my ground on that point. If you
have anything constructive, or even DEstructive to say about my translations
(not my methodology), I wish you'd say it. I have certainly asked often
enough, as you know. That goes for my thoughts on Beatrix Dundas'
20th-century "grailstone," too.
As proof that doors CONTINUE to be closed to researchers who, as you imply,
have the tiresome habit of seeking the truth in places other than the
"accepted" tomes, there is the dated and docketed record, on paper, of my
several correspondences with Historic Scotland over the last couple of
years. Thank God for snail mail and a bureacracy not yet up to speed with
the latest technology!
Here are a couple of excerpts from those correspondences. They are spoken
in a tone that I have not heard again (until quite recently), but do have
the virtue of addressing my theories directly -- and giving official
opinions. You may find them interesting and verifiable, I think -- at least
in the short term. Perhaps in a few years, if my theories continue to
receive the prevailing low level of attention, they will be thrown out in
the trash, but for now ...:
1. "While I would agree with the Trustee of the Museum of Scotland that the
theory is ingenious, there are so many layers of supposition within your
reasoning that I cannot say that I find it persuasive. While your
deciphering of the inscription of the stone is ingenious, it supposes that
the inscription is complete and that the stone has not been reused from
another location; in both cases there is room for doubt. It also supposes
that in Midlothian in the 17th Century there was an active cult of Mary
Magdalene as the bride of Christ. Without clear evidence of the existence
of such a cult, your reasoning, while interesting, cannot be regarded as
having any basis in fact." -- AMH/1191/1/1 (2).
2. "Thank you for your latest letter about the belfry on the church at
Temple. As I said in my last letter your reasoning is ingenious. >From
being an inscription marking Temple as being a centre of a cult of Mary
Magdalene as the Bride of Christ, you have now reasoned that this has
another role as a memorial of the arrival of Henry Sinclair in North
America. What is ingenious about your reasoning is the number of
contortions into which you can shape these "enigmatic" letters. While this
may make a very pleasurable game of anagrams it is no substitute for
methodical research." -- AMH/1191/1/1 (2).
Slammed shut, and then reslammed. Lucky I have a hard nose.
While I certainly take no comfort in possibly standing condemned as a
proponent "of the old Nazi dictum 'tell a big enough lie often enough and
the masses will believe it'", I'll continue to take comfort in the fact that
the BIGGEST lies, throughout history, have trickled down to us from above.
When any of us below have had the temerity to raise a dissenting opinion
about one of accepted history's "sacred cows," the ones above point to the
great libraries of sanctioned information and say, in effect, "First find it
in there -- if you can!"
If the great library at Alexandria had not been burned; if some
centuries-old family records in Edinburgh's Scottish Records Office (SRO)
were not still sealed; if access to the deepest vaults of Washington DC's
Smithsonian Institutions were not "off limits" to the unwashed masses; I'd
be the first in line to search for the "verifiable evidence" you seem to
require before commenting directly on my research. And if the verifiable
evidence I found in those forbidden rooms showed "myth" to be just
"fantasy," believe it or not, I'd still be a happy man. Until then, I'm
happy enough to look elsewhere, using my own intuition as a trusty guide.
It has so far served me well, and I am truly sorry it bores the pants off
you.
Jeff
PS: I originally replied to your comment below with a simple "Willdo,"
which was uncharacteristically brief. I hope this Email makes my position,
and my stance on this, more clear.
Tim Wallace-Murphy wrote:
> Further to jeffnpat's comments
>
> Truth will only conquer if it is used.
>
> Truth is one currency, fabrication and fantasy are its sworn enemies.
>
> Best wishes
>
> Tim
>
[ This is the Sinclair family discussion list, sinclair@quarterman.org
[ To get off or on the list, see http://sinclair.quarterman.org/list.html