JASON COLAVITO
  • Home
  • Blog
  • Books
    • Jimmy: The Secret Life of James Dean >
      • Jimmy Excerpt
      • Jimmy in the Media
      • James Dean's Scrapbook
      • James Dean's Love Letters
      • The Amazing James Dean Hoax!
      • James Dean, The Human Ashtray
      • James Dean and Marlon Brando
      • The Curse of James Dean's Porsche
    • Legends of the Pyramids
    • The Mound Builder Myth
    • Jason and the Argonauts
    • Cult of Alien Gods >
      • Contents
      • Excerpt
      • Image Gallery
    • Foundations of Atlantis
    • Knowing Fear >
      • Contents
      • Excerpt
      • Image Gallery
    • Hideous Bit of Morbidity >
      • Contents
      • Excerpt
      • Image Gallery
    • Cthulhu in World Mythology >
      • Excerpt
      • Image Gallery
      • Necronomicon Fragments
      • Oral Histories
    • Fiction >
      • Short Stories
      • Free Fiction
    • JasonColavito.com Books >
      • Faking History
      • Unearthing the Truth
      • Critical Companion to Ancient Aliens
      • Studies in Ancient Astronautics (Series) >
        • Theosophy on Ancient Astronauts
        • Pyramidiots!
        • Edison's Conquest of Mars
      • Fiction Anthologies >
        • Unseen Horror >
          • Contents
          • Excerpt
        • Moon Men! >
          • Contents
      • The Orphic Argonautica >
        • Contents
        • Excerpt
      • The Faust Book >
        • Contents
        • Excerpt
      • Classic Reprints
      • eBook Minis
    • Free eBooks >
      • Origin of the Space Gods
      • Ancient Atom Bombs
      • Golden Fleeced
      • Ancient America
      • Horror & Science
  • Articles
    • Newsletter >
      • Volumes 1-10 Archive >
        • Volume 1 Archive
        • Volume 2 Archive
        • Volume 3 Archive
        • Volume 4 Archive
        • Volume 5 Archive
        • Volume 6 Archive
        • Volume 7 Archive
        • Volume 8 Archive
        • Volume 9 Archive
        • Volume 10 Archive
      • Volumes 11-20 Archive >
        • Volume 11 Archive
        • Volume 12 Archive
        • Volume 13 Archive
        • Volume 14 Archive
        • Volume 15 Archive
        • Volume 16 Archive
        • Volume 17 Archive
        • Volume 18 Archive
        • Volume 19 Archive
        • Volume 20 Archive
      • Volumes 21-30 Archive >
        • Volume 21 Archive
        • Volume 22 Archive
        • Volume 23 Archive
        • Volume 24 Archive
        • Volume 25 Archive
        • Volume 26 Archive
    • Television Reviews >
      • Ancient Aliens Reviews
      • In Search of Aliens Reviews
      • America Unearthed
      • Pirate Treasure of the Knights Templar
      • Search for the Lost Giants
      • Forbidden History Reviews
      • Expedition Unknown Reviews
      • Legends of the Lost
      • Unexplained + Unexplored
      • Rob Riggle: Global Investigator
      • Ancient Apocalypse
    • Book Reviews
    • Galleries >
      • Bad Archaeology
      • Ancient Civilizations >
        • Ancient Egypt
        • Ancient Greece
        • Ancient Near East
        • Ancient Americas
      • Supernatural History
      • Book Image Galleries
    • Videos
    • Collection: Ancient Alien Fraud >
      • Chariots of the Gods at 50
      • Secret History of Ancient Astronauts
      • Of Atlantis and Aliens
      • Aliens and Ancient Texts
      • Profiles in Ancient Astronautics >
        • Erich von Däniken
        • Robert Temple
        • Giorgio Tsoukalos
        • David Childress
      • Blunders in the Sky
      • The Case of the False Quotes
      • Alternative Authors' Quote Fraud
      • David Childress & the Aliens
      • Faking Ancient Art in Uzbekistan
      • Intimations of Persecution
      • Zecharia Sitchin's World
      • Jesus' Alien Ancestors?
      • Extraterrestrial Evolution?
    • Collection: Skeptic Magazine >
      • America Before Review
      • Native American Discovery of Europe
      • Interview: Scott Sigler
      • Golden Fleeced
      • Oh the Horror
      • Discovery of America
      • Supernatural Television
      • Review of Civilization One
      • Who Lost the Middle Ages
      • Charioteer of the Gods
    • Collection: Ancient History >
      • Prehistoric Nuclear War
      • The China Syndrome
      • Atlantis, Mu, and the Maya
      • Easter Island Exposed
      • Who Built the Sphinx?
      • Who Built the Great Pyramid?
      • Archaeological Cover Up?
    • Collection: The Lovecraft Legacy >
      • Pauwels, Bergier, and Lovecraft
      • Lovecraft in Bergier
      • Lovecraft and Scientology
    • Collection: UFOs >
      • Alien Abduction at the Outer Limits
      • Aliens and Anal Probes
      • Ultra-Terrestrials and UFOs
      • Rebels, Queers, and Aliens
    • Scholomance: The Devil's School
    • Prehistory of Chupacabra
    • The Templars, the Holy Grail, & Henry Sinclair
    • Magicians of the Gods Review
    • The Curse of the Pharaohs
    • The Antediluvian Pyramid Myth
    • Whitewashing American Prehistory
    • James Dean's Cursed Porsche
  • The Library
    • Ancient Mysteries >
      • Ancient Texts >
        • Mesopotamian Texts >
          • Eridu Genesis
          • Atrahasis Epic
          • Epic of Gilgamesh
          • Kutha Creation Legend
          • Babylonian Creation Myth
          • Descent of Ishtar
          • Resurrection of Marduk
          • Berossus
          • Comparison of Antediluvian Histories
        • Egyptian Texts >
          • The Shipwrecked Sailor
          • Dream Stela of Thutmose IV
          • The Papyrus of Ani
          • Classical Accounts of the Pyramids
          • Inventory Stela
          • Manetho
          • Eratosthenes' King List
          • The Story of Setna
          • Leon of Pella
          • Diodorus on Egyptian History
          • On Isis and Osiris
          • Famine Stela
          • Old Egyptian Chronicle
          • The Book of Sothis
          • Horapollo
          • Al-Maqrizi's King List
        • Teshub and the Dragon
        • Hermetica >
          • The Three Hermeses
          • Kore Kosmou
          • Corpus Hermeticum
          • The Asclepius
          • The Emerald Tablet
          • Hermetic Fragments
          • Prologue to the Kyranides
          • The Secret of Creation
          • Ancient Alphabets Explained
          • Prologue to Ibn Umayl's Silvery Water
          • Book of the 24 Philosophers
          • Aurora of the Philosophers
        • Hesiod's Theogony
        • Periplus of Hanno
        • Zoroastrian Fatal Winter
        • Ctesias' Indica
        • Sanchuniathon
        • Sima Qian
        • Syncellus's Enoch Fragments
        • The Book of Enoch
        • Slavonic Enoch
        • Sepher Yetzirah
        • Fragments of Artapanus
        • Tacitus' Germania
        • De Dea Syria
        • Aelian's Various Histories
        • Julius Africanus' Chronography
        • Fragments of Bruttius
        • Eusebius' Chronicle
        • Chinese Accounts of Rome
        • Ancient Chinese Automaton
        • The Orphic Argonautica
        • Fragments of Panodorus
        • Annianus on the Watchers
        • The Watchers and Antediluvian Wisdom
      • Medieval Texts >
        • Medieval Legends of Ancient Egypt >
          • Medieval Pyramid Lore
          • John Malalas on Ancient Egypt
          • Fragments of Abenephius
          • Akhbar al-zaman
          • Ibrahim ibn Wasif Shah
          • Murtada ibn al-‘Afif
          • Al-Maqrizi on the Pyramids
          • Al-Suyuti on the Pyramids
        • The Hunt for Noah's Ark
        • Byzantine World Chronicle
        • Isidore of Seville
        • Book of Liang: Fusang
        • Chronicle to 724
        • Agobard on Magonia
        • Pseudo-Diocles Fragmentum
        • Book of Thousands
        • Voyage of Saint Brendan
        • Power of Art and of Nature
        • Travels of Sir John Mandeville
        • Yazidi Revelation and Black Book
        • Al-Biruni on the Great Flood
        • Voyage of the Zeno Brothers
        • The Kensington Runestone (Hoax)
        • Islamic Discovery of America
        • Popol Vuh
        • The Aztec Creation Myth
      • Lost Civilizations >
        • Atlantis >
          • Plato's Atlantis Dialogues >
            • Timaeus
            • Critias
          • Fragments on Atlantis
          • Panchaea: The Other Atlantis
          • Eumalos on Atlantis (Hoax)
          • Gómara on Atlantis
          • Atlantis as Biblical History
          • Sardinia and Atlantis
          • Atlantis and Nimrod
          • Santorini and Atlantis
          • The Mound Builders and Atlantis
          • Donnelly's Atlantis
          • Atlantis in Morocco
          • Atlantis and Hanno's Periplus
          • Atlantis and the Sea Peoples
          • W. Scott-Elliot >
            • The Story of Atlantis
            • The Lost Lemuria
          • The Lost Atlantis
          • Atlantis in Africa
          • How I Found Atlantis (Hoax)
          • Termier on Atlantis
          • The Critias and Minoan Crete
          • Rebuttal to Termier
          • Further Responses to Termier
          • Flinders Petrie on Atlantis
          • Amazing New Light (Hoax)
        • Lost Cities >
          • Miscellaneous Lost Cities
          • The Seven Cities
          • The Lost City of Paititi
          • Manuscript 512
          • The Idolatrous City of Iximaya (Hoax)
          • The 1885 Moberly Lost City Hoax
          • The Elephants of Paredon (Hoax)
        • OOPARTs
        • Oronteus Finaeus Antarctica Map
        • Caucasians in Panama
        • Jefferson's Excavation
        • Fictitious Discoveries in America
        • Against Diffusionism
        • Tunnels Under Peru
        • The Parahyba Inscription (Hoax)
        • Mound Builders
        • Gunung Padang
        • Tales of Enchanted Islands
        • The 1907 Ancient World Map Hoax
        • The 1909 Grand Canyon Hoax
        • The Interglacial Period
        • Solving Oak Island
      • Religious Conspiracies >
        • Pantera, Father of Jesus?
        • Toledot Yeshu
        • Peter of les Vaux-de-Cernay on Cathars
        • Testimony of Jean de Châlons
        • Rosslyn Chapel and the 'Prentice's Pillar
        • The Many Wives of Jesus
        • Templar Infiltration of Labor
        • Louis Martin & the Holy Bloodline
        • The Life of St. Issa (Hoax)
        • On the Person of Jesus Christ
      • Giants in the Earth >
        • Fossil Origins of Myths >
          • Fossil Teeth and Bones of Elephants
          • Fossil Elephants
          • Fossil Bones of Teutobochus
          • Fossil Mammoths and Giants
          • Giants' Bones Dug Out of the Earth
          • Fossils and the Supernatural
          • Fossils, Myth, and Pseudo-History
          • Man During the Stone Age
          • Fossil Bones and Giants
          • Mastodon, Mammoth, and Man
          • American Elephant Myths
          • The Mammoth and the Flood
          • Fossils and Myth
          • Fossil Origin of the Cyclops
          • History of Paleontology
        • Fragments on Giants
        • Manichaean Book of Giants
        • Geoffrey on British Giants
        • Alfonso X's Hermetic History of Giants
        • Boccaccio and the Fossil 'Giant'
        • Book of Howth
        • Purchas His Pilgrimage
        • Edmond Temple's 1827 Giant Investigation
        • The Giants of Sardinia
        • Giants and the Sons of God
        • The Magnetism of Evil
        • Tertiary Giants
        • Smithsonian Giant Reports
        • Early American Giants
        • The Giant of Coahuila
        • Jewish Encyclopedia on Giants
        • Index of Giants
        • Newspaper Accounts of Giants
        • Lanier's A Book of Giants
      • Science and History >
        • Halley on Noah's Comet
        • The Newport Tower
        • Iron: The Stone from Heaven
        • Ararat and the Ark
        • Pyramid Facts and Fancies
        • Argonauts before Homer
        • The Deluge
        • Crown Prince Rudolf on the Pyramids
        • Old Mythology in New Apparel
        • Blavatsky on Dinosaurs
        • Teddy Roosevelt on Bigfoot
        • Devil Worship in France
        • Maspero's Review of Akhbar al-zaman
        • Arabic Names of Egyptian Kings
        • The Holy Grail as Lucifer's Crown Jewel
        • The Mutinous Sea
        • The Rock Wall of Rockwall
        • Fabulous Zoology
        • The Origins of Talos
        • Mexican Mythology
        • Chinese Pyramids
        • Maqrizi's Names of the Pharaohs
      • Extreme History >
        • Roman Empire Hoax
        • America Known to the Ancients
        • American Antiquities
        • American Cataclysms
        • England, the Remnant of Judah
        • Historical Chronology of the Mexicans
        • Maspero on the Predynastic Sphinx
        • Vestiges of the Mayas
        • Ragnarok: The Age of Fire and Gravel
        • Origins of the Egyptian People
        • The Secret Doctrine >
          • Volume 1: Cosmogenesis
          • Volume 2: Anthropogenesis
        • Phoenicians in America
        • The Electric Ark
        • Traces of European Influence
        • Prince Henry Sinclair
        • Pyramid Prophecies
        • Templars of Ancient Mexico
        • Chronology and the "Riddle of the Sphinx"
        • The Faith of Ancient Egypt
        • Remarkable Discoveries Within the Sphinx (Hoax)
        • Spirit of the Hour in Archaeology
        • Book of the Damned
        • Great Pyramid As Noah's Ark
        • The Shaver Mystery >
          • Lovecraft and the Deros
          • Richard Shaver's Proofs
    • Alien Encounters >
      • US Government Ancient Astronaut Files >
        • Fortean Society and Columbus
        • Inquiry into Shaver and Palmer
        • The Skyfort Document
        • Whirling Wheels
        • Denver Ancient Astronaut Lecture
        • Soviet Search for Lemuria
        • Visitors from Outer Space
        • Unidentified Flying Objects (Abstract)
        • "Flying Saucers"? They're a Myth
        • UFO Hypothesis Survival Questions
        • Air Force Academy UFO Textbook
        • The Condon Report on Ancient Astronauts
        • Atlantis Discovery Telegrams
        • Ancient Astronaut Society Telegram
        • Noah's Ark Cables
        • The Von Daniken Letter
        • CIA Psychic Probe of Ancient Mars
        • CIA Search for the Ark of the Covenant
        • Scott Wolter Lawsuit
        • UFOs in Ancient China
        • CIA Report on Noah's Ark
        • CIA Noah's Ark Memos
        • Congressional Ancient Aliens Testimony
        • Ancient Astronaut and Nibiru Email
        • Congressional Ancient Mars Hearing
        • House UFO Hearing
      • Ancient Extraterrestrials >
        • Premodern UFO Sightings
        • The Moon Hoax
        • Inhabitants of Other Planets
        • The Fall of the Sky
        • Blavatsky on Ancient Astronauts
        • The Stanzas of Dzyan (Hoax)
        • Aerolites and Religion
        • What Is Theosophy?
        • Plane of Ether
        • The Adepts from Venus
      • A Message from Mars
      • Saucer Mystery Solved?
      • Orville Wright on UFOs
      • Interdimensional Flying Saucers
      • Poltergeist UFOs
      • Flying Saucers Are Real
      • Report on UFOs
    • The Supernatural >
      • The Devils of Loudun
      • Sublime and Beautiful
      • Voltaire on Vampires
      • Demonology and Witchcraft
      • Thaumaturgia
      • Bulgarian Vampires
      • Religion and Evolution
      • Transylvanian Superstitions
      • Defining a Zombie
      • Dread of the Supernatural
      • Vampires
      • Werewolves and Vampires and Ghouls
      • Science and Fairy Stories
      • The Cursed Car
    • Classic Fiction >
      • Lucian's True History
      • Some Words with a Mummy
      • The Coming Race
      • King Solomon's Mines
      • An Inhabitant of Carcosa
      • The Xipéhuz
      • Lot No. 249
      • The Novel of the Black Seal
      • The Island of Doctor Moreau
      • Pharaoh's Curse
      • Edison's Conquest of Mars
      • The Lost Continent
      • Count Magnus
      • The Mysterious Stranger
      • The Wendigo
      • Sredni Vashtar
      • The Lost World
      • The Red One
      • H. P. Lovecraft >
        • Dagon
        • The Call of Cthulhu
        • History of the Necronomicon
        • At the Mountains of Madness
        • Lovecraft's Library in 1932
      • The Skeptical Poltergeist
      • The Corpse on the Grating
      • The Second Satellite
      • Queen of the Black Coast
      • A Martian Odyssey
    • Classic Genre Movies
    • Miscellaneous Documents >
      • The Balloon-Hoax
      • A Problem in Greek Ethics
      • The Migration of Symbols
      • The Gospel of Intensity
      • De Profundis
      • The Life and Death of Crown Prince Rudolf
      • The Bathtub Hoax
      • Crown Prince Rudolf's Letters
      • Position of Viking Women
      • Employment of Homosexuals
    • Free Classic Pseudohistory eBooks
  • About Jason
    • Biography
    • Jason in the Media
    • Contact Jason
    • About JasonColavito.com
    • Terms and Conditions
  • Search

America Unearthed Deleted Scene: Nova Scotia Flag Is Templar Holy Bloodline Treasure Map

5/5/2013

166 Comments

 
As part of the online material supplementing America Unearthed, H2 has posted a deleted scene from the season finale of the show, “Hunt for the Holy Grail.” The scene features show host Scott Wolter discussing (what else) imaginary Templar voyager Henry Sinclair with Steve St. Clair. The two speculate wildly about how the government of Nova Scotia is hiding the truth about the Templar-Holy Bloodline connection and have encoded this information in the Canadian province’s flag. 

The two-minute scene begins when Wolter asserts that Henry Sinclair brought to America “scrolls, technology, gold, the Holy Bloodline of Jesus and Mary. I think most people just sum it up by saying ‘The Holy Grail.’” I will reiterate something I asked when reviewing a near-identical line included in the broadcast episode: What exactly does Wolter believe about ancient history? What “technology” does he think medieval people rediscovered under the Temple Mount in Jerusalem?

Wolter then displays an image of the flag of Nova Scotia using a cheap cell phone app. He points to an actual Nova Scotia flag fluttering on a nearby pole, featuring a yellow shield emblazoned with a red lion atop a blue St. Andrew’s cross. His app, however, differs and displays the shield in white rather than yellow.  Wolter tells St. Clair: “The lion is the symbol of Jesus and his Bloodline families. […] And look at the colors of that shield, red and white. What are the Templar colors? […] To me, that’s a strong connection.” Here Wolter seems to be suggesting that the association of Jesus with the tribe of Judah (his mother’s tribe) means that his descendants therefore are symbolized by the Lion of Judah from Genesis 49:9 as specifically applied to Jesus in Revelation 5:5. There is no evidence, though, that any “Bloodline” families used a lion as an occult symbol; instead, the lion is one of the most common symbols ever used for nobility and royalty.

Another point of fact: The shield on the Nova Scotia flag is yellow and red, not white and red. The current design was developed in 1858 and used by the government only in 1929 when British, Scottish, and Canadian authorities resolved a ridiculously complex dispute over the province’s arms and banners; it remains an unofficial flag with no governing law. The clip itself makes its yellow shield plain by repeatedly shooting an actual yellow-shielded Nova Scotia flag while Wolter asserts, against the evidence of his own eyes, that it is white. Second, the shield is a copy of the arms of Scotland, as should be obvious from the name Nova Scotia—New Scotland. Perhaps all of Scotland is in on the conspiracy and has been since King William (the Rough) of Scotland (r. 1165-1214), posthumously called William the Lion, used the red lion rampant on a yellow field in the 1160s as his personal arms. Afterward, it became Scotland’s royal standard, inherited by the British monarchs, who still display it on the British coat of arms. He was not a member of the Sinclair family or the Knights Templar. In fact, he fought against Henry II of England, a Norman noble with a much closer connection to the Sinclair/Holy Bloodline fakery via (a) his wife, Eleanor of Aquitaine, who had dealings with the Templars in France, and (b) his own outright rule over Normandy, the original Sinclair homeland.

Picture
Flag of Nova Scotia
Picture
Flag of Scotland
Do you see a connection? Could it be Scotland? No! It's the Holy Bloodline of Jesus!
Picture
Arms of Scotland
Steve St. Clair then uses his cell phone to show Scott Wolter a blue shield with a white rampant lion, which he calls the arms of the Morville family (the exact image of which you can see on Steve’s Pintrest page, which he seemed to be accessing), the former constables of Scotland. St. Clair claims the Morvilles brought the St. Clair/Sinclair family to Scotland after the Conquest. The arms, of course, are not nearly as old as that since they were not in use during the Conquest; formal, inheritable heraldry isn’t that old (the first coat of arms was recorded in 1151). While a few Morville seals (not arms) with lions on them exist from the Conquest period, the Morville family went extinct in the male line before the first records of heraldry came into existence. St. Clair’s version of the arms is not the later personal arms of the descendants of the Morville family (which involved stripes and no lion) but is instead the arms of the Lords of Galloway, who at one time were related to the Morvilles by marriage. A lord of Galloway married Constable Richard de Morville’s daughter Helen and inherited the Morville titles in 1203 after the male line went extinct. This same Richard de Morville enfoeffed Henry de Santo Claro (Sinclair) to a quarter of a knight’s service. This provides our tentative connection between the extinct Morvilles and our Henry Sinclair of Orkney two centuries later. The Sinclairs went on to serve the Lords of Galloway as justiciars.

Interesting fact (not really), the early lords of Galloway used a rampant lion as their symbol, but only later (after 1369) did their non-Morville successors, the Douglasses (along with various related families), adopt the blue shield and silver lion displayed by Steve St. Clair. Thus, it is by virtue of the Galloway inheritance of the Morville titles and the personal seals of the Morville constables that St. Clair retroactively promotes the Galloway arms as Morville arms. (See Bruce A. McAndrew’s Scotland’s Historic Heraldry, Boydell Press, 2006 for more than you ever wanted to know about this.) 

Other rampant lions appear on the arms of the city of Jerusalem, the arms of Belgium, the arms of Norway, the arms of Bulgaria, etc. etc. Unlike the Nova Scotia flag, the rampant lions on the arms of the Czech Republic (and Bohemia before it) and Lyon in France are both red and white, the “Templar” colors! So there you have it: The Holy Bloodline is hiding out in Prague.

St. Clair, who I will remind you has loudly disclaimed to me belief in the Sinclair voyage, points out in the video that the lion faces to the west (no fooling—all rampant lions in heraldry face left; it’s convention; those rare lions facing right or counter-rampant occur very infrequently and almost always in Continental rather than Scottish heraldry) and Wolter suggests this is an esoteric symbol for a westward voyage by the Bloodline to America. I’d note that “west” in this case is “west” only if you assume that north belongs at the top, a modern mapmaking convention that was not consistently observed in the Middle Ages, when many maps placed east at the top, the origin of “orient” as a verb. St. Clair notes the St. Andrew’s cross on the Nova Scotia flag and declares “X marks the spot” where Henry Sinclair arrived.

No, try again. The Nova Scotia flag in its current form was invented in 1858. It was based on the coat of arms of Nova Scotia granted in 1625, which featured the Scottish royal arms across a reversed Scottish flag. This flag was not even used until 1929, long after the Sinclair myth originated with Richard Henry Major (in 1873) and Johann Reinhold Forster (in 1784)! Heck, that Sinclair went to Nova Scotia was not proposed as the Sinclair arrival point until the 1950s when Frederick Pohl declared it so, much to the shock of previous Sinclair researchers. The flag specifically reversed the blue and white flag of Scotland, and the designers included the Scottish royal arms to distinguish the Nova Scotia banner from the otherwise identical imperial Russian naval ensign. 
166 Comments
Don Patterson (Sacqueboutier)
5/5/2013 10:17:35 am

Um.....Scott? People who are guarding "closely held secrets" don't usually put big hints out in the open, such as, saaaaayyyy....an official national flag. Not a very effective way of guarding secrets, don't you think?

Reply
Cathleen Anderson
5/5/2013 11:37:03 am

It's called hiding in plain sight.

And good grief, this stuff is getting nuttier and nuttier.

Reply
CHV
2/15/2014 02:59:09 am

The eagle on the US Presidential seal faces "west" as well. So by Scott's logic, I'm guessing that means George Washington and Tom Jefferson (both Freemasons! A-ha!) secretly conducted trade missions to China to establish it as a new American state from which the secret descendants of Jesus could live in peace.

It all makes perfect sense.

D
1/22/2016 01:21:38 pm

It's in west coast Scotland symbols on certain lodges once linked create an x once put on a map that's all your getting it will never be given up to outsiders

Reply
Steve St Clair link
5/5/2013 11:53:01 am

America Unearthed is the gift that keeps on giving to you Jason.

A couple points -

Jason wrote - "no fooling - all rampant lions in heraldry face left; it's convention"

I had a client who used to say 'when you find one brick out of place, you'd better check the entire wall.' You've got at least one brick out of place here, Jason.

Your point about 'all rampant lions in heraldry face left' is slightly misleading. Certainly most lions in heraldry faced left. But see the Armourial of the King of Scots, from the Wernigeroder Wappenbuch, c.1475.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Wernigeroder_Wappenbuch_046.jpg

A lion that faced right was known as the Lion Sinister.

The Wiki page for Lions Sinister -
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Lions_facing_the_sinister_in_heraldry

Glad you found the lords of Galloway. The took over the lands of the Morvilles after the Morville male lineage went extinct.

Our DNA study is discovering that the connection between the Herdmanstoun St Clairs and the Caithness (possibly Rosslyn) Sinclairs is turning out to be more tenuous than anyone in our family has realized. More on that later at http://www.StClairResearch.com

The Morville family held of the Redvers in early England. They went on to found both Dryburgh Abbey and Kilwinning Abbey (which would become home to the first Masonic lodge in the world, Lodge 0). That should get the conspiracy party started!

Steve

Link about Kilwinning -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lodge_Mother_Kilwinning

Reply
Jason Colavito link
5/5/2013 12:13:21 pm

You're right that there are occasional sinister facing lions, but so far as I know they are in German (Holy Roman) heraldry, not English or Scottish heraldry. The better comparison would be to lions facing counter-rampant, which is primarily a French and German convention, not English or Scottish. The version your provide of the Scottish arms is German and is probably influenced by German heraldry.That said, there are pre-heraldric seals that feature a lion counter-rampant, so I have amended the above text to clarify this.

Do you still feel as you and Wolter discussed in the video that Nova Scotia flag is a secret map to Templar treasure and the Holy Bloodline?

Reply
Pamela
5/7/2013 03:11:01 pm

Ahhhh!!! Something hit me on the head, the sky has to be falling!!!

Ahem. And really, Wikipedia? Are you serious?

Pamela

Reply
Steve St Clair link
5/5/2013 12:38:27 pm

As you know, Jason, my thinking on the entire matter is summed up pretty well in comments to previous posts you wrote. In those, I made it clear that I haven't yet seen any proof that the Order of the Temple was in North America. I haven't seen any proof that the Saint Clair family were associated with the Templars or a "holy bloodline." But I'm still open to research on the subject.

Reply
Jason Colavito link
5/5/2013 12:44:18 pm

So is the video taken out of context, or has it been edited to make it look like you and Wolter were building up the idea that the flag was a map. I notice that in the video you don't specifically endorse the idea, but neither are you seen poking holes in it, like the very obvious yellow shield that you two were looking at while saying it was white.

I'm not attacking you; I'm genuinely curious how the producers are working here. Did you express doubts about the flag idea, or did you go along with Wolter for the cameras?

Reply
Steve St Clair link
5/5/2013 12:54:49 pm

Are those really the only two options, Jason? Did I express doubts about the flag idea, or did I go along with Scott for the cameras?

I'm really not willing to wade back into this with you. If someone is curious about something, you assume they believe it hook line and sinker. I operate differently.

If you goal here is to assess the producers and how they work, I suggest you interview Committee Films. Certainly film from this scene was 'left on the cutting room floor' as they say in the industry.

I don't recall Scott suggesting that the flag was a map in any way. The idea is that the symbols are similar, and I do endorse that because they are similar. They're both lions rampant. Are they the same color? The flag you saw had the lion on gold. The photo Scott was showing was taken at a service station the previous day where he had noticed a sign regarding hunting licenses (as I recall) and it had that official looking government symbol on the signage. I suspect if you look you'll find both uses by the government of Nova Scotia.

Steve

Jason Colavito link
5/5/2013 01:02:19 pm

I'm not attacking you, Steve, or wading into an argument. I was just asking what the broader context of the conversation seen in that scene was. I didn't suggest that flag was a "map" in the literal sense; I was referring to your comment that "X marks the spot" in reference to the St. Andrew's cross and the Templar "arrival" in Nova Scotia. I was trying to find out if you had intended that as a joke or if you were seriously proposing that the St. Andrew's cross was meant to signal something special about Nova Scotia's location.

Teri Hall
12/29/2020 02:20:04 am

What about the Mi'kmaq flag? Reverse of the Templars. Mi'kmaq took in Templars in Nova Scotia. They even married into St. Claire line.

Will Ritson
5/5/2013 04:57:31 pm

Steve,

Jason struggles with statements that Scott makes - especially when the statements are prefaced by "I think...." or some similar of lead-in.

Jason then takes to his blog to write at length about why everything *Scott thinks* - might be, could be, possibly has a chance to be - is flat out wrong (according to the resident skeptic).

I don't watch AA, nor do I stray from these AU posts... as one might be forced to wonder what Jason does believe in. Apparently only if you have earned enough degrees (paid for and verified) are you deemed of sufficient knowledge to provide your "professional" OPINION and Jason will then believe in it.

To each his own....

Reply
CFC
5/5/2013 11:22:37 pm

Anyone who reads Jason’s reviews carefully will see that he strives to uphold a standard of evidence and fact checking that the producers of this program have ignored. These programs are an insult to the most basic standards of research and scientific investigation.

The statement “Apparently only if you have earned enough degrees (paid for and verified) are you deemed of sufficient knowledge to provide your "professional" OPINION and Jason will then believe in it” is absolutely false and an unfair characterization of him.

It will be interesting to see if Mr. St. Clair continues to be associated with this program and if the producers plan to pursue this Henry Sinclair / Knights Templar nonsense. I find it hard to imagine that anyone wanting to be taken seriously as a researcher would be affiliated with this show and Scott Wolter.

Jason Colavito link
5/5/2013 11:34:09 pm

You seem to have trouble distinguishing between the value of conclusions drawn from a fair evaluation of facts and speculation based on incorrect facts. Simply placing "I think" before a statement is not a get out of jail free card negating the need to facts, evidence, or accuracy.

Why would I need to "believe" in anything at all? Faith is not relevant to the pursuit of science.

Christopher Randolph
5/6/2013 06:31:24 am

" Apparently only if you have earned enough degrees (paid for and verified) are you deemed of sufficient knowledge to provide your "professional" OPINION..."

That's generally correct, yes. Only in the culture slum that much of the United States has become do we find so many people with an aversion to formal education to the point where they consider years of study and practice in an academic field some sort of barrier to understanding that same field. Truly a sign of a society taking a voluntary nose dive, and the underlining basis for my interest in these snake oil salesmen like Wolter.

I have no idea why you continue to harp away at the daft notions that:

A) whether a person states that something is an opinion first or simply states the opinion without the preface somehow impacts the objective reality that they ARE stating an opinion

and

B) that stating an opinion somehow relieves the speaker of any responsibility for the accuracy of its content.

You certainly have the limitations of a person who would not go very far in academia, and you appear at some level to understand that and harbor jealously over it.

Christopher Randolph
5/6/2013 06:47:16 am

Why exactly do you (or more to the point should we) care what anyone with your same surname did centuries ago?

I'm afraid that if you want some real-world pay-off for your bloodline you're going to have to move to a Commonwealth country where royalty has some legal recognition. Expect to be very, very low on a pecking order that will fail to recognize any of your claims. This country fought a couple of wars a very long time ago so that your surname would not be of any importance.

You suggest - except when Jason asks you normal, relevant questions about it at which point you get defensive and hostile - that there is some treasure of some sort (literally) with your name on it. You're not doing a normal level of genealogy here, you clearly think someone owes people with your surname something. Could you just stop selectively denying certain statements Jason makes via semantics games and just tell everyone what it is you think you have coming?

Apparently as a Randolph I'm related distantly to Thomas Jefferson and Winston Churchill. Who cares. We're all distantly related to each other as humans. I'm even distantly related to our cats. What of it?

Reply
Steve St Clair link
5/6/2013 09:03:41 am

I'm not even sure how to begin answering this.

"...should we) care what anyone with your same surname did centuries ago?"

Clearly Jason cares, or he wouldn't keep probing away at it.

"...if you want some real-world pay-off for your bloodline..."

This seems to be your rant, not mine. I don't expect a "pay-off" for my "bloodline." I've actually written in various comments that I haven't seen any proof of a bloodline.

"You suggest…..that there is some treasure of some sort (literally) with your name on it..."

Where do I suggest this? I have no idea what you're moaning about.

"You're not doing a normal level of genealogy here,..."

Clearly. Most people involved in genealogy are content to get back a few generations. I'm from a surname that has several branches fairly well traced back to the middle ages. We're using DNA and medieval records research to get to the bottom of it.

"... you clearly think someone owes people with your surname something..."

You sound like a teenager expressing jealousy. Again, I have no idea what you're moaning about.

"... just tell everyone what it is you think you have coming?..."

Silence from you, I hope.


Christopher Randolph
5/6/2013 09:28:28 am

"I'm not even sure how to begin answering this."

How about by answering? You spend an awful lot of time telling people what you don't mean (even when they quote you from your own web materials). Why not instead of ANOTHER series of evasive non-answers you tell people straight out what you're looking for and what you hope to gain from it.

"Clearly Jason cares, or he wouldn't keep probing away at it."

Dude. YOU have the Sinclair website, YOU appeared on national TV having traveled to another country, pushing some alternative history angle YOU have which is important to YOU, which YOU are broadcasting to the rest of us through multiple media. YOU have the DNA project, YOU keep visiting Jason's site to argue with him when he corrects that TV program's nonsense.

Obviously YOU are the one "plugging away at it." For some reason you're coy about what "it" is. Poop or get off the pot,

"I don't expect a "pay-off" for my "bloodline." I've actually written in various comments that I haven't seen any proof of a bloodline."

You have a DNA project around your family's bloodline. You don't stop talking about your family's bloodline. And you were very excited to hear Wolter say he was close to finding "your" gold. Or did you correct him when he said that and it was edited out..?

Your complete intellectual dishonesty is tiresome.

"I'm from a surname that has several branches fairly well traced back to the middle ages."

You and most of the planet. So? What do you think is so special about yours?

"We're using DNA and medieval records research to get to the bottom of it."

To get to the bottom of WHAT?! WHAT do you imagine is the mystery you're solving? Again, poop or get off of the pot.

I'm certainly not "jealous."

Most people actually have very old surnames and can trace their DNA and names back to great houses and warriors. Ask any Genghis Khan descendant... you're probably quite close to one, they;re everywhere. This is nothing special.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randolph_%28surname%29
http://www.houseofnames.com/randolph-family-crest

Plenty of Randolphs in the Middle Ages, including landed ones in Scotland, and quite a few in colonial American history. I couldn't possibly care less; it affects me not a whit and entitles me to nothing. That's here in reality-based reality.

Steve St Clair link
5/5/2013 01:01:49 pm

One further point - "all rampant lions [...] almost always in Continental rather than Scottish heraldry"

You're missing a major point. Hugh de Morville, Richard de Redvers, and many others were on the continent before coming to England, then (in Morville's case) into Scotland. The Saint Clair family were on the continent. Many of these, though living in Normandy, or other areas, may have originated in areas where Germanic tribes were living.

These families were of the continent.

Reply
Jason Colavito link
5/5/2013 01:03:48 pm

Yes, Steve, but heraldry didn't begin in the modern sense until long after they had moved to Britain. The first recorded coat of arms was in 1151, and the modern "rules" of heraldry are much more recent than that.

Reply
Steve St Clair link
5/5/2013 01:11:38 pm

Two further statements, then I'm going to stop picking your posting to pieces.

1. "the first coat of arms was recorded in 1151"

2. "While a few Morville seals (not arms) with lions on them exist from the Conquest period, the Morville family went extinct in the male line before the first records of heraldry came into existence."

Hugh de Morville's son Richard de Morville died in 1189. His son, William, outlived Richard, but is believed to have fathered no children.

So your statement is inaccurate.

Reply
Jason Colavito link
5/5/2013 01:26:29 pm

No, it only seems that way. The two statements are actually very different, as indicated by the use of the related but not synonymous terms "coat of arms" and "heraldry." The first coat of arms in the modern sense is seen in death image in 1151, though emblazoned shields are seen on the Bayeux tapestry. However, actual record of who held what arms and how they were passed along only emerged centuries later. During the period in question, there is no record of Scottish noble arms; this is confirmed by McAndrews, who wrote a very detailed book on the origin and transmission of heraldry in Scotland.

This may seem pedantic, but when we are using such claims, as Scott Wolter does, to propose that America belongs to the Sinclair Grail Kings via the Jesus Bloodline, then every detail counts.

Reply
Steve St Clair link
5/6/2013 02:10:04 am

Just one more -

You say - "This same Richard de Morville enfoeffed Henry de Santo Claro (Sinclair) to a quarter of a knight’s service. This provides our tentative connection between the extinct Morvilles and our Henry Sinclair of Orkney two centuries later."

The Henry de Sancto Claro (St Clair) who was enfoeffed by Richard de Morville was most likely not related to the Henry Sinclair of Orkney.

The Henry he enfoeffed was Henry St Clair of our Herdmanston line. Henry of Orkney was of our Rosslyn line. They were two completely different people. So there is probably no connection between the Morville family and the Caithness / Orkney line.

Regarding my saying ' "X marks the spot" in reference to the St. Andrew's cross' and whether it was a joke or I was 'seriously proposing that the St. Andrew's cross was meant to signal something special about Nova Scotia's location' I've already said I haven't seen any proof the Templars were in North America. That includes Nova Scotia. I really don't remember saying it.

Reply
Jason Colavito link
5/6/2013 02:15:03 am

Thank you, Steve. If I may ask (since I genuinely don't know), what is the evidence that the Morvilles brought the St. Clair/Sinclair family to Scotland?

Reply
Steve St Clair link
5/6/2013 04:45:20 am

Hi Jason,
If you click my name above, it should take you to a Google book. The main source is Diplomata Scotiae, pl. 75 Cartularies of Glasgow, 163 - 5, referred to by Chalmers. They have the year wrong. It was 1162.

Jason Colavito link
5/6/2013 02:15:01 pm

The book refers to the same Henry de Santo Claro as above, the one you said was not related directly to Henry I Sinclair, Earl of Orkney. I'm not sure then what the relevance of the Morvilles is to Henry I and his alleged voyage.

Paul Cargile
5/6/2013 02:57:49 am

So . . . the DNA of Christ is under the flagpole?

Reply
Steve St Clair link
5/6/2013 09:56:06 am

Christopher Randolph, if you don't like my answers, I have an idea - stop reading them.

If you don't like America Unearthed, stop watching it. That's why you have a remote control.

I'm not going to respond to the many points of your ALL CAP littered diatribe, but a couple deserve it -

"YOU keep visiting Jason's site to argue with him when he corrects that TV program's nonsense."

Jason corrections of 'that TV program's nonsense' often require revisions themselves. Read his replies to me above. He often thanks me for a clarification I've pointed out.

I posted - "I'm from a surname that has several branches fairly well traced back to the middle ages."

You ranted - "You and most of the planet. So? What do you think is so special about yours?"

Dude. Wrong! Not even close to half the planet can trace their lineage back to the middle ages.


I posted - "We're using DNA and medieval records research to get to the bottom of it."

You ranted - "To get to the bottom of WHAT?! WHAT do you imagine is the mystery you're solving? Again, poop or get off of the pot."

Dude. Read my methodology page. I haven't 'been coy' about it. Dude.


You ranted - "Why not instead of ANOTHER series of evasive non-answers you tell people straight out what you're looking for and what you hope to gain from it."

Dude. Go read my methodology page. Dude.

Reply
Christopher Randolph
5/6/2013 10:28:44 am

"if you don't like my answers, I have an idea - stop reading them."

I don't like your evasive non-answers. People who are doing something coherent can state it in a sentence or two. People who are screwing around 'correct' the semantics of other peoples' descriptions of what they claim to be doing on a vague webpage instead of plainly stating "I believe X and this would set in motion Y."

"Stop reading them" and "stop watching it" is what people who know they have no rational argument say. Apparently it's OK for you to dislike Jason's site and comment upon it regularly in detail, but it's not OK for anyone else to critique your material.

I suppose that's part of having the regal and holy bloodline, eh? It's good to be king.

Your 'methodology' page claims you're trying to determine:

1) whether of not people who weren't already Sinclairs had sex with Sinclairs to make more Sinclairs (one hopes the answer is yes although given your apparent brain function I'm willing to be open-minded on that count)

2) "This led to many in our family voicing the oft-repeated thought that there was only one 'true Sinclair bloodline' and the others were the result of non-paternity events or folks in old Scotland taking the name of the laird."

Who cares?! What difference would it possibly make in the modern world?! Do you imagine yourself some form of royalty, do you imagine that you're the heir of something (in which case this becomes important)? Do you think you're a grail-keeper of some sort, that you have a treasure coming, a land grant? What?

Out with it already.

Then there's this bit:

3) "My hypothesis is that, when enough myths persist, there may be a grain of truth in them. There may be some basis in reality to the legends of our association with the Templars, a Holy Bloodline, the Prince Henry St. Clair stories about early voyaging to the New World, and more."

So you think you might be descended from Jesus, is what you're saying? You think Sinclairs were popping about the New World? If so, so what? You clearly think this entitles you to something - what? Out with it already.

By the by, ending a series of already fantastic proposals with "and more" isn't really 'hypothesis' material. It's speculative fantasy.

What have you done about the Nova Scotia "castle" by the way? This would it would seem give you a partial answer to #3 above if it could be verified in some way. What have you or Wolter done to make any study whatever of what you're claiming is history-rewriting proof of Sinclairs bopping around Canada before Columbus?

It seems if your aim were really simply as described on the 'methodology' page you'd be digging away at the castle and gathering the attention of the world's media and academic communities at that. I have the sense that instead you'd rather make vague claims about the Holy Grail on the internet.

Reply
Sticker
5/6/2013 11:51:10 am

""Stop reading them" and "stop watching it" is what people who know they have no rational argument say. Apparently it's OK for you to dislike Jason's site and comment upon it regularly in detail, but it's not OK for anyone else to critique your material."

Well said, well said.

Christopher Randolph
5/6/2013 10:46:09 am

"Not even close to half the planet can trace their lineage back to the middle ages."

Actually I doubt most people CAN'T trace their families back several hundred years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hundred_Family_Surnames

Genghis Khan, the fearsome Mongolian warrior of the 13th century, may have done more than rule the largest empire in the world; according to a recently published genetic study, he may have helped populate it too.

An international group of geneticists studying Y-chromosome data have found that nearly 8 percent of the men living in the region of the former Mongol empire carry y-chromosomes that are nearly identical. That translates to 0.5 percent of the male population in the world, or roughly 16 million descendants living today.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/02/0214_030214_genghis.html

Meet the Cohens, who blow away your piddling Middle Ages newcomer bloodline:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cohen_Modal_Haplotype

González is a family name that originated in Spain. In Spain, it is the second most common surname (only after García) with 2.08% of the population bearing the surname.[1] It is also very popular in Latin America, being the most common one in countries such as Argentina, Chile, Venezuela, Paraguay, and Mexico,[2] thus making it the most popular surname in the Spanish speaking world. Within the United States, it is ranked as the 23rd most common surname.[3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonz%C3%A1lez_%28surname%29

http://www.houseofnames.com/gonzalez-family-crest

García is a Spanish and Basque surname common throughout Spain, the Americas, and the Philippines.

The last name is of Basque origin. It is attested since the high Middle Ages north and south of the Pyrenees (Basque speaking domain), with the surname (sometimes first name too) thriving especially on the Kingdom of Navarre and spreading out to Castile and other Spanish regions. The meaning points to the descriptive adjective 'the young' (variants Garcicea, Gartzi, Gartzia, Gartze, Gastea, modern Basque "gaztea""gaztia" "garcicea" "garciandia"),[1] supposedly used in the same sense of English surname Young.

It is a surname of patronymic origin (García was a very common first name in early medieval Spain). García is the most common surname in Spain (where 3.32% of population is named García) and also the second most common surname in Cuba. It has become common in the United States due to substantial Latin American immigration, and is now the 8th most common surname in the U.S.[2] (It's now also #14 in Europe.)

Garcias were Navarre nobility:

http://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/NAVARRE%20NOBILITY.htm

Patel is a surname of Indian origin mainly used by Hindus and other groups whose ancestors were traditionally landlords.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patel
http://genealogy.about.com/od/surname_meaning/p/patel.htm

And so on. And so forth. Not everyone is claiming to be Jesus' great-great-great etc grandson but stop pretending to be special, if it pleases Your Lordship.

Reply
Steve St Clair
5/6/2013 12:17:04 pm

"Do you think you're a grail-keeper of some sort"

"having the regal and holy bloodline"

"piddling Middle Ages newcomer bloodline"

"Ask any Genghis Khan descendant... you're probably quite close to one,"

"Your Lordship"

"claiming to be Jesus' great-great-great etc grandson"

Christopher Randolph, you've managed to weave at least one ad hominem attack into each of your recent rants. Since the host of this blog clearly allows such attacks, you can look for me to return the favor.

First, my grandmother pointed out to me that she gets very crabby when her adult diaper crawls up into her crack. You might start there.

Wow, you're actually using Wikipedia as your major source in this rant. I took you for the angry, failed academic. I may have to revise that. Even angry failed academics don't stoop to Wikipedia.

In taking all the time you did to put together this latest mess of Wikipedia pages, you've clearly shown your ignorance of matters genealogy. Early on, some in the Sinclair family made the same mistake. They all assumed one progenitor. Our DNA study has proven otherwise and has put your generalized genealogy approach to shame. Genealogy can't be summed up in a nice tidy package like you're attempting to do, crabby. It's much more involved than that, at least by those who want the facts.

Just admit that you know squat about genealogy, and less about DNA, and we can all move on.

Jason Colavito link
5/6/2013 02:26:39 pm

I don't "allow" attacks. I generally have an open comments policy. I delete comments only in extreme cases because I've found that attempts to police comments yields immediate cries of "suppression" of alternative views. And with something like 1,000 posts, I can't possibly monitor all the comments on all the posts all the time. I'm only one man!

That said, I will again ask all posters here to please avoid abusive language and direct attacks on other posters as human beings. (Published work, of course, is open to criticism.)

Christopher Randolph
5/6/2013 03:26:13 pm

Those aren't ad hominem attacks. In the case of the Khan remark it's quite literally true that anywhere in America or indeed most of the world at this point you likely have at least one Y-chromosome-matching Genghis descendant within a few miles of you, unless you live in a particularly remote and non-diverse community. Dime a dozen, really, as are descendants of the endless houses of European nobility. And that was my point.

As far as the claims of nobility and "holy bloodline" - those are your own claims on your own website. I'm just phrasing things a bit differently than you'd prefer. Over and over again you take umbrage at people paraphrasing you back to yourself.

"Wow, you're actually using Wikipedia as your major source in this rant."

Yes, yes I did. As you do. And every one of those articles is itself annotated with references you're free to check on if you don't believe them.

Is there a particular fact you dispute in any of them? If not then why attack the source? The plain fact of the matter, whether you like it or not, is that many hundreds of millions of people - probably billions - can trace themselves by family name and/or genetics to people in their respective cultures who are royal and/or holy. Perspective is in order.

As far as my understanding of biology... I did a couple of years of a pre-med program at an Ivy League university and worked for nearly three years in a plant biology lab therein (actually the lab of my Bio 101 and 102 professor) before drifting into a different field. I still worked there even after switching majors, just because it was a comfortable environment and the checks cleared. It turns out we were working on genetically modifying certain plants to be more fungus resistant. I'm not a doctor but I feel safe in stating that my understanding of genetics is stronger than the average person's, for whatever that's worth.

Sticker
5/6/2013 01:56:02 pm

Press Crtl + F, type in "Wikipedia," and see who was the first to use it in these posts.

Reply
UncleRon
5/6/2013 02:01:55 pm

Having constantly to put up with the likes of this urinating contest between Messrs. St Clair and Randolph explains the perpetually exasperated expression on Jason's face in the photo at the top of the page.

Reply
Steve St Clair link
5/6/2013 03:38:42 pm

"As far as the claims of nobility and "holy bloodline" - those are your own claims on your own website."

Show me where I make "claims of nobility." Show me where it make any claim of a "holy bloodline." That's now paraphrasing. It's a lie and you're a liar.

Reply
Steve St Clair
5/6/2013 03:39:57 pm

In my rush, I made typos -

"As far as the claims of nobility and "holy bloodline" - those are your own claims on your own website."

Show me where I make "claims of nobility." Show me where I make any claim of a "holy bloodline." That's not paraphrasing. It's a lie and you're a liar.

Reply
Christopher Randolph
5/6/2013 04:03:00 pm

"My hypothesis is that, when enough myths persist, there may be a grain of truth in them. There may be some basis in reality to the legends of our association with the Templars, a Holy Bloodline, the Prince Henry St. Clair stories about early voyaging to the New World, and more."

Royalty and holy bloodline, check and check.

http://www.stclairresearch.com/content/method.html

And *more*, even! As if the rest of the sentence weren't plain enough, "and more" suggests that this series of fantastical whimsies is just the beginning, and necessarily true.

Do you or don't you agree that Wolter is trying to find "your family's gold?"

Clearly everything about this project is about establishing links - with some Sinclairs being 'more equal than others' to borrow Orwell's term - to royalty and some Grail bloodline.

Further you publicly associated (and continue to align yourself, very defensively so when asked simple explanatory questions about taping) with Scott Wolter, who is attempting in Sherlock Holmes-with-a-head-injury manner to link the Sinclairs with the Holy Grail, and with a bunch of pre-Columbian white people visiting North America with casual regularity.

Since you have time for this, how about answering the most important and obvious question of mine you keep dodging - what have you and Wolter done about the history-rewriting 'castle' you supposedly found, or rather that people living in Nova Scotia have tripped over for years?

Reply
Steve St Clair link
5/6/2013 04:26:09 pm

First things first -

"1) whether of not people who weren't already Sinclairs had sex with Sinclairs to make more Sinclairs (one hopes the answer is yes although given your apparent brain function I'm willing to be open-minded on that count)"

That's not an ad hominem attack Crabby? That's typical academic BS. I've been around these tactics quite a bit over the years…Dude.

Keep in mind, you're still responding to my post - "I'm from a surname that has several branches fairly well traced back to the middle ages."

Followed by your rant - "You and most of the planet. So? What do you think is so special about yours?"

The sign of a weak argument is when the squirming begins, as in my next point:

From your most recent rant - "The plain fact of the matter, whether you like it or not, is that many hundreds of millions of people - probably billions - can trace themselves by family name and/or genetics to people in their respective cultures who are royal and/or holy. Perspective is in order."

'Perspective is in order.' Said like someone who's pulled that line out of their hat on more than one occasion when they hope to sound authoritative. The perspective that's needed is on your end, Dude. When one is tracing YDNA lineages as the St Clair DNA Study is doing, you'll find that those numbers, 'hundreds of millions - probably billions…' don't hold up at all. In fact, it's completely absurd. We are a YDNA study. That means we focus almost exclusively on male DNA. In the male lines, some lines are believed to go extinct entirely. Some lines "daughter out." But in no way do those numbers add up to 'hundreds of millions […or…] billions". You don't know what you're talking about.

Sure, crabby, if you want to trace yourself back to a famous royal, you can find some circuitous route that crosses from your great-grandmother to her second cousin's uncle. Plenty of people do their genealogy that way. That's not what our DNA study is doing. And it's why your very weak argument has no legs.

As to Wikipedia - I have no particular beef with some specific Wikipedia pages. My beef is when someone who knows very little (if anything) about genetics for genealogy goes a' hunting on the Internet trolling for anything to support a point they have no business making. I've been doing genetics for genealogy since 2004. I've read a ton of papers and books - not Wikipedia pages. There's a difference. The difference is scholarship and peer review. And being too arrogant to admit you don't belong in a discussion on this subject with me.

And now to your most recent -

Your rant - "As if the rest of the sentence weren't plain enough, "and more" suggests that this series of fantastical whimsies is just the beginning, and necessarily true."

Add mind reading to your resume, Crabby.

Your question - "Do you or don't you agree that Wolter is trying to find "your family's gold?"

Uh, ask Scott Wolter. He certainly seems to believe it's here. By the way, can you point out anywhere that I've written that our family has gold?

"Clearly everything about this project is about establishing links - with some Sinclairs being 'more equal than others' to borrow Orwell's term - to royalty and some Grail bloodline."

If, by your phrase 'this project' you mean the DNA study, then you're completely full of crap. Not to mince words; if that's what you mean, then you're completely full of the brown, stinky stuff.

Your further tiresome tripe - "publicly associated (and continue to align yourself, […blah, blah, arrogant blah…] with Scott Wolter"

Yes, I do. But get it right. Scott is more than someone I associate with. He is a good friend of mine. I like him. I find many of his theories both interesting and entertaining. So use those phrases (or your own completely false versions of them) in future slams.

Your further rant - "the most important and obvious question of mine you keep dodging"

Something you've said is important?

To complete that further rant - "what have you and Wolter done about the history-rewriting 'castle' you supposedly found, or rather that people living in Nova Scotia have tripped over for years?"

Uh, nothing so far. Personally, I don't believe it's a castle and, thus, won't be investing any of my energy in it.

I eagerly await your next diatribe Crabby.

Christopher Randolph
5/6/2013 04:55:45 pm

Talk about burying the lead!

You DON'T believe it's a castle! Do you believe Sinclairs were there? Do you believe it's a pre-Columbian structure?

You mean your friend Wolter used you on a national TV show, brought you to a site in another country as a representative of the world's Sinclairs, to state that he found your ancestors' castle, and edited footage to make it appear that you agreed with this when in fact you don't?

Is that what you're saying? That's some 'friend' you have there. And that's some news for viewers of the show.

I didn't ask what Wolter thinks about Sinclair gold, I asked what you think. Either you were misrepresented in the show or you weren't. Why is it such a struggle to get you to answer simple questions about what you're claiming and what you think?

Are you looking for Sinclair gold in North America? Are you looking for the Holy Grail? Do you think either or both belong to your family?

I've already covered my history of formal application of genetics in academia and professionally (i.e. I worked in a genetics lab doing grant-funded research and was paid to be there based in my understanding of the work being done at that lab, and was 're-upped' to do increasingly responsible work 3 consecutive years.) What's yours? As I understand it your history with genetics labs is that you pay them as a client. This is not a good perch from which to suggest that I differ with you because of intellectual limitation on my end.

Both the Khan and Cohen examples I gave you are also Y-chromosome studies; those were two more famous examples from the top of my head, I'm sure there are many more. The Chinese royal families alone (there are four imperial lines mentioned at the beginning of the Hundred Families article) would likely count hundreds of millions of descendants each.

I have no idea why you think all of the world's cultures insist that royal and/or holy bloodlines are purely patrilineal in nature. In fact one example I gave you was a Basque name. and they have a traditional matrilineal descent system. Garcia is in fact at this point the 14th most common family name in the very same France that the Sinclairs inhabited.

I restate that most of the world's people can trace their families back, using DNA and surname, to some form or royalty/holy bloodline if we go back far enough, and most of us don't think anything special of it.

TBoneNYC link
5/6/2013 04:32:41 pm

Weather or not I agree with some of Mr. Wolter or the show's conclusions, I find the show to be a valuable tool. Every single time my wife and I watch the show it sends us to our computers to do our own research on the topics bought to light. To be able to push people, and in our case college educated people, to actually spend some time researching a personally unexplored topic and all its tangents is a great, great thing. For that alone I wish Mr. Wolter and the show great success.

Reply
Steve St Clair link
5/6/2013 05:21:39 pm

Christopher Randolph

"You DON'T believe it's a castle! Do you believe Sinclairs were there? Do you believe it's a pre-Columbian structure?"

I've already answered these questions in comments to Jason on other posts. Go read the other posts.

"You mean your friend Wolter used you on a national TV show, brought you to a site in another country as a representative of the world's Sinclairs, to state that he found your ancestors' castle, and edited footage to make it appear that you agreed with this when in fact you don't?"

First, I didn't agree that it was my 'ancestor's castle' on the show or at any time leading up to the show or at any time I've been alive on this earth. I need to go re-read the rules for going this august group on Jason's blog. Perhaps it requires that the participants be unable to comprehend what they're seeing on TV or reading on previous blog posts.

I've watched the show twice and don't believe I came off looking like I believed that the stones were the castle of early Sinclair visitors.

Scott and Committee Films brought me up knowing full well I'm a complete skeptic on the story.

"That's some 'friend' you have there."

Thanks for sharing your opinion.

"Are you looking for Sinclair gold in North America?

No

Are you looking for the Holy Grail?

No

Do you think either or both belong to your family?"

'think' has nothing to do with it. The facts that are currently available do not support any involvement of the Sinclair family with the Templar Order, either in land benefaction or direct involvement with the Templars, with the 'Holy Grail' etc.

I've already answered these questions. Seriously, what's the matter with you? There were several lengthy back and forth comments between Jason and I. Were you not reading those? I recall you making arrogant comments on some of them.

"I've already covered my history of formal application of genetics in academia and professionally" … "This is not a good perch from which to suggest that I differ with you because of intellectual limitation on my end."

No, actually, you haven't. Did you study human DNA? Did you study genetics for genealogy? If so, your previously posted comment about Million and Billions of people being connected is all the more strange. You and I are not currently engaged in a pissing match about who worked in a lab. Typical academic attempt at a side track.

"…would likely count hundreds of millions of descendants each."

All the more likely there were non-paternity events. (Did they cover that word in the lab during the 3 years you were there, Dude?)

"…why you think all of the world's cultures insist that royal and/or holy bloodlines are purely patrilineal in nature."

Precisely my point. You have no idea because you've never been around genetics for genealogy, have you?

Let me ask that again as a full question so you can't squirm out of it -

Have you ever been around genetics for genealogy? If so, please provide 50 words or more explaining the nature of your involvement.

Why I think all the world's cultures 'insist' […blah, blah, arrogant blah…] patrilineal in nature.'

I don't.

But genetics for genealogy is only useful when combined with documents research. And the written records (land benefaction, etc.) of the Norman people (and many other cultures) erred to the male.

"I restate that most of the world's people can trace their families back, using DNA and surname, to some form or royalty/holy bloodline if we go back far enough…"

Restate all you want. You're out of your depth.

Reply
Steve St Clair
5/6/2013 05:32:25 pm

Just to clarify a point you squirmed out of -

You ranted - "Clearly everything about this project is about establishing links - with some Sinclairs being 'more equal than others' to borrow Orwell's term - to royalty and some Grail bloodline."

I posted - "If, by your phrase 'this project' you mean the DNA study, then you're completely full of crap. Not to mince words; if that's what you mean, then you're completely full of the brown, stinky stuff."

Christopher, tell us all - are you completely full of the brown, stinky stuff?

Reply
Christopher Randolph
5/6/2013 06:36:17 pm

"I've watched the show twice and don't believe I came off looking like I believed that the stones were the castle of early Sinclair visitors."

Seriously? At what point in the show did you say anything to the effect of this? They have Wolter saying that they're about to find your family's gold and they show you smiling about that. There's no point at which they edited the broadcast to allow you to state that this is not a castle, that the Sinclairs were not there, that there is no gold there. So did you state these things and were they edited out or did you not state them?

I don't even understand why anyone would go on a national TV program dedicated to positively asserting things they don't believe in. Why would you travel to Nova Scotia to be filmed seeing a ruin you think is uninteresting and watch people poke around for hours for gold you don't think is there?

If what you're saying here is true you appear to have quite a lawsuit against the producers of this program. I would not for example appear on a show searching for the Lost Randolph Leprechaun Gold, and if I did allow myself to be filmed as a representative of the world's Randolphs in order to deny this and they simply reedited me to appear to be waiting in eager anticipation of "me pot o' gold" ... I would have an armada of lawyers collecting a large check on my behalf.

At what point on the show did you say that you don't think that Wolter is correct about *ANY* of the reasons he's hauled you to Canada? At what point in this very thread when you state that you like Wolter's theories (and you used the word "theories" and not "hypotheses") do you suggest that you're in any way skeptical of anything Wolter has said?

What portion of your own website stating that your own 'hypothesis' is that your family legends connected to a Hold Bloodline and visiting North America "and more" are likely based in truth is "skeptical?"

"Did you study human DNA?"

Do people in a pre-med program study human DNA? Yes. DNA in general in fact.

"Did you study genetics for genealogy?"

I didn't realize there was a separate one of those. There are some general genetics norms which are going to apply to all life and the differences narrow between species as you get closer to humans. I don't believe you're stating anything here beyond my capacity to understand.

"There were several lengthy back and forth comments between Jason and I. Were you not reading those?"

The general pattern of your interaction with Jason is that he posts about some statement you made, you 'correct' his semantics, he asks you for clarification as to what you mean and then you take offense and suggest that people read your website (which generally says exactly what Jason stated to begin with). Wash, rinse, repeat.

Reply
Christopher Randolph
5/6/2013 06:44:59 pm

"All the more likely there were non-paternity events. (Did they cover that word in the lab during the 3 years you were there, Dude?)"

This doesn't come up often in a plant genetics lab owing to plant life not having much in the way of culture.

"The facts that are currently available do not support any involvement of the Sinclair family with the Templar Order, either in land benefaction or direct involvement with the Templars, with the 'Holy Grail' etc."

Then why are you maintaining a website which says exactly the opposite in clear and direct language, and on top of this directing us all to the very page on that site which directly contradicts this statement every time someone asks you about it?

Reply
Steve St Clair link
5/7/2013 01:16:33 am

First, let's review - Your answer to a direct question was not very direct.

My question, "Have you ever been around genetics for genealogy?"

Your answer, "There are some general genetics norms which are going to apply to all life and the differences narrow between species as you get closer to humans. I don't believe you're stating anything here beyond my capacity to understand."

My question was direct and succinct. I am clearly stating things here that are beyond your 'capacity to understand.' Which is why you finished a previous rant with, "I restate that most of the world's people can trace their families back, using DNA and surname, to some form or royalty/holy bloodline if we go back far enough…"

Very squirmy answer, crabby. Very un-academic of you. And in that squirmy answer, we now know you're out of your depth. And that's what led you to make wild statements about our St Clair DNA study that are completely false.

"So did you state these things and were they edited out or did you not state them?"

I don't recall everything I said over 4 days of filming in Nova Scotia. But I'm going to answer your question with a question. When you show up at a party at a home of someone with whom you have opposing views, do you spend every second of your time making sure that everyone there knows you oppose their views? If so, that's called being an ass. Given your performance on these replies and the many others I've reviewed on this blog, you certainly seem capable of being an ass, and an arrogant one.

I didn't agree with many of the ideas I heard on that trip or the run-up to it. That didn't mean I had to open my mouth and blab about it constantly. By the way, the fact that I don't agree with them doesn't make the ideas wrong.

"Why would you travel to Nova Scotia to be filmed seeing a ruin you think is uninteresting and watch people poke around for hours for gold you don't think is there?"

Because I might be wrong.

Do you ever say that to yourself, Crabby?

That's getting at the crux of it, isn't it? It points to an answer to a recent rant of yours in which you went off about why the public questions academics and even disregards them. This is why. If you, in your absolute arrogance, have formed an opinion, then in your mind that opinion is unequivocal fact.

That's why so many of us can't stand your flavor of academics out there, Crabby. We loath your arrival and celebrate your departure.

Your arrogance compels you to stumble into debates with people who have experience in a matter, and then pretend that you can hold your own. You cannot hold your own in a discussion of genetics for genealogy with me.

Now you're squirming again and blabbing about other things. Squirm, Crabby. Don't stay on the point. Rather, bring up a new point, a new complaint.

"Then why are you maintaining a website which says exactly the opposite in clear and direct language, and on top of this directing us all to the very page on that site which directly contradicts this statement every time someone asks you about it?"

Again, you can't comprehend what you're staring at on a web page. It does not say 'exactly the opposite' … But you, in your academic mind don't see me using all the clues in my language that signal the academic that I've already answered the question in my own equally arrogant mind and therefore your arrogant mind can process the point. Nope, you've arrived at a website maintained by an…ugh…non-academic. Therefore, open season.

My question - "There were several lengthy back and forth comments between Jason and I. Were you not reading those?"

Your rant - "The general pattern of your interaction with Jason […blah, blah] you 'correct' his semantics, he asks you for clarification […] you take offense and suggest that people read your website (which generally says exactly what Jason stated to begin with). Wash, rinse, repeat.

You didn't answer the question. Why is it so difficult to get you to answer a simple yes or no question?

The more you pretend to know things you don't - such as genetics for genealogy - and then deploy your distractions when called on it, the closer we get to knowing the answer to another question you dodged, "Christopher, tell us all - are you completely full of the brown, stinky stuff?"

Reply
Christopher Randolph
5/7/2013 03:26:37 am

Steve -

The mere fact that you believe that there's some separate field of genetics that only people who do family histories would understand - apart from people with an actual biology background - just proves your limitations. You're so incompetent that you don't understand how incompetent you are.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

The plain fact remains that most people can very easily use DNA and surnames to trace their family lines several hundred years (who are the people who could not use DNA to trace family history?!), and the plain fact remains that when they do most of them will find at least one ancestor who was "holy" and/or "royal", neither of which are designations most people in a modern western society would care about. Maybe they aren't from cultures or religions that you care about, but honestly not much of anyone statistically relevant outside of your family much cares about your family either.

I'm not sure aside from if you think you're owed something for this status now why you would care who the "pure" Sinclairs are. I can't help but to notice you don't currently seem to be entitled to any lands on either side of the Atlantic based in your name and genetics, a position which as an American I fully support. Were you by any chance invited to the recent coronation in Amsetrdam, or not so much..? It seems the recognized 'bloodlines' and 'Keepers of the Faith' of Europe were in attendance.

The plain fact remains that some societies do this in a matrilineal fashion, or irrespective of gender, and therefore the Y-chromosome pattern that you insist upon to find your 'pure' Sinclairs would not be applicable or useful in those other cases. Regardless I did give you two famed examples off the top of my head of Y-chromosome studies which indicate that very old patterns of that nature exist and in fact dwarf your "line."

"Very squirmy answer, crabby. Very un-academic of you."

There's nothing really 'academic' about a conversation about whether or not the Knights Templar built a castle in Nova Scotia to held Jesus' treasure, or whatever it is you, Wolter and the 'alternative' crew are presenting to the world this week. It's evident that you still think Wolter's general claims about your family are true, even if you for some bizarre reason chose to be silent about that on a purportedly non-fiction national TV program.

You have an evident distaste for academia, simply because people there by and large aren't buying your snake oil nor your methods. It's good that this is on the web for people to see.

As it happens I live in Philadelphia (one of the urban melting pots in which I pass Y-chromosome Kahns and Cohens on the street every day) and that a close friend and former colleague of mine was a visiting professor of history at UArts (unfortunately outside of art itself the university provides a minimum of support to its other departments and hires a lot of people on temporary contracts). He had me come in one day to do a lecture on Arab and nearby Muslim societies as that's the area my eventual poli sci career led me in.

Thus you find yourself flashing UArts at someone who has been a guest lecturer at UArts.

You continue to be coy about what mysteries you think you and your pal Wolter are solving. Maybe you wouldn't be getting into these arguments if you'd adjust the web page to which you keep sending people to reflect what you just stated instead of 180 degrees opposite.

I think though that you like keeping some 'Sinclair mystery' beach ball in the air as a hobby, and will continue simply to have people guess at what you claim to believe this week. Everyone needs a hobby I suppose.

Reply
Steve St Clair
5/7/2013 10:01:43 am

"The mere fact that you believe that there's some separate field of genetics that only people who do family histories would understand"

As you know, I didn't say it's a separate field, you knucklehead. Go back and re-read what I said.

"The plain fact remains that most people can very easily use DNA and surnames to trace their family lines several hundred years…"

Blah, blah, blah. I've crushed you on this argument, but your arrogance prohibits you from being able to comprehend how incompetent you are in this area, and that is completely.

"Were you by any chance invited to the recent coronation in Amsetrdam, or not so much..?"

I'm delighted you read the news.

"You have an evident distaste for academia..."

Your mind reading skills are simply superb. What am I thinking right now? This very moment? Right again! I'm thinking what an arrogant ass you are.

"Thus you find yourself flashing UArts at someone who has been a guest lecturer at UArts."

Sooo? Your point?

My mentioning of Dr. Olshin wasn't to somehow trade on the fact that he's at UAarts. It was to point out how academics who don't behave like arrogant asses behave in hopes that you might learn something from it. See Crabby, the point was that Dr. Olshin ignored the other arrogant academics whose refrain was 'you can't possibly go to that conference because that means you think like those whack-o's do.' See Crabby? I used it to point out the absurdity that I can't go to Nova Scotia even though I don't agree with everything they're saying. Do you see the distinction Crabby? A simple "yes" or "no" answer will suffice.

"You continue to be coy about what mysteries you think you and your pal Wolter are solving."

"I think though that you like keeping some 'Sinclair mystery' beach ball in the air …"

There you go mind reading again. What's it like being so much smarter than everyone else?

Steve St Clair link
5/7/2013 02:15:58 am

By the way, just so you don't think I'm tarring all academics with the same brush -

Back in 2008, in the run-up to the Atlantic Conference we were to host in Halifax, Nova Scotia, I was searching for anyone in academic circles who might be interested in presenting.

I found Dr. Dennis Stanford of the Smithsonian who had done work on the Solutrean points. He later backed out due schedule conflict.

Then I found Dr. Benjamin Olshin, Ph.D. He's at the University of the Arts in Philadelphia and is very interested in ancient cartography.

His bio for the 2009 online conference is here -
http://www.atlanticconference.org/2009/bioBenjamin.html

There was an online group he belonged to called "MapHist" or something like that. They were OUTRAGED that he would even consider presenting to such a group as ours. Didn't that mean he 'believed' as we 'believe?' They took the approach that he should spend all his time at the conference yelling at the top of his voice that we're all wrong. (As, apparently, Christopher would expect me to do at the party hosted by Committee Films)

His presentation for the Halifax conference was mesmerizing. He wouldn't say that he bought off on anyone other than the L'anse Aux Meadows group was here. Yet he spent an entire weekend with us in Halifax.

Here is the basic idea of his presentation - There is scant evidence of trans-Atlantic voyaging. BUT there is plenty of evidence of deep Atlantic voyaging. So, what compelled these expeditions to nowhere, out deep into the dangerous Atlantic? He went on to discuss the good and questionable documents on the subject, maps, etc.

In my humble opinion, academia needs more people like Dr. Benjamin Olshin and less… well, you know the rest.

Reply
Jason Colavito link
5/7/2013 02:31:11 am

To be fair, Steve, appearing on a TV show isn't the same as attending a "party," despite what MTV and E! make people think. When one is invited onto a non-fiction show as an expert, one has an obligation (moral, not legal) to the viewing public rather than to the producers or the host to present one's own views fairly and completely in order to serve that public. Otherwise, you give the public the false impression by your silence that you agree with the show's premise and (by association) lend your support to its ideas. Silence on TV reads as approval to the audience.

Joe Rose and Scott Dawson have both complained publicly about the way Committee Films manipulated their interviews because both tried (from opposing viewpoints) to present the truth as they knew it. Similarly, Sara Seager has complained about the way Prometheus Entertainment has manipulated her interviews for Ancient Aliens to misrepresent her. This is why we have asked you about how you approached your appearance, since H2 shows have a documented history of manipulating expert commentary.

Reply
Steve St Clair
5/7/2013 09:44:44 am

Typically, there are rules written down where morals are concerned. I wonder if you might guide me to those that apply to guest appearances on TV shows. I somehow missed them.

You're adding things to the story again (invited in as experts - I was simply announced as a member of the family, a "relative of Prince Henry Sinclair"). Not an expert. But let's not waste time with me correcting your assumptions and inability to comprehend what you've seen on TV. We've done enough of that.

"...one has an obligation (moral, not legal) to the viewing public rather than to the producers or the host to present one's own views fairly and completely in order to serve that public."

Bull !! I had no such obligation. I don't 'serve [the] public' by appearing anywhere. People will form their own opinions, no matter what I say.

I care greatly about wrong information being distributed about our DNA study due to faulty research, which is why I jump on you for clearly mistaken research about the DNA study. But, even then, people are stubborn in their opinions and their minds are already made up. Otherwise they wouldn't care about any of this, on whatever side they land. And no amount of research or reasoned discussion will persuade them to change their mind.

"Joe Rose and Scott Dawson have both complained publicly about the way Committee Films manipulated their interviews because both tried (from opposing viewpoints) to present the truth as they knew it."

And you and the merry band here feel I should do the same. In signing on to do such films, people like Joe Rose and Scott Dawson are amateurish if they think their views will be represented just as they prefer them to be. They need to grow up. And your group here needs to do the same. Christopher can keep stomping his feet and waving his fist in the air if he wants. But he'd have lower blood pressure if he'd just realize this is how the show is produced. I knew that going into it because I've been around modern broadcast production. This was not presented as a documentary. And even documentaries are edited and often that editing leads to slanted presentation and hurt feelings by purists such as those on this group.

There is money changing hands here. Not golden treasure, but real money. H2's audience is eating this stuff up. The currency is eyeballs and attention. Advertisers are drawn to those eyeballs and want a piece of that attention. If that bothers Christopher Randolph, or any of your other readers, then they need to find another planet to live on because it's not going to change.

Christopher can bemoan the American public and our decaying education standards all he wants. By coming on here and behaving the way he does, he only makes academics looks worse.

Jason Colavito link
5/7/2013 10:26:12 am

Oh come off it, Steve. You know damn well that there's no giant book of universal morality observed by all humans at all times. You're free to do as you please, and on cable there is no regulation whatsoever of what you say or don't say. When I'm speaking of a moral obligation I'm talking about what I hope you would recognize as the obligation of those who communicate to the public to do so honestly and fairly in the interest of truth.

If you feel you have no obligation to your audience to present the truth as you know it, that's good to know. I will take all your future statements accordingly. As you also believe you were not meant to serve as an expert on the Sinclair family, then please do stop commenting on it. I will defer to your judgment that you were simply there as furniture to nod in agreement with Wolter.

It is not "amateurish" to expect that a nonfiction program pretending to be a documentary (and it does claim to be a "history" program, with the implication of some relationship to truth) would meet the minimum ethical standards for documentary filmmaking or journalism as put forward in the relevant codes of ethics. Misrepresentation is a major no-no, and I am frankly shocked that you would shrug your shoulders at it as simply the price of making money. The public deserves better, and if you disagree that is your right; but I believe that the media ought to be held to a higher standard, especially when they use public money (as America Unearthed does) to engage in misrepresentation.

No one is questioning their right to lie, falsify, and fabricate to their heart's content; but tell me this: Why would you give them a free pass to broadcast untruths to a million weekly viewers for cash while complaining that I'm discussing my views of these same topics? I'm tempted to use the line delivered to Joe McCarthy about a sense of decency, but I'm not sure the propaganda analogy is entirely appropriate. Do you not care at all about the audience watching and absorbing untruths?

Steve St Clair link
5/7/2013 11:44:59 am

Since we're now talking morals, I feel it's my moral obligation to spread the gospel of keeping an open mind in the exploration of ideas. For instance, if Crabby and I had been alive in the late 1800s (come to think of it, maybe Crabby was) and someone asked about heavier than air flying machines, Crabby would have shut them down completely. "It's been tried and failed. End of discussion."

You said - "…the obligation of those who communicate to the public to do so honestly and fairly in the interest of truth."

I'm beginning to wind down the epic waste of time that this is, so I'll say this -

I would hope you'd apply your quote above to how you dissect and report on the written work of others. You yourself made many statements about the St Clair DNA study in which you clearly added words and thoughts that were nowhere to be found on my website. For instance, you added something to the effect of "Knights Templar mating with natives to spread Sinclair blood" into a statement about our DNA study's goals. You also asked something like "If you don't believe it, then why do you devote so much space on your website to it?" To which I pointed out that I've only devoted 1 page our of 52 pages to that subject, and then not the entire page. Those are just 2 examples. Do you see what I'm saying? Do you see why I doubt that you will adhere to the "moral code" you're schooling me on?

Even now, I suspect that you knowingly mis-quoted me to bolster your arguments. I certainly have a lot of data that I could use to support that suspicion. I cannot ascribe the motive. Only you can do that. Perhaps you are simply moving too fast and writing too much. But, then, isn't it your moral obligation to write 'honestly and fairly in the interest of truth'?

I do feel I communicated honestly and fairly when I was invited to witness a 'treasure hunt' in Nova Scotia. And I don't question my morals. I'm an Eagle Scout. I'm a father, and I'm an ethical businessman.

But I think what's at work on your list, and among many (not all) academics, is something else entirely. Possibly one of these two things -

1. They place a blind trust in the data they have at hand, and behave as if that's the only data they'll ever have. This is plain stupid or, worse yet, incredibly arrogant. I do not rule out pre-Columbian voyaging to North America. I do not yet rule out a Templar / Saint Clair connection. Based on this, I expressed myself pretty well during the filming in Nova Scotia.

2. The academics are angry about what might be termed the democratization of science. Who are these people in your sandbox, Crabby? They don't have letters after their names. And Damn H2 for giving THEM the attention!

The more I think about it, the more I think the anger and resentment I see expressed on your blog so often (mostly in the comments) is the result of #2.

Jason Colavito link
5/7/2013 12:10:04 pm

Steve, if I didn't have an open mind, I wouldn't bother examining all of the claims made by alternative writers. That I have yet to find one that withstands scrutiny is not my fault; you yourself concluded that you have found no evidence for Sinclair-Templar-Bloodline connection and yet somehow you afford yourself the status of open-minded. Surely my evaluation of the same evidence, leading to the same conclusion, does not differ substantially.

I always strive to report honestly and fairly the truth as I know it in everything I write. Sometimes I make mistakes, and part of being honest is admitting to and correcting them, as I do whenever they occur. That said, we have been over this several times before that your website is ambiguous and a fair reading shows that you proposed the "hypothesis" that the Sinclair-Templar-Bloodline myth had "truth" to it. That I interpreted the words differently from your intention was not dishonesty but a genuine difference between your intended meaning and what one not familiar with you and your work gets out of what you wrote.

I have never knowingly misquoted anyone for any reason. That you were shown in the video looking at the Nova Scotia flag with a yellow shield and then nodding to Wolter in agreement that this shield was in fact not yellow is documented in the video; that you said "x marks the spot" is also in the video, which you are welcome to view to verify.

I'd also appreciate it if you would avoid conflating me with the people who write in the comments. I am not responsible for their words any more than I am for yours. I have no anger at those who lack degrees; my anger is reserved for those who knowingly fabricate, obfuscate, and speculate against fact and against logic.

Jacques Vallee, for example, I've discovered has fabricated his evidence for ancient UFOs by selectively quoting and manipulating ancient texts. Surely this wrong. So when Scott Wolter fabricates evidence for a "Templar precursor" by intentionally creating a false narrative for the Tucson artifacts that directly contradicts the story engraved on those artifacts in the very same Latin Wolter accepts for establishing their provenance, I see no reason why I should simply declare that OK just because Wolter is on TV and Vallee is in a book. I see no reason to pretend it's OK to say the Nova Scotia flag is a white-and-red Templar code when it is yellow.

The anger isn't with credentials (which at best are proxy for expertise; many academics are nuttier than fruitcakes) but with the poor quality of the work celebrated for being "transgressive" and "alternative."

Christopher Randolph
5/7/2013 12:39:02 pm

Well, yes, Steve, damn H2 for taking a group of people like you who just plainly stated that you feel no moral obligation to report facts and putting them on a "history" channel as "experts."

I'm glad that now anyone using a search engine to find your name and DNA and Sinclair and so forth can see your - ahem - 'methodology' at work in a forum you can't control.

You have no background in serious history, you have no background in serious science. The people who do care not a whit what your opinion is of them, nor should they. You have a surname that can be traced to royalty (join the club, it's called "people") and some goofy hypotheses and an active imagination, at least as regards certain Europeans. Your ability to stretch this imagination to other cultures and their practices seems so limited that you can't even truly understand the content of my posts.

The academia-trashers really don't get it. The "letters after the names" (a.k.a. "pieces of paper") aren't there for snobbishness, they are EARNED by people who had to go through rigorous processes through which they display an ability to patiently present evidence to others in a field, take criticism of ideas, sift truth from error and know when to defer to others.

I grew up a working class kid and I was fortunate enough to attend excellent public schools and get scholarship money that allowed me to attend an Ivy League school, first kid in my family to attend college. There's no snobbery here, just a healthy respect for peoples' academic accomplishments. And it sickens me to see other people who grow up without educational achievement (sometimes circumstantial, sometimes nobody's fault but their own) choose to wallow proudly in their ignorance and trash people with the self-discipline and intelligence to succeed in professional and academic fields.

Unfortunately on a fairly regular basis I have to put up with people who claim that anyone from academia is "uppity" and not in tune with the "real world." To a person these people are dim, not because their rote facts are wrong (which they generally are as well), but because they display no ability to understand or construct a reasonable argument, or tell or care about the difference between a fact and an opinion, pure conjecture and reasonable hypothesis.

The actual jealousy of the alternative history crowd pokes through when we see puffery like Wolter's claim that he was awarded an honorary coffee froth MS. That's the kind of thing a person who knows they're outclassed in a field says.

Steve St Clair link
5/7/2013 12:45:50 pm

"I see no reason to pretend it's OK to say the Nova Scotia flag is a white-and-red Templar code when it is yellow."

I thought I made it clear that the symbol on Scott's phone was from what was a sign made by the government of Nova Scotia. So it, too, is an official representation with a white background. Clearly the flag had a yellow background, but I don't think that's your main point, is it?

Jason Colavito link
5/7/2013 12:59:33 pm

Actually, I think you said it was an "official looking" seal on a sign found at a service station about hunting licenses. I checked all the sources available to me, and I can't find an official Nova Scotia sign without the yellow shield. You guys also talked about this while looking directly at the flag with the yellow shield.

Now, to be fair Nova Scotia does use different variations on the flag in government documents: their webiste, for example, uses a two-color (white on blue) variant as part of their online logo, but this is no different than the U.S. Army using a green-and-black variant of the U.S. flag on its uniforms. It's hardly an official endorsement of some ancient British chocolate conspiracy (a joke for readers in England).

I trust you agree that the flag color claims are silly and that anyone proposing a Templar connection to Nova Scotia needs a bit more proof than a printing variant on a quasi-official gas station sign. If not, I hear that more than a few gas station bathrooms say that various women with Bloodline names offer a "good time" along with a numerical code, clearly an esoteric reference to the Templar cult of ritual bathing.

Steve St Clair link
5/7/2013 01:05:30 pm

LOL !!

References to symbols hiding in plain site are usually highly dubious. Certain masonic symbols are very interesting, of course, but they were a "secret society."

Christopher Randolph
5/7/2013 01:05:32 pm

The two options there are:

A) Your buddy Wolter deliberately picked a misleading image in order to confuse you (which he did) and/or the viewing public (which in many cases he did) , or

B) Neither of the two of you 'experts' on the links between the Sinclairs and Nova Scotia had any idea what the flag of Nova Scotia looks like when presented an image you think is it ... but this isn't going to stop you from tearing into Jason about the detail and history of that same flag as correctly depicted later.

But remember, keep chanting the mantra that the 'people with letters after their names' are holding you back from glory in some way.

Steve St Clair link
5/7/2013 01:18:17 pm

"Well, yes, Steve, damn H2 for taking a group of people like you who just plainly stated that you feel no moral obligation to report facts and putting them on a "history" channel as "experts."

Christopher, Dude. You've already made it clear that my earlier hypothesis about you is correct - You're an angry, failed academic.

You're angry about the democratization of your sandbox. Suck it up.

Christopher Randolph
5/7/2013 01:31:48 pm

Steve -

Neither you nor Scott Wolter are in the academic 'sandbox.' That's the last thing you'd want - peer review, standards, proof... You refuse to abide by the rules of the playground.

I'm actually upset that most Americans chose not only to avoid academic standards of proof and method of argument like the plague, but berate academia as some elitist conspiracy. Your pal Wolter claims that it's one of the many conspiracies he's up against, which is either miserable play-acting for the cameras or the onset of mental illness.

Nothing would make me happier than the whole of America waking up with a sudden respect for and desire to join in academia, and comport themselves accordingly. Shows like Wolter's would disappear immediately.

Unfortunately by 'democratizing' what you mean is "automatically accept any crackpot hypothesis as superior to a current understanding of history. brought in the door by any self-described expert, and without asking them any inconvenient questions."

As far as I can tell I've been successful beyond any reasonable expectation; not too many children of high school dropout truck drivers get admitted into their first choice of competitive university on scholarship and then get exactly the job they wanted the first time they apply to it when leaving school. Things are pretty peachy on this end, thanks for asking.

Steve St Clair link
5/7/2013 02:03:42 pm

I congratulate you on your achievement. I'm from a lower middle class upbringing in Virginia by very pushy parents.

We'll leave it at Angry Academic.

What a truly boring world you desire.

That said, the St Clair DNA Research study (myself and 2 others who run it) is in the process of changing to require peer review.

But, just so we're clear. I've seen how the academic types treat each other. Truly nasty - back-stabbing, theft of ideas and data, name calling, libel, slander, etc. You're part of a generally nasty bunch of rude assholes (and I'm being conservative in my use of adjectives). It's not at all as lofty as you present it.

Jason Colavito link
5/7/2013 02:08:38 pm

Alternative writers have badmouthed me in the national media, threatened me with lawsuits, marshalled their followers to spam me with hate mail, blackballed me from jobs and media appearances, and devoted years to nursing grudges against me for perceived sleights. I don't think, Steve, that what you describe is unique to academia so much as it is a description of "assholes," who are found in every field, including "alternatives" to academia.

Steve St Clair
5/7/2013 05:42:14 pm

"It's considerably more important history to the modern-day Randolphs that my father was drafted to Vietnam than the fact that some Randolphs were landed European gentry centuries ago."

Reeeealy ??

You claim to know the true intentions of all Randolphs, Crabby? My God what a mind reader yo0u are. Why, then, are 135 Randolphs involved in a DNA study of their family? Because they're NOT interested in their European history?

There are Rootsweb projects which are attempting to trace back before the 1500s, Crabby. That would make them interested in medieval history.

Whoever put up the Wikipedia page about one William Randolph (d. 1711) certainly seems interested in the 'fact that some Randolphs were landed European gentry centuries ago." Uh Oh Crabby!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Randolph

Uh oh. Here's a genealogy of the Randolph that some poor misguided Randolph family member put up which seems to purport to trace the genealogy for the Randolphs from 860 AD to 1975. Does that include a time before the Veitnam War, Crabby? I'm not an academic. I wouldn't know. Oh, and does the year 860 AD mean 'centuries ago'?
http://execonn.com/full-posted.txt

I won't embarrass you further by going through them all.

Google finds about 4,160,000 results for the search "Randolph genealogy."

So, Crabby, it seems that 'modern-day Randolphs' find their ancient ancestors FAR more important than the fact that your 'father was drafted to Vietnam.'

Christopher Randolph
5/7/2013 02:24:24 pm

Uh-huh. Because no one in the working class or white collar business world or the military or the medical field or legal profession of media or - perish the thought - 'alternative history' - ever lies or cheats or steals.

What you describe is the generalized poor behavior of humans and you'll find it in all areas of life some of the time. Why you choose only the people who've achieved in academia to tar with this brush tells the reader more about you than them.

We already have a considerable record of Wolter's production company manipulating the words of their guests. You yourself just declared that TV is not a place to expect truth, that you have no moral obligation to depict the truth, and that this is way it's going to be whether nasty people like me (who are guilty of expecting some minimal ethical code from self-described non-fiction TV!) like it or not, because the suckers will continue to tune in.

This is not a good perch from which to criticize the moral standards of others. I'd suggest that painting anyone with a good deal of formal schooling as a liar, cheat and worse is not a sound idea, especially when you struggle to answer simple questions as to whether you thought a color was one or another.

On balance academia corrects for faulty facts, and requires proof. Through the process the truth outs and we learn things. This is not a comment in any way about how people act on the career end of things. People with esoteric beliefs and a website or book tour or TV show generally don't self-correct and don't allow themselves to be edited, questioned or corrected. We see this in Wolter's lunacy, which you yourself claim to have participated in "as a guest" because - taking you at your word - you didn't want to be rude (!).

Thank goodness that people in academia have no compunction about being 'rude' when presented with what they know to be unsupported nonsense.

Reply
Steve St Clair
5/7/2013 03:34:37 pm

"You yourself just declared that TV is not a place to expect truth, that you have no moral obligation to depict the truth, and that this is way it's going to be whether nasty people like me (who are guilty of expecting some minimal ethical code from self-described non-fiction TV!) like it or not, because the suckers will continue to tune in."

AAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH !!!

Wait… oh wait !! IT GETS BETTER !!!

AAAAHAHAHAHA !!

Then he actually repeated a favorite arrogant line - "This is not a good perch from which"

Follow by "to criticize the moral standards of others."

I think you're actually wearing two pairs of rose colored glasses.

Did you not see even a brief moment of the Jerry Springer Show?

Do you not watch the current presentation of what passes as news presented by MSNBC ????

AAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAH !!!!

And you have the sanctimony to say "You yourself just declared that TV is not a place to expect truth…."

Which freaking planet do you live on???

You really expect to turn the TV on and hear the truth???

That ended with Walter Cronkite lying about the Vietnam war. Dude.

Wow, you academics truly live in ivory towers.

Christopher Randolph
5/7/2013 04:56:56 pm

My father was in the Vietnam War and not of the opinion that Cronkite was lying about it in any particular way. Of course he was drafted and didn't get to cheer things along from safely inside this country.

What is it with you alternative history Sinclair types and Vietnam in the comments on this site?! First "Gunn Sinclair" suggested just days ago that he was a "Vietnam era vet" until it flopped out that this didn't actually mean, yknow... "a vet who ever went to Vietnam" and now you trying to make some strained point using the Vietnam War, of which I doubt you're a vet either. Way to glom on to the misery of others.

It's considerably more important history to the modern-day Randolphs that my father was drafted to Vietnam than the fact that some Randolphs were landed European gentry centuries ago.

That "Ivory Tower" nonsense is just stupid. Anyone getting a doctorate in a subject eats, sleeps and lives it, and has an excellent ground-level command of their subject. The caricature of the aloof academic who's only read second-hand accounts of their specialty is so inaccurate as to be seriously embarrassing to the claimant.

I think any reasonable person reading your comments in this thread gets a very clear picture of what they're dealing with, and I'm very glad that it will all be available to anyone searching on phrases such as "Sinclair DNA methodology" and the like. People on the fence will be rushing to their nearest community college to get some formal education after being exposed to the alternative.

Steve St Clair
5/7/2013 05:44:43 pm

"It's considerably more important history to the modern-day Randolphs that my father was drafted to Vietnam than the fact that some Randolphs were landed European gentry centuries ago."

Reeeealy ??

You claim to know the true intentions of all Randolphs, Crabby? My God what a mind reader you are. Why, then, are 135 Randolphs involved in a DNA study of their family? Because they're NOT interested in their European history or their connections to European gentry?

There are Rootsweb projects which are attempting to trace back before the 1500s, Crabby. That would make them interested in the place and position of their Randolph ancestry in medieval history.

Whoever put up the Wikipedia page about one William Randolph (d. 1711) certainly seems interested in the 'fact that some Randolphs were landed European gentry centuries ago." Uh Oh Crabby!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Randolph

Uh oh. Here's a genealogy of the Randolph that some poor misguided Randolph family member put up which seems to purport to trace the genealogy for the Randolphs from 860 AD to 1975. Does that include a time before the Veitnam War, Crabby? I'm not an academic. I wouldn't know. Oh, and does the year 860 AD mean 'centuries ago'?
http://execonn.com/full-posted.txt

I won't embarrass you further by going through them all.

Google finds about 4,160,000 results for the search "Randolph genealogy."

So, Crabby, it seems that 'modern-day Randolphs' find their ancient ancestors FAR more important than the fact that your 'father was drafted to Vietnam.'

What you said is simply not true.

Your turn.

Christopher Randolph
5/8/2013 02:39:47 am

What I mean - of course - is that the fact that my father was wounded in Vietnam has had rather more impact on my immediate family than any landed status in the Middle Ages. We've had to deal with the former and the latter has had no impact. Either you need this explained in a second post because you lack the reading comprehension and empathy to pick up on that, or because you're just being pedantic.

Anyone can see why you're unfit for an academic career. It becomes more and more obvious that some of you are obsessed with fantasies about your ancestors centuries ago because of your trouble hacking it in the here and now. It's a big scary world out there, eh?

Steve St Clair
5/8/2013 03:52:57 am

If you're the shining example of what an academic career looks like, then I'm certainly not fit for it.
1. I don't randomly behave rudely to complete strangers
2. I don't think I'm the smartest person in any room I enter
3. I wanted to make a lot of money in my career
4. My ego is quite secure and doesn't need to deflate others to inflate my own self worth

Steve St Clair
5/8/2013 03:59:41 am

Oh, I forgot two more important ones -

5. I don't walk around with a chip on my shoulder because the world is changing and I don't feel I need to
6. I don't get jealous when I see non-academics on History Channel stealing my air time

Christopher Randolph
5/8/2013 05:14:19 am

1) You *purposefully* behave rudely to strangers, and you've been a right miserable creep to Jason who has been handling you with kid gloves.

2) Like all alternative history people you think that you're brighter than the entire compliment of the world's accredited historians.

3) Crack dealers and gun runners also want to make a lot of money in their careers - what of it?

4) It's abundantly obvious that insecurities about formal education and social standing have led you to attack academia and to try and attach yourself to nobility 1000 years ago on another continent. These are not the actions of someone secure in the present.

5) It's precisely because the world is changing that frightened white mean harbor and push fantasies about their European ancestors picnicking in pre-Columbian North America.

6) Not only am I not "jealous" of you - according to your own words - being severely misrepresented on America Unearthed, but had I been used in the fashion you were I've already stated I'd sue.

At this point any serious academic should realize that appearing on the inaccurate trash that History and H2 pump out is career-damaging.

Christopher Randolph
5/7/2013 03:49:15 am

This is what Steve wrote on this thread:

""The facts that are currently available do not support any involvement of the Sinclair family with the Templar Order, either in land benefaction or direct involvement with the Templars, with the 'Holy Grail' etc.""

This is what Steve wrote on a web page he says answers our questions on this same thread (!):

"My hypothesis is that, when enough myths persist, there may be a grain of truth in them. There may be some basis in reality to the legends of our association with the Templars, a Holy Bloodline, the Prince Henry St. Clair stories about early voyaging to the New World, and more."

Obviously Steve is a time sink.

Reply
Gunn Sinclair link
5/8/2013 06:27:11 am

Steve says, of Christopher: "You're part of a generally nasty bunch of rude assholes."

Jason properly let this slide, in the name of free speech, which Christopher knows doesn't come free.

For the record, I have never pretended to anyone that I served in Vietnam. I have always identified myself as a Vietnam-era veteran, which is proper. Three of the Voyles brothers were in service at the same time. I initially served up near the DMZ in S. Korea with the 2nd Infantry Division, in 1969-'70. I received hostile fire pay as a truck driver and I had the honor of wearing the 2nd Infantry Division shoulder patch during the remainder of my time in service. My brother was then in the Navy, off the coast of Vietnam, and my other brother served in Vietnam with the 101st Airborne Division. I stayed in the military from 1969 to 1976, serving alongside many Vietnam veterans. Like many soldiers of the era, I didn't wear my uniform when traveling through airports. Am I sorry I never went to 'Nam? No, but if I had been given the assignment, I would've gone, even at age 17.

I can honestly say that no one has ever been so rude to me about my service as Christopher, who I believe is arrogant almost beyond hope of redemption. He made rude comments about me being married (33 years) to an asian "lady" too, who incidentally, was orphaned and raised here in free America. No accent to turn me on, Christopher.

Steve, you will not win against this bad apple, and I for one will continue to admire the names St. Clair and Sinclair...great sounding names!

Jason, Christopher is an embarrassment to your blog.

Christopher, I will not further comment to you or about you, as I consider you to be a public nuisance, and I only came back to clarify your "Vietnam" nonsense about me, a few comments above.

Reply
Christopher Randolph
5/8/2013 07:11:45 am

Gunn -

It's deliberately misleading to state that you're a "Vietnam-era vet" and leave it at that if you weren't in Vietnam. Why would anyone care what era of combat you were nowhere near combat in?

I'm just stunned, especially as the son of Vietnam vet who was wounded in such a way that it affects my family to this day, that TWO of you would in the course of a few days drag Vietnam into a firum that has nothing whatever to do with it in order to score some cheap internet debate points via the very real suffering of people like my immediate family.

I happen to have "served the United States" in Bosnia, in the '90s ... and if I left it at that one would think I was in the US military. But I wasn't, I was working for the US Dept of State. Therefore anytime I make reference to that work I don't phrase it in such a way as to sound like a military veteran, which would be a cheap plea for sympathy.

No one made any rude comments about your wife. You persist in making absurd claims about American history which aid and comfort white power knuckleheads and which as we've rehashed in the comments of this blog any number of times are in many ways seriously disrespectful to the native peoples of this continent.

Your defense to this was in part to voluntarily tell us that you can't possible have any racist thoughts because you're married to a (preusmbaly East) Asian. My response to that remains that there are any number of racist fools in America who are still attracted to East Asians.

Next slavery won't have been racist because Jefferson (who I am no doubt distantly related to as a Randolph) was hot for some slaves.

I'd ask the various St. Clairs to stop making up reasons to be offended if I thought that would do any good. Your offense might lessen if you stopped bringing myths to a fact fight.

Reply
Pamela
5/8/2013 08:24:12 am

The way you two gentlemen, Steve & Christopher, are behaving here is ridiculous. You both should have ended your little playground fight 100 comments ago. Ihave nothing against either of you, by the way. I'm open-minded enough and respectful enough and SECURE enough that I can defer to someone who knows more than I do on a given subject. Please quit behaving like childish bullies and grow up.

Reply
Steve St Clair link
5/8/2013 02:15:27 pm

Thanks for your notes and advice Pamela and Gunn.

I agree with your points, but I likely won't change my behavior as regards Crabby Christopher. I've dealt with people like him online for years. They count on wearing their opponent down with barrages of questions, repeated again and again. Then, even when you've answered them with a clear yes or no, they hit you with another barrage. Usually it's a desire for attention. But stopping on your end does nothing to shut them up.

Christopher will just find other people over whom he can convince himself he is superior.

I had a similar troll in our DNA study chat group. Most of our members wanted to avoid him, many chose to exit the group altogether to get away from him. I chose not to avoid him but, rather, direct frontal attacks back at him. In so doing, it became clear to everyone involved that he was truly an ass. This case is extremely similar.

You're right, Gunn. No one wins when trolls like Christopher are around. I run a blog group in our DNA study and NEVER suffer trolls like Christopher for more than 2 such posts. I would have not only removed him, I would have reported him to similar bloggers so they're prepared. The troll I booted ended up getting thrown off 6 other blogs on similar topics within 2 years because he couldn't stop his nasty behavior. I suspect Jason thinks Crabby brings some sort of credentials to this group.

By the way, I use events like this to show my children how to deal with bullies, Internet or otherwise. Get right up in their arrogant faces and let them have it. (Crabby, this is the part where you pull out your credentials or talk about my "perch.")

Reply
Jason Colavito link
5/9/2013 10:56:02 am

I don't "think" anyone brings "credentials" to the "group." I have an open comments policy because I can't possibly hold down a full time job and also spend all day monitoring people's hurt feelings in blog comments. I don't choose who reads the blog, and I don't choose who comments here. This isn't a salon, and I'm not starting a cult.

At a practical level, Weebly's blog software has very crude tools for managing comments. Because everyone simply types a name into a box, I can't "ban" someone; the best I can do is delete comments, and I try to be very sparing in that because, as you well know, Steve, your friends in the alternative community are very quick to cry censorship and accuse people of "suppressing" the truth.

I will give you the same advice I give other posters: I can't control what people choose to write, and neither can you. If you are unhappy with the comments you don't need to respond to them.

That said, I will of course delete comments that contain commercial solicitations, illegal material, copyright violations, or clear libel, or as ordered by a court of law. I can't guarantee I can catch all of them, though, since I have something like 1,000 blog posts on which people can and do comment. I'm only one person.

Byron DeLear link
5/9/2013 02:25:49 pm

For a little clarity on the dynamics of internet flame-wars---which this one was a doosey!
http://tinyurl.com/cn9oy6k

For a my review of Oblivion (which is actually pretty good), click on my name.

Reply
Keith
5/11/2013 12:01:12 am

Steve;

Since you clearly don't believe in any but the most tenuous connection between yourself and the Knights Templar and Jesus, what is this "grain of truth" to which you allude on your website? If it isn't that Sinclairs are Jesus, it isn't that the Sinclairs are the Knights Templar, and there isn't any Holy Grail or secret stash of Sinclair gold hidden anywhere, what is it you are hoping to discover?

I'm not saying you have to believe you are descended from God Kings to be interested in your family history, but why say on your website (which you direct people to so they can see your stance) that you think there is truth to the woo, and why appear on national television appearing to support it?

The way you answer questions, especially the way you ducked and dodged around the Nova Scotian "castle", and your vague allusion to "early Sinclair visitors" informs this next question; do you believe in any way that your ancestor/s explored the Americas before their modern discovery by Columbus?

And, based on your answers to these questions, what evidence have you gathered from your extensive historical records research and DNA study to back up any hypotheses about;
A) Sinclairs making pre-Columbian contact
B) Sinclairs being a holy Templar bloodline?

I'm just trying to clear up your position, so that someone like myself who just came and read the whole argument in which you call people names, say they are full of feces, and use "academic" as a synonym for "pretentious", will know what position it actually is you are defending.

Reply
Steve St Clair link
5/11/2013 07:00:51 am

The 2nd hypothesis from my website - "My hypothesis is that, when enough myths persist, there may be a grain of truth in them. There may be some basis in reality to the legends of our association with the Templars, a Holy Bloodline, the Prince Henry St. Clair stories about early voyaging to the New World, and more."

Your question - "…what is it you are hoping to discover?"

'Hoping' is not a word I'd use. I'd love just as much to disprove that we had any Templar connections. That might be the faster way to the truth. You see, I don't "hope" for something here. I just want to know pro or con.

What I've looked into over the years is -
1. Were the Saint Clairs associated in any way with the Templar Order. That could mean land grants (benefaction), or membership.
2. Any shred of evidence of our being a part of any holy bloodline. First, one would have to have evidence of a holy bloodline. I find that one almost absurd enough to not bother looking into. I'm more interested in the origins of the lore and how our family name came to be wrapped up in it.
3. Any evidence of a voyage to North America by Jarl Henry Sinclair.

You said - "[…] I'm not saying you have to believe you are descended from God Kings"

Good, because 'believe' is another word I wouldn't apply here. I don't know your background Keith, but is it normal when someone starts to research something that they've already decided they "believe" it? To me, belief connotes religion, or some sort of faith. It has no place when approaching a fact-finding effort.

To repeat something I posted here before - I don't "believe" any of hypothesis 2. There is to date no factual evidence. But there is myth and lore. And because of that, it's interesting to look for factual evidence.

You wrote - "[…] but why say on your website (which you direct people to so they can see your stance) that you think there is truth to the woo, and why appear on national television appearing to support it?"

The 2nd hypothesis is above. It says, specifically, "[…] when enough myths persist, there may be a grain of truth in them. There may be some basis in reality to the legends of our association with […]" This group (or maybe it's only the academics among the group who are more classically trained) seems to have a major hard on for the wording of that 2nd hypothesis. I have not said that I 'think there is truth' to the woo. I am interested in investigating it to see if there is truth to it. I'm just as happy disproving it.

"appearing to support it" is a subjective opinion you formed when you watched the show. Others acquaintances expressed surprise that I didn't seem to support it more. Each is a subjective opinion. Can you guys understand that? Others expressed surprise I didn't support it more. Sorry to repeat that, but it seems to not be sinking in that the members of this group also have hardened opinions which color their view. And, like the "woo" crowd, they're just as addicted to their opinions.

The act of traveling to Nova Scotia to witness what Den Perada, Committee Films and others were doing doesn't mean I "support it" or "believe it" or "think it's true" or "want it to be real" or "think my family is somehow special." In fact, Committee Films wanted me there more time than I could take away from my business. That's why I wasn't on the island in the first part of the show. That was day 1 of the filming. So it could be argued that I didn't support it enough to show up for the full filming.

Regarding your last paragraph, you might go look at the history of attacks posted by Christopher Randolph. As I said in comments above, the way to deal with people who continually display behavior of bullying is to deal with them openly and use their tactics.

"[…] in which you call people names"

I didn't call 'people' names. I called Christopher Randolph names.

"[…] use "academic" as a synonym for "pretentious""

That's a general statement. I've specifically said in comments above that not all academics behave like the one I've been dealing with on this lengthy pissing match. I didn't use it as a synonym except in reference to Christopher Randolph and those who exhibit behavior like his.

Reply
Keith
5/11/2013 12:36:49 pm

First of all, you have not answered my questions very well, but I appreciate your not thinking I am a troll or a bully because it was implied I disagree with theories which you may or may not believe.

You don't think there is any connection between your distant ancestors and Jesus; and you believe there is, at absolute best, a "shred of evidence" or a very tenuous link between them and the Knights Templar. Okay. Have you found any shreds of evidence, be they land grants or membership records which would imply this link?

You don't think there is a castle in Nova Scotia built by your ancestor Henry Sinclair. Okay.

So,

Does your research lead you to believe Henry Sinclair sailed to the Americas before Christopher Columbus? If so, what evidence have you found in support of this which makes you continue to believe it?

I hope you can settle those points for me.

Can you provide specific quoted examples of Christopher Randolph's "bullying" tactics. I will accept: him giving you insulting nicknames (like "Crabby"), or making character attacks (such as saying you are filled with poop) instead of addressing your argument, as well as more general insults (about pissing contests, ivory towers,.and academic pretension, say).

Finally,

It has been pointed out to you that, since you appeared on a documentary[-style] program and at no point in your appearance did you refute any of the core claims of the program, it seems like you accept its premise to some degree. That is not an unreasonable subjective conclusion to come to. I think most people would.
Since Comittee Films and Scott Wolter apparently knew of your skeptical position, invited you anyway, and then cast you in an, at worst, semi-supportive light, do you not feel you have been misrepresented in some way? Do you not feel that your inclusion, as a Sinclair researcher and descendant, lends legitimacy to the claims of the program which you believe are untrue?

As a diligent researcher, someone who knows there is no connection between the Sinclairs and Jesus, and someone who would love to disprove the Sinclair / Templar connection, are you not upset at your being used to advance a fringe theory which hinges on a Sinclair / Templar / Jesus bloodline?

Steve St Clair
5/11/2013 02:01:26 pm

Keith,

Here's what I'm gonna do. I'm not going to answer your questions which use the word "believe" because I've been OVERLY clear with you about the use of that word. If you want to play games, find another victim.

For instance, "and you believe there is, at absolute best, a "shred of evidence" or a very tenuous link between them and the Knights Templar"

Show my ANYWHERE that I've said I "believe" a shred of evidence exists of a "link between them and the Knights Templar"

"Have you found any shreds of evidence, be they land grants or membership records which would imply this link?"

You can read, right? I've said I have not YET seen any evidence that there were such links. Seriously, back up and read the previous sentence a few more times. Ponder that sentence and what i might mean by it. What I mean is I have not YET seen any evidence that there were such links. Let me repeat, I have not YET seen any evidence that there were such links.
I have not YET seen any evidence that there were such links.
I have not YET seen any evidence that there were such links.
I have not YET seen any evidence that there were such links.

Just to be clear with you and the rest of this august group, Keith, I have not YET seen any evidence that there were such links.

"If so, what evidence have you found in support of this which makes you continue to believe it?"

Dear God, you people can't read. I seriously missed the rules for participating in such a group. Please scroll up now, Keith, and read my previous point about the word "believe." Please show the readers of this pissing match that you can comprehend what you're reading. So, I'm not answering this question because I've already answered it.

"Can you provide specific quoted examples of Christopher Randolph's "bullying" tactics."

Pass.
If you've got the time, you can form your own opinion on this. Please note that others have formed a similar opinion. Besides, it's outside the real subject we're discussing, and you're simply being cute, Keith.

"[…] it seems like you accept its premise to some degree. That is not an unreasonable subjective conclusion to come to. I think most people would."

I could happily debate your subjective choice of the word "most" in the above, but i'll pass.

blah, blah, arrogant blah…[…] "invited you anyway, and then cast you in an, at worst, semi-supportive light, do you not feel you have been misrepresented in some way?"

uh, no. Please refer to previous replies I made that covered this.

"Do you not feel that your inclusion, as a Sinclair researcher"

If you can tell me which point in the show I'm referred to as a 'Sinclair researcher,' then I'll answer this question. You formed that opinion after reading Jason's blog and the many replies.

This last point shows how skewed you are, Keith. You've tried to come off as a reasonable observer. I'm now pretty certain you're not.

"are you not upset at your being used to advance a fringe theory which hinges on a Sinclair / Templar / Jesus bloodline?"

Thanks for your opinion.

What's interesting to me about the above comment is that so many of the flavor of academics, whom I have a problem with, assume that the public are out here lapping up whatever they see on their televisions. You, of course, are better than they are. You alone are the clear-headed observers who can see through the show. You think Americans don't have the intelligence you do to understand and be somewhat or completely skeptical of what they see on TV.

A "yes" or "no" answer to this particular question will suffice.

Jason Colavito link
5/11/2013 02:23:47 pm

Steve, not everyone has the time to read the dozens of comments and replies you've left across multiple blog posts here (or knowledge that they exist), so I don't think you should fault Keith for asking about things he might have missed. I think he was trying to ask you about the "grain of truth" you proposed in your hypothesis, which implies that you consider the situation possible enough to continue investigating. Thus, colloquially, he appears to have used "believe" to summarize your consideration of the relative value of continuing this line of research.

Second, there is no group and there are no rules for inclusion in this imaginary group. This isn't a salon; there are no memberships. It's just a comments thread on a blog.

If you want to get into grammar issues, technically Keith's grammar claimed only that YOU are a Sinclair researcher (which is true), not that the show claimed you were one. He was asking you if you are upset that as someone who researches this in great depth you were depicted as supporting the Holy Bloodline theory, which is how you were edited to appear in a reasonable and fair appraisal of the episode.

As for "lapping up" what the TV says, sadly it is the case that most of the audience for any given program will never do additional research into a program's claims and will accept it at face value provided that they trust the host or channel. In fact, the more TV a person watches, the more likely that person is to believe anything the TV says. There's a huge body of communication theory research on this, so that's not just an opinion but the result of scholarly work into the power of television. That's why many media researchers talk about the ethical obligations of TV producers toward an audience primed to accept the TV as an authoritative source.

Gunn
5/11/2013 06:01:35 am

A grain of truth doesn't weigh very much, but it allows a tiny window for speculation and fantasy. But, of course, any publicly proposed grain of truth must be weighed to see if it actually has any weight, or any substance...or any reality to it.

I have said before here that I believe the Kensington Runestone represents the "best hope" of establishing pre-Columbus exploration into America. To some here on the blog, this belief of mine does not equal a grain of truth, though I am surrounded by obvious evidences all around me up here...yet nothing with acceptable provenance to the scientific community, not even the KRS.

This grain of truth in my mind has recently grown in weight because of Dr. Richard Nielsen's 2012 report showing possible provenance for the KRS's dating system, which had been a major reason for earlier claiming that the 1362 runestone was a hoax. This represents a window for scientific speculation now, instead of just chasing "myths."

St. Clair, Sinclair, etc. We have here the possibility of there being a grain of truth to the idea of someone bearing this name being aware of the 1362 placing of the KRS. If this is a variation of names prominent during the medieval period, I see no reason someone carrying this name could not have been privy to "closely held" information relating to the KRS and other activity in MN.

Was a St. Clair aware of MN Scandinavian exploration? Could that information have been verbally handed down to a Sinclair or St. Clair a generation or two later? Could there be a grain of truth to the idea that St. Clair's/Sinclairs were knowledgeable about the earlier exploration in America (KRS), and decided to follow-up?

The smallest grain of truth doesn't weigh very much, but sometimes the grain can swell up bigger and bigger until actual substance is attained...measurable as a seed to plant.

Such IS the case with the Kensington Runestone, now a mere mustard seed.

Such May Be the case with gallant St. Clairs, too. Why not? Steve is allowed to "pretend" with the hope that (with eventual evidence) the myths surrounding Henry Sinclair MAY become as real as a grain of truth, which can then be planted.

Steve cannot be denied a small window to watch and wait (with hope) for his grain to sprout, though a mean person could come along and try to put bars in his window from the outside.

The same goes with the KRS...some naysayers would like to just RUNE the whole thing!

Reply
Keith
5/11/2013 12:56:42 pm

"Was a St. Clair aware of MN Scandinavian exploration? Could that information have been verbally handed down to a Sinclair or St. Clair a generation or two later? Could there be a grain of truth to the idea that St. Clair's/Sinclairs were knowledgeable about the earlier exploration in America (KRS), and decided to follow-up?"

That could be a transcription of Giorgio Tsoukalos I swear.
Show me documents (diaries, letters, reports, maps etc. not proven to be forgeries) show me the path they took and evidence they took it (like L'Anse aux Meadows), show me the record of the guy called Sinclair or St. Slair or Santo Claro or any variation knowing about the Kensington Runestone.

Show me the evidence. Please; I think it would be really cool if the Norse had left runestones in America, I would love for it to be real, it'd be exciting. I would love for a Scottish nobleman to have made pre-Columbian contact, being a Scot myself. I just don't see it.

Reply
Shawn Sinclair
5/12/2013 10:26:53 am

Why can'y I post on other posts?

Keith
5/11/2013 03:36:14 pm

So before I should even start reading, I have to accept that once again, you refuse to answer a reasonably simple question about your views (whether you consider them belief or knowledge, be they based on fact or fantasy). I will play your game. I will use your words, but I would like a simple answer to a simple question:

If I were to claim that Henry Sinclair sailed across the Atlantic, to the Americas, before Christopher Columbus, would you disagree with me?
What would your informed opinion on the matter be? Did he or not?

I've read every comment on this post, and I would rather not cycle back through many more (you and Chris here seem to have a history). You haven't given a clear answer to this question here, and it would be pretty easy to just say "yes, Henry Sinclair sailed to America" or "no, he didn't and the whole thing is a silly rumour". Surely, with so many Sinclairs around, some of them must contact you via your website wishing to know things like this all the time.

If he did make such an epic voyage, can you link me to or at least point me towards some evidence of it? You, as someone who has spent many years gaining an unquestionable knowledge of the history of the Sinclairs, would know if any existed and where it could be found.

Please, it shouldn't be this difficult to try to talk to you reasonably, Steve. You are picking on silly little things and completely avoiding the pretty basic questions I asked you. Please, before you do anything else in your answer to me, just tell me whether or not a Prince Henry Sinclair, Earl of Orkney, sailed the Atlantic and reached America before Columbus?

I'm going to ignore all the stuff that is just a character attack on me, and arguing about semantics and grammar, which is most of your reply.

Why don't you think you were misrepresented? Don't you think it damages your reputation as a serious researcher to be involved in and seen to be supportive of things you know to be wrong?

Reply
Steve St Clair
5/11/2013 03:57:29 pm


"If I were to claim that Henry Sinclair sailed across the Atlantic, to the Americas, before Christopher Columbus, would you disagree with me?
What would your informed opinion on the matter be? Did he or not?"

My 'informed opinion' on the matter is that there is not data yet discovered that proves it one way or another.

"If he did make such an epic voyage, can you link me to or at least point me towards some evidence of it? "

Not relevant. See above answer.

"whether or not a Prince Henry Sinclair, Earl of Orkney, sailed the Atlantic and reached America before Columbus?"

My 'informed opinion' on the matter is that there is not data yet discovered that proves it one way or another.

"Why don't you think you were misrepresented?"

Because I don't feel misrepresented.

Don't you think it damages your reputation as a serious researcher to be involved in and seen to be supportive of things you know to be wrong?"

No. Because I don't know these things to be wrong. I've explained that to you in the above responses.

Any further questions requiring clear, concise answers, Keith?

Reply
Keith
5/11/2013 04:23:49 pm

Yes, perfect, lovely.

So, to summarize your views before I go any further;
1. You know there is no connection between the Sinclair family and Jesus Christ, other than presumably their worship of him.
2. You have found no evidence to support the conclusion that the Sinclair family were members of, or affiliated with, the Knights Templar.
3. You have also found no evidence to support the conclusion that pre-Columbian contact with the Americas was made by Henry Sinclair.

Since you have spent many years researching historical records, doing DNA analysis, and engaging in no doubt lively discussion about it; it might be reasonable to assume that your knowledge of the subject is more than mine. I can assure you it is. And yet I, too, believe that the Sinclairs did not sail to America, and that they are not Templar Grail Kings. We seem to have the same opinions.

So I wonder why you don't feel at all upset by a production company specifically banking on your place as a Sinclair researcher to lend weight to a premise that you know all evidence suggests is false ie the Sinclairs are New World God Kings. I wonder why you didn't feel any obligation either to make an effort to make your skepticism known on-camera, or to at least complain when footage was edited to remove all trace of it.

And then, when asked pretty basic questions about these things which you appeared on national television discussing and appearing to endorse; why would you choose to rant at me about my choice of wording and my apparently aloof attitude instead of just answering me?

Steve St Clair
5/11/2013 04:41:10 pm

"And yet I, too, believe that the Sinclairs did not sail to America, and that they are not Templar Grail Kings. We seem to have the same opinions."

Cute, Keith. I didn't say I "believe" the Sinclairs did not sail to America. I said, just above this post, "My 'informed opinion' on the matter is that there is not data yet discovered that proves it one way or another."

You seem hell bent on adding the word 'believe' to my statements. Can you please explain why that is such an important part of your argument? I and everyone else following this pissing match will expect your answer to that question in your next reply. If you don't provide it, we'll know you're simply being cute. And then we'll all be done with this and let you go on your way.

"I wonder why you didn't feel any obligation either to make an effort to make your skepticism known on-camera…"

If you watched the show, Keith, you'd see me express skepticism twice.

"or to at least complain when footage was edited to remove all trace of it."

'The best answer to this, Keith, is one I've already posted in response to this - "Joe Rose and Scott Dawson have both complained publicly about the way Committee Films manipulated their interviews because both tried (from opposing viewpoints) to present the truth as they knew it."


'And you and the merry band here feel I should do the same. In signing on to do such films, people like Joe Rose and Scott Dawson are amateurish if they think their views will be represented just as they prefer them to be. They need to grow up. And your group here needs to do the same. Christopher can keep stomping his feet and waving his fist in the air if he wants. But he'd have lower blood pressure if he'd just realize this is how the show is produced. I knew that going into it because I've been around modern broadcast production. This was not presented as a documentary. And even documentaries are edited and often that editing leads to slanted presentation and hurt feelings by purists such as those on this group.'


If that doesn't answer it, Keith, then please move on. You're growing too cute for me.

You posted - "And then, when asked pretty basic questions about these things which you appeared on national television discussing and appearing to endorse; why would you choose to rant at me about my choice of wording and my apparently aloof attitude instead of just answering me?"

Did I write that you were aloof, Keith. Do you have the same mind-reading abilities as Christopher Randolph? How did you decide that I find you 'aloof?'

Calling my answer a "rant" is a subjective statement, Keith. I don't "believe" my answer to you was in any way an 'rant.' I "believe" it was simply an observation.

Howza 'bout we stick to the real questions and veer away from the subjective ones.

BillUSA
1/11/2014 02:31:58 pm

Steve

I'm exactly 8 months late to this party but it has been an interesting read thus far and I wish to comment. I have read every comment to this point and have tried to be open-minded and not take sides. I have concluded that you are quite the agile arguer when someone asks for a straight answer when you aren't wielding a sharp blade to split hairs. So many times have you spent more time pointing out HOW someone comments or poses a question than you do ANSWERING them. Why feel attacked when someone asks you a straight-forward question?

Jason, Christopher and Keith have each taken the time to craft questions that were easily understood, poignant and fair. Yet you respond with juvenile name-calling which give rise to my suspicion that you are angry that they didn't just lie down and accept what you purport as being the truth, whole truth and nothing but the truth. Like being angry at having to explain yourself.

You might have thought that you maneuvered your way out of the ethical bind regarding your appearance on AU, but the fact remains that whether intentional or not, your appearance suggests that you support the premise of that particular episode. You can't have it both ways. As an example, you can't get into Lincoln Financial Field wearing a Giants jersey on game day and expect to get away with "Oh, I just hope the best team wins" and have a rosy time of it. You WILL be perceived as a Giants fan and incur the verbal wrath of Eagles fans - and deservedly so. It's the same in other stadiums and television. There are parts of life which are "black and white" where one needs to decide for himself where he stands exactly before going on television to declare his stance.

Were you on AU to say "Scott is the driver, I'm just hitchin' a ride" and to come off looking wishy-washy on the subject of the claims made by the show? After watching the episode and reading this comment section, that appears to be the intent. So I can't understand why you seem to take umbrage at the questions of curious people who want clarification. More to the point, why do you take to name-calling and putdowns when their responses are worded in such a way as to guide you to their point which you seem oblivious to, or unwilling to address?

If anything, you instigate the furthering of the argument (or "pissing contest" as you referenced) by your non-answers. Here's an example: "My 'informed opinion' on the matter is that there is not data yet discovered that proves it one way or another." I take that to mean you don't have an answer, yet you would undoubtedly go on to refer to it as an answer if taken to task. You aren't participating in the furtherance of a discussion if you pick on words you don't like, give effusive responses, refer others to previous answers and take pointed questions as attacks. You see, we humans are wired in such a way that when some of us are in a position where we know the hammer is gonna come down, we get skittish and squirrely. And that sir, is what I've detected in your "responses" to the aforementioned participants.

I cringed when you stated (and I'm paraphrasing here) that you aren't of the opinion that a television program doesn't need to be concerned with the accuracy of its claims or claimants. That's exactly the opposite purpose (and correct me Jason if I'm wrong) of this website - to advance critical thinking. To come here expecting otherwise is counter to the goal. Yet you respond in ways that give me the impression that you really come here to back-track what Jason points out as inaccurate depictions of events, written history, artifacts and the such. You could call yourself the Earl of Obfuscation and I would have a good time reading your responses.

As it is, you seem to be acrimonious toward those of us who prefer to examine things and base our opinions on what evidence they provide. I never did go for fairy tales, and when I go camping with friends and family, I derive no joy out of scaring children with ghost stories. I want the results of testing - not the suppositions of people claiming to have created a television program for the sake of revealing untold truths to the populace.

Finally, as I have commented on several other websites covering a variety of subjects, if what you post is grounded in truth then it doesn't require defending. Give answers if there are questions, but don't berate the asker for asking. Microsoft Word tells me that there are 847 words to my response here. Plenty of, I suspect, fodder for you to make an issue of and bash me for but that would be useless. You see, this is just a comment that I will not be supporting because just as I stated before, solid opinions require no defense.

Steve St Clair
5/11/2013 03:59:36 pm

Let me ask you a question that requires only a simple "yes" or "no" answer, Keith -

Do you know Christopher outside of this blog? Are you associated with him in any way personal or professional?

Reply
Keith
5/11/2013 04:28:13 pm

No.

Christopher, I assume, is an American. I am Scottish, I have always lived in Scotland, and you can trace the male line of my family back many hundreds of years, through a general who fought on the losing side at Culloden and a Jacobite Revivalist secret society. Keith isn't my first name, but it is my name. Family history is fascinating, isn't it?

Reply
Steve St Clair
5/11/2013 04:42:47 pm

You didn't answer the question really, did you Keith? I'll restate so you can provide simple "yes" or "no" answers.

1 - Do you know Christopher outside of this blog?

2 - Are you associated with him in any way personal or professional?

Christopher Randolph
5/11/2013 05:40:21 pm

Steve -

I don't believe I know anyone currently residing in Scotland personally; I have discussed a few things on internet chat boards with Scots before but I rather doubt Keith is one. Keith already told you he doesn't know me, which alone should have settled the question. I don't know anyone with his family name. Why would that affect in any way the facts:

A) ... that you refuse to answer simply clarifying questions asked you by Jason and two other commenters on this thread alone? We're talking here about simple statements of what you believe to be true regarding what you tell everyone else you're an expert in.

or

B) ... the fact that when three different people have to ask you clarifying questions in one thread it's because you aren't making clear and consistent statement?

Sometimes the Academic Conspiracy isn't out to get you, sometimes you just hoist yourself by your own petard.

I'm pretty well convinced at this point that you know you have a bag filled with nothing as regards any fruits of your "research", and want to attract attention all at once to yourself for it, backtrack on nothing, never admit having been wrong about anything, keep Sinclairs interested, shield Wolter's from scrutiny AND not look like a liar and/or insane person.

As this is simultaneously impossible, all you can do is dodge simple direct questions while nitpicking the semantics of others as a pretext for feigning offense.

The more I'm convinced that you're not insane but rather intellectually dishonest while lacking the level of memory this requires to do well, the less tragic and more tragicomic a figure I find you.

Steve St Clair
5/11/2013 06:03:24 pm

Thanks for your opinions, Christopher.

Shawn Sinclair
5/12/2013 11:13:24 am

Keith said..." 1. You know there is no connection between the Sinclair family and Jesus Christ, other than presumably their worship of him."
Ok enough having fun, its time to answer with some facts and stop picking on Keith ft and Jason ft with enflammatory comments. Keith, your comment above are rather interesting, are you a churchy and believe in Jesus christ as saviour? If so, I'm really not about to apologize for my beliefs in saying he was a man and not a saviour. Yes there is evidence to support the claim that the Sinclairs are indeed related to Jesuhua Ben Joseph, and that indeed the family survived after the crucifixion and made their way to Europe and lived on.

Reply
Shawn Sinclair
5/11/2013 05:52:30 pm

I'd like to say it looks like a good argument both ways.

Reply
Steve St Clair
5/11/2013 06:01:29 pm

In a comment up above, Keith used the phrase "like L'Anse aux Meadows" in a response to Gunn. I'd like to discuss that a bit.

Helge Ingstad discovered L'Anse aux Meadows in 1960 and decided it was the likely launching place for Leif Ericcson.

Academia immediately descended on him like a pack of hyenas. One of the main reasons they leaped on him was his use of two sagas. These sagas, the academics argued, were not to be trusted. Thus, Helge must be wrong.

Now we've got academics using the work of Helge Ingestad to support their arguments.

Reply
Christopher Randolph
5/11/2013 06:30:54 pm

You're leaving out a few things in your narrative.

Anne Stine Ingstad, his wife, was an archeologist and, perish the thought, an academic. If you are trying to make a point that untrained laymen made a laughingstock of university archeologists, you're doing so in a most dishonest fashion.

I'm going to quote Wikipedia at you, just to irritate you:

"Between 1961 and 1968, Anne Stine Ingstad led an excavation of the settlement with an international team of archaeologists from Sweden, Iceland, Canada, U.S. and Norway." University-trained archeologists from 5 countries excavated the site and started almost immediately. When there was something to look at, academia looked at it immediately, took notice and rewrote the history books. This is the system working.

We might contrast this with you and a bunch of dowsers and drillers drilling for gold and holy artifacts in Nova Scotia where you now claim you never thought there was any, and based in having no written accounts of any of those things being located at the site from square one.

The "descending on" appears to have been "descending on" the bandwagon to excavate, almost immediately... exactly as would happen at any site which has the potential to be exciting in the field.

Sites that don't have anything worth looking at get ignored by archeologists.

Another overarching point is that science and academia allow themselves to be open to new evidence leading to new facts. Beliefs are called such because they are closed to new information. You have a belief that there are things to look for and no evidence for it. Your belief comes first, facts be damned.

Reply
Steve St Clair link
5/13/2013 04:37:37 pm

I think the best response to Crabby on his "spin control" comment here is to post a comment made on a Yahoo Group in 2000.

"I am sure the people pushing the idea of Viking visits would be more open to the idea that other groups also got here. However, these folks were ignored by the academic establishment until the actual excavations in Canada were accomplished. And even then, the implications that if the Vikings could do it anyone could, was bypassed by the majority of the academic community.

"What gets me [...] is how today the scholars are trying to deny that they ever held any beliefs other than the current "non-significant contact" line. They are trying to apply spin control to the fact that the bulk of the academic community absolutely opposed the idea of any contact, no matter the impact. They don't want to now admit that they missed the boat (sorry for the pun) and that the amateurs did a better job of ferreting out historical secrets.

"I don't know where the material would best be found, but someone should assemble examples of the "no way anyone got here before Columbus" pronoucements [sic] by the experts, so the present generation of scholars can not pretend the current non-significant contact line was what was always held by academia."

"http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/epigraphy/message/2584

Crabby's comment - "Sites that don't have anything worth looking at get ignored by archeologists."

Someone has to have the nuts to start the exploration before your flavor of academics jumps in to get a share of the glory, Crabby.

Keith
5/12/2013 06:28:05 am

I continued to use "believe" as it was a word which fitted the purpose.
You can't "know" if Henry Sinclair ever sailed the world, because you have found no archaeological evidence and you weren't there on his boat. You can, however, "believe" it. Simple.
Whether you believe it because you read about it in an old Norse manuscript, because Scott Wolter appeared on your TV, or because the ghost of Henry Sinclair appeared to you in a dream, it doesn't matter. I wasn't asking for the absolute truth on the matter, I wanted to know what you thought of the idea.

Since you have found no evidence for any of the three hypotheses put forward by Scott Wolter and hinted at on your website, why is it so hard to get you to admit they probably aren't true? Look at how hard I had to try just to get you to say "there isn't any proof my ancestor made it to America". In your many years of in-depth research, you have yet to find ANY evidence of a connection to the Knights Templar or to America. Most researchers would, if asked about that situation, say "I don't believe the Sinclairs were involved with the Templars / America as there is no evidence at all to suggest it."
You don't have even a shred of evidence. You haven't even found the "grain of truth" at the center of the myth. Why couldn't you have said that from the start? Why dodge around the question so much and get so defensive? I am not attacking you, Steve. I'm not belittling you or trying to troll you, I was asking simple questions.

I don't understand why you took such a disliking to me. You didn't use the word "aloof"; but all that stuff about how apparently I think I am better than you and all television watching Americans certainly made your opinion of me clear. And you keep trying to undermine me by calling me "cute" (which isn't working I am damn cute you should see my baby photos).
What did I do wrong, other than ask what you "believed" instead of what you "knew", and talk in a tone you didn't like?

Also, in case you didn't notice, I answered your simple yes or no question about Christopher in the very first word of my reply. It was "no".

Reply
Jason Colavito link
5/12/2013 09:42:22 am

I have deleted a comment from "Shawn Sinclair" that contained no relevant content and contained only ad hominem attacks, vulgarity, and the promise to continue with the same.

Reply
Shawn Sinclair
5/12/2013 10:33:15 am

Tisk tisk, all that work in putting a reply only to have it deleted, what a shame, It still doesn't deter me from asking the question to Keith, where is proof the Sinclairs don't relate to Jeshua Ben Joseph, I do like a good debate, even when its from a twack like Keith from Scotland. Maybe Keith should answer for himself instead of having his bum chum Jason C. answer for him and remove my threads, hmmm?

Jason Colavito link
5/12/2013 10:35:52 am

You're welcome to post and to ask questions and to disagree with me or others. You are not welcome to post content-free personal insults.

Steve St Clair link
5/13/2013 04:57:10 pm

You commented, among other things which I may or may not answer - "Since you have found no evidence for any of the three hypotheses put forward by Scott Wolter and hinted at on your website, why is it so hard to get you to admit they probably aren't true?"

Are you conflating my hypotheses with Scott's research? Mine have been on my website for many years before I met Scott.

Have you even seen the show you're here to comment on? I understand it's not on the air in Britain.

You commented - "Most researchers would, if asked about that situation, say "I don't believe the Sinclairs were involved with the Templars / America as there is no evidence at all to suggest it."

Exactly! And they would not have translated the papers of the Hanseatic League. Nor would they have looked for clues in old books in Norway which have yet to be translated into English. Nor world they have looked at papers in Scotland from the period which have yet to make it out of private collections. That's precisely what I mean by arrogance among researchers. The possibilities of new research are far from exhausted. That's the most frustrating part about dealing with a particular flavor of academics. 'Well, we haven't found water on Mars. Let's stop going.'

You commented - "You don't have even a shred of evidence. You haven't even found the "grain of truth" at the center of the myth."

How do you know? Because you haven't read it on Jason Colavito's blog?

Reply
Steve St Clair link
5/13/2013 05:08:09 pm


Your comment - "Look at how hard I had to try just to get you to say "there isn't any proof my ancestor made it to America". "

Typing that sentence must have made you feel proud, Keith. But it's NOT what I said. I wrote the following, and then repeated it a total of 6 more times. And STILL you cocked it up.

"I have not YET seen any evidence that there were such links."

You left out the word YET in the sentence you put into quotes. When one is putting a sentence into quotes, the reader will think they've copied it precisely. Yet you weren't copying it precisely, were you Keith? And you did it deliberately. That's PRECISELY what I mean by being cute, Keith. Very cute. And very transparent. You're playing games with words. Does it make you feel superior?

I also posted - "There is to date no factual evidence."

Did you miss the two words in that, Keith? - TO DATE. I'm putting them in call caps to make it easier for you to read. It's clearly a challenge.

Reply
Christopher Randolph
5/13/2013 08:27:47 pm

More semantics games! You should put a Steve St Clair semantics board game on Kickstarter and at least get paid for this. Such party fun - the first person to lose all of their friends by claiming that two phrases that mean the same thing are entirely different statements wins!

"I have not YET seen any evidence that there were such links."

That's the first, best and most complete reason not to argue with people who state that there's no proof of any links.

We all know that you have a belief that there's something special about your bloodline (a phrase which should be on an American Kennel Club discussion board), and that you will go to your hooked-X-marked grave before admitting that a complete lack of evidence for your beliefs is merely an artifact of not having looked in the correct place yet.

Tara Jordan
5/12/2013 10:58:19 am

Shawn Sinclair.
"where is proof the Sinclairs don't relate to Jeshua Ben Joseph". Even by internet standards, this has to be one of the most ridiculous comments ever. Where is the proof I do not relate to Paris Hilton?.You people are suffering from an extraordinary illusion of grandeur.Jeshua Ben Joseph was a mythical figure, but there is hope, Valium....

Reply
Keith
5/12/2013 10:59:51 am

Shawn, that isn't how evidence works. If you could show me anything which would suggest a relationship between the Sinclairs and the historical Jesus, I would sit up and take note.

The burden of proof rests with you. Where is the evidence that the Sinclairs are descended from Jesus? Do you have it? Can you show me?

Reply
Shawn Sinclair
5/12/2013 11:50:37 am

Finally, yes your right tara it is, so let me explain. When we first thought that there might be a connection we wanted to know how, which lead us to genetics and history. there were alot of books available which said that the Sinclairs were related to Jeshua but very few said just how, over the coarse of some 8 yrs of looking in honest we came to understand that we had to look at various stories and find out which ones and clues could be relevant. So far we have very solid evidence that points to their genetic origins, and that being a particular Haplo group called U106, and this goes back to the current Viscount Thurso which I tested last year. From there we looked at where this group came from and was there any ancient testing from anyone available, that lead us to the connection from our earlier study from Ergolding, in which the report proved the Sinclair connection to the Merovingians, or rather the Salian Franks who we believe stem from a man that was called Atta or Ataulf and he married a Jewish women called Maria, and I'm basing the Maria connection to the work of Hugh Montgomery and his find of a 5th centry Jewish document called the " Abdias manuscript' in which the lineage chart shows the line of Jesus to his gr gr grand daughter Maria and she married Atta who was a the progy of the Sinclair family. I'm not going to explain the whole story here but that would be the general jest, with much more to go into later, here is the lineage chart so I don't sound like a hypocrite. This is a lineage chart showing where the relation is to the Sinclair's and the family of Jeshua Ben Joseph. Jesus married Mary of Bethany who had a daughter Miriam who had a son and a daughter named Ruth, Ruth married her half Uncle John Martinus, who had Elchasai who had Martha who had Maria who married Atualf, who had Clodomir who had Merovee.

Reply
Keith
5/12/2013 12:58:19 pm

Cursory google searching for this one piece of historical evidence (the "Abdias manuscript") has turned up references to the "Historia Certaminis Apostolici"; an apocryphal, Gnostic work attributed to Abdias, first bishop of Babylon.
Also I found a link to Hugh Montgomery's book "The God-kings of Europe" which talks about Abdias, and how the links to Jesus are based around Gnostic apocrypha.

Is this your evidence? The sermons of Gnostics centuries after Jesus' death? Is Hugh Montgomery's book the thing I should read?

Joe
5/12/2013 11:21:40 am

Steve,

Looking at the original blog by Jason and the subsequent responses from yourself and others there seems to be a general disconnect in questions directed to you and your responses. I do not want to come off as an attack on you but there does seem to be some basic issues myself and others have with your position overall.

If one goes to your website as you directed we see your research on the Sinclair family history through documentation and DNA testing. I do not think that anyone would have any issue with that as a general scientific or just family research project. Most people commenting on this discussion have a problem with the 2nd hypothesis.

To quote your website:

“My hypothesis is that, when enough myths persist, there may be a grain of truth in them. There may be some basis in reality to the legends of our association with the Templars, a Holy Bloodline, the Prince Henry St. Clair stories about early voyaging to the New World, and more.”

You also direct people to read from a list of links on the left hand side to give examples of your families most famous legends including stories about Vikings, William the Conqueror, and as stated in your hypothesis Prince Henry's voyage to the new world. You have seemed to comment on all of these in how much you are able to verify or not based on your research.

But the biggest issue I see is with the first two points in your 2nd hypothesis, association with the Templars and a Holy Bloodline. How exactly are you able to prove or disprove either case with your current research methods. Considering that the Templars / and protectors of the holy Bloodline are supposed to be secret societies it is very unlikely to find any documentation to prove or disprove their association with the Sinclair family. Also as you have stated proving with DNA would be even less plausible. So the real question is why include them in your hypothesis at all.

It is one thing to find topics or mythology interesting for conversation, it is a totally different thing to include them on a research hypothesis. Not to mention that on several occasions you have stated in these comments that you have had no evidence at all to verify these claims. Finally the fact that you appeared on a television program to claims to make an active attempt to view this theory and explore the possibilities. On this program you seem to have a general acceptance to Mr. Wolter's explanation of a theory that you state you are yourself researching. But in comments on Jason's blog you disagree with Scott Wolter's opinion.

It is less then encouraging to take your research and opinion seriously when you keep directing people to your site to see your views and research and then watch you disagree with your own hypothesis.

Now on the third point of Henry St. Clair's pre-columbian voyage to the US I do find interesting. It is an actual legend that can be researched, tested and explored more in your DNA and documentation research. However this is another issue when questioning your research on the subject. You were taken to a potential site in Nova Scotia on a TV productions dime with some people actually exploring the idea of a Sinclair arriving in North America prior to Columbus and you very little if any actual archeological work there. I would think if you were serious about exploring the subject you would spend more then one day at a site. Unless you do not think that this is realistic theory either.

I know it seems like I am piling on to you and for this I am sorry. I truly find your DNA and genealogy research interesting but it is that 2nd hypothesis that loses me and probably others. It also could be damaging for others to take your initial research seriously.

Reply
Shawn Sinclair
5/12/2013 01:40:46 pm

Keith said.."Is this your evidence? The sermons of Gnostics centuries after Jesus' death? Is Hugh Montgomery's book the thing I should read?" No Keith ft its not my only evidence and if you feel like you want to read his books feel free, there is a plethora of information out there to look at including Dr Hugh Sinclairs lineage chart that shows exactly the same lineage, done some 40 yrs ago. Dr.Hugh Sinclair sat on the seat of Churchills staff during the WWII and I have a hand written copy of it as well, and that is also in the book. So its safe to say that he knew of the lineage in the 40's but whats even more fascinating is the fact that he had it then, but no explaination of the source material, that leaves one to think its in a private collection and hasn't seen the light of day, yet others have found the same lineage and wrote about it with the same result. Where is the collection or source material? I don't know for certain but can only guess. BTW, I'm not here to debate Dr Sinclair's work or Montgomery's, only present it, if you have a issue with their work, take it up with them.

Reply
Joe
5/12/2013 01:53:18 pm

I am not doubting that the information is in Sinclair's or Montgomery's work. But no matter the source they are claiming, it is extremely difficult if not impossible to verify documents of lineage as far back as the time of Christ the subsequent centuries that immediately follow. Any document or person claiming 100% accurate lineage information should be dealt with skepticism. I am not saying that it can not be true but highly doubtful that you can be sure on the data. Especially when one of the sources is Sinclair, since he would be considered having a biase in the argument, without seeing his sources.

Jason Colavito link
5/12/2013 01:56:53 pm

As you note, Joe, there is the obvious problem that even if all the lineages back to the Merovingians are correct, there is no real way to connect this back to Jesus since there is no record of his marriage to anyone, no record of any offspring, nor any confirmation of whom those alleged offspring married. And just one infidelity or adoption in that early lineage would cause any "pure" Jesus bloodline untold complications.

Keith
5/12/2013 02:17:45 pm

Presumably, Hugh Sinclair's source materials contained a copy of the same book ascribed to Abdias of Babylon as was used by Montgomery (who says he received a copy of the manuscript from a private collection I believe).

So you have a chart written by a Dr Sinclair during the 2nd World War, and an alternative history book drawing from apocryphal Gnostic sources?
That isn't nearly enough to sway me to the opinion that the Sinclairs are descendents of Jesus, I'm afraid.

Shawn Sinclair
5/12/2013 02:33:45 pm

Doubt all you like, but you still haven't shown why it can't be possible, and if the lineage charts are correct, it would indeed prove a Germanic connection to the Sinclairs progy ( which it has and that to the Merovingians) Hey Jason ft, do you actually think the
" gospels" are historically accurate, let me guess...your a fundy and because you are, still believe in the bible and that Jesus was a man? Jason said..." there is no real way to connect this back to Jesus since there is no record of his marriage to anyone, no record of any offspring, nor any confirmation of whom those alleged offspring married. " I just gave you a lineage chart and quote from a 5th cent text which clearly shows otherwise, sorry.:( Ignore it if you like churchy, I listed the source which proves at least a source, what ? We should all look at the bible as a "real" document? As if. But I love this part..." there is no real way to connect this back to Jesus since there is no record of his marriage to anyone"...omg what a hack churchy, yes Jason we should all believe in the bible according to you, and perhaps he never liked women either or thought of them in a sexual way....what a f..kin joke, let me ask you something, do you think of women in that way?

Reply
Jason Colavito link
5/12/2013 02:41:01 pm

Well that descended into insult fairly fast. I assure you I am as far from a Biblical fundamentalist as you might find; however, a fifth century text is no evidence for what happened five centuries earlier. You find the Gospels inaccurate but are willing to credit a text written 400 years after the Gospels? None of the roughly contemporary sources mentioning Jesus, like Tacitus and Josephus, make any mention of a wife or child, so all we have is hearsay crossed with myth.

Reply
Shawn Sinclair
5/12/2013 03:00:16 pm

Its funny that you mention Suetonius considering the fact that he was the one who wrote that " Chrestus" was alive in Rome in the year AD 45, and was responsible for stirring the Jews and being " removed " from Rome. Interesting.

Shawn Sinclair
5/12/2013 03:48:46 pm

Jason said...." I am as far from a Biblical fundamentalist as you might find; however, a fifth century text is no evidence for what happened five centuries earlier." This is even better than I expected, the text isn't a "fifth century" text at all, but rather one copied from the first.:)

Shawn Sinclair
5/12/2013 03:52:35 pm

Still doesn't answer my question as to ", do you think of women in that way?" :)

Joe
5/12/2013 02:42:39 pm

Shawn,

Is it really necessary to go into attack mode right away? You are siting a source that was from the 5th century. Almost 500 years after the time of Christ. Is this in any way considered an accurate lineage of a family let alone an individual person. Ask your family member Steve about how hard it is to get accurate information from the 1500's and they had more accurate record keeping at that time compared to the 1st and 2nd century AD. Since when did Jason ever state he believed the Bible, and if he did how would that fit this argument. He clearly states that there is no record of Jesus's marriage, however he did not reference the bible in that statement. He is stating their is no record in Roman, City of Jersuleum or and other record to state he married anyone and fathered any children. Jason is not stating it is not possible but without any record we can not assume it happened and if it did happen we can not determine the fate of his offspring.

Reply
Shawn Sinclair
5/12/2013 03:15:54 pm

" Attack mode", no, just merely doing what I do. I think Jason is a big boy and can answer for himself, unless you disagree with that also?

Reply
Joe
5/12/2013 03:26:03 pm

Shawn,

I am more then sure that Jason can answer for himself. I just find your respond childish and unwarrented. We are having a fine conversation and then you turn to name calling and making ridiculous insults.

I am sure Jason is used to it since this his is sight and he does not censor anyone despite their ignorant rants.

I am just wondering why someone would in general turn the argument into insults. In my previous experience only people who have nothing to say go to that behavior. I try my best to not stoop to that argument. But besides your 5th century reference, the same reference that everyone who uses the Sinclair bloodline go to. What other argument do you have? Your one source is unreliable at best and a straight forgery at worst.

Reply
Shawn Sinclair
5/12/2013 03:44:47 pm

So stop answering for him. I really could care less what you think. Fuck off and have a nice day doing it.

Reply
Joe
5/12/2013 03:48:36 pm

Wow,

You are either a 13 year old boy or have the maturity of a 13 year old. Either way you come off as sad a pathetic.

The more you comment the more it becomes apparent no one should care what you think.

Shawn Sinclair
5/12/2013 03:56:07 pm

Wow, that hurts man,but how does it feel being fucked with? Not good? hmmmm....

Reply
Joe
5/12/2013 04:14:10 pm

Feels fine, I am waiting for your strong argument concerning Sinclairs and the "Holy Bloodline"

Thank you for correcting my line, you are correct I meant to sad AND pathetic. Either way I would appreciate a sensible conversation. If you have more to add that goes along with our discussion I look forward to it.

Reply
Shawn Sinclair
5/12/2013 04:10:30 pm

Either way learn how to spell ....Joe said..." Either way you come off as sad a pathetic." "A pathetic"? Who's 13 or can you spell thirteen?

Reply
Keith
5/12/2013 04:31:01 pm

Wise words from the Holy God-king his Lordship Shawn of Sinclair

Reply
Christopher Randolph
5/12/2013 05:30:18 pm

Apparently having holy and royal blood makes people aggressive, thin-skinned, unable to respond to simple questions with simple answers and unable to construct or follow a logic chain.

Byron DeLear
5/12/2013 04:20:28 pm

Don't feed the troll.

Reply
Shawn Sinclair
5/12/2013 04:46:04 pm

Now there's a thirteen year old's response to " big boy " questions. Hardy fuckin har har.

Reply
Keith
5/12/2013 05:21:53 pm

You're making the rest of the Sinclair Grail Kings look bad, Shawn. If you keep this up you wont get any land or a title when they reclaim America.

Shawn Sinclair
5/13/2013 09:42:49 pm

" Troll" Really Byron? Why not tuck your rag in the proper hole which would be your mouth. Chris you said..."Apparently having holy and royal blood makes people aggressive," You have no idea how "aggresive" my blood is so refer to the comment above and do the same. I never said anything in regards to my blood being " holy" or royal", you did.

Reply
Christopher Randolph
5/14/2013 03:37:42 am

Perhaps instead of looking for links to Jesus in your charts and DNA you'd help the family better by applying the same techniques to mental illness.

Steve St Clair link
5/13/2013 03:27:03 pm

Hi Joe,

An earlier comment by you - "But the biggest issue I see is with the first two points in your 2nd hypothesis, association with the Templars and a Holy Bloodline. How exactly are you able to prove or disprove either case with your current research methods."

The Templars were started about 1120. This time period is within the period of written records, especially among the Norman people. They were meticulous records keepers. Where land transfers or benefactions to religious houses were concerned, they wrote it down. A vast number of these original sources survive to this day in Normandy, England, and Scotland.

I haven't devoted much to holy bloodline research. The possibility of Templar connections has been more interesting to me over the past several years. And, to answer one of your questions, there is a way my current research methods allow me to look for connections between families who were associated with the Templar order. I won't reveal that here, but more research will soon be put on my website regarding this work.

If you want a hint of this, see the video at the bottom of my home page -
http://www.StClairResearch.com

Also, you commented - "You have seemed to comment on all of these in how much you are able to verify or not based on your research. "

Thanks for noticing that. I guess Christopher missed that. Or perhaps he's genetically unable to phrase a complement.

You commented - "Also as you have stated proving with DNA would be even less plausible. So the real question is why include them in your hypothesis at all."

I don't recall writing "proving with DNA would be even less plausible." If I did, I'll have to alter that. The best way to phrase it would be that it will add more empirical evidence to the discussions that our family researchers are having.

What I'm not comfortable with (and have never written) is that we can prove that we Sinclairs / St Clairs were a critical part of the highest ranks of the Templar Order, the level that might have had knowledge of some great secret that would rock the Catholic Church, as Dan Brown fans want to believe. My research isn't focused on the mythical Templars but, rather, the real members of the Templar Order in Normandy, England, and Scotland. There are written records of land grants to them, members, and trial records.

Keep in mind, I distinguish a hypothesis from a claim. That may be the issue some in your group have with my Hypothesis 2.

"A hypothesis attempts to answer questions by putting forth a plausible explanation that has yet to be rigorously tested. [...] The scientist will attempt to poke holes in his or her hypothesis.

Source - Gauch, Hugh G., "Scientific Method in Practice" Cambridge University Press, 2003 ISBN 0 521 01708 4

(I used a reliable source, Crabby, just to annoy you)

Keep in mind, there is research you and this group don't know about. And I have no intention of guiding you to it or bringing it for your review, even after it's published on my website. Nothing personal. Typically, I don't expect the academics among you would invite a botanist to critique your work in an entirely different field.

You commented - "It is less then encouraging to take your research and opinion seriously when you keep directing people to your site to see your views and research and then watch you disagree with your own hypothesis."

I'm done trying to explain it to this group.

"You were taken to a potential site in Nova Scotia on a TV productions dime with some people actually exploring the idea of a Sinclair arriving in North America prior to Columbus and you very little if any actual archeological work there. I would think if you were serious about exploring the subject you would spend more then one day at a site. Unless you do not think that this is realistic theory either. "

This has already been well trod above. Done explaining it, Joe.

Your last paragraph from a comment above - "It also could be damaging for others to take your initial research seriously."

I'd rephrase that "SOME others to take your initial research seriously." That's fine with me. As Crabby said, I have 'no background in serious history,' […] and 'no background in serious science.' For that reason, serious academics, like those who attacked Helge Ingstad, should completely ignore what I do.

However, they should not read my website and grossly misrepresent my work. When they do, I will show up to defend what I'm doing.

Reply
Christopher Randolph
5/13/2013 08:19:53 pm

"Keep in mind, I distinguish a hypothesis from a claim."

It's evident you don't.

"The Templars were started about 1120. This time period is within the period of written records,"

Technically true, yes. We've been in the time period of "written records" for thousands of years now - what of it?

"Keep in mind, there is research you and this group don't know about. And I have no intention of guiding you to it or bringing it for your review, even after it's published on my website."

Do you also have a hot girlfriend "in Canada" who can't make it to the prom? Is the check in the mail? Did the dog eat your homework?

It remains abundantly clear that you present us nothing because have nothing. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

"Typically, I don't expect the academics among you would invite a botanist to critique your work in an entirely different field."

I'm not a botanist and never claimed to be, I was in a (human) pre-med program academically and worked for money in bio lab that worked with plants and fungi. Perhaps if you had some formal education in this area you might understand that there are some general biological principles which don't make this any great stretch. There isn't for example one organic chemistry that's valid just for plants and another for people.

You remind me unfortunately of my personal internet troll who dropped out of the 10th grade, and regularly "informs" me that my academic and professional area is not the proper one to know anything about her bizarre (and wholly unsupported) personal view on the political status of part of Europe. Apparently large numbers of Americans believe that one can best chart specialties of academic pursuit by avoiding formal education, and that the closer one is to a field the less one knows about it.

Your claim that I was "brought in" (by whom?! why?! how?! with what funds?!) by anyone to critique you is comic paranoia. If anyone were really going to embarrass you better than you do yourself they'd ("we'd?") "bring in" some historians, archeologists and theologians.

" For that reason, serious academics, like those who attacked Helge Ingstad..."

You've already been told about this, so we know that this is now more of your dishonesty as opposed to pure ignorance. Ingstad's wife was a university-trained archeologist who worked with him on the project from the beginning. Immediately in 1961 a team of university archeologists from universities in 5 countries excavated the site for 7 years.

The claim that academics were on the outside of L'Anse-aux-Meadows looking in, and that a scrappy unlettered adventurer showed them all up, goes beyond your usual unfounded speculation and right into an area in which - how else to put it? - you're lying.

Reply
Steve St Clair link
5/14/2013 01:45:26 pm

Wow, Crabby. Check your blood pressure. I can see the veins popping out of your head.

I commented (to Joe) - "Typically, I don't expect the academics among you would invite a botanist to critique your work in an entirely different field."



You ranted - "I'm not a botanist and never claimed to be, I was in a (human) pre-med program academically and worked for money in bio lab that worked with plants and fungi."

Then, just down a little further, you ranted - "Your claim that I was "brought in" (by whom?! why?! how?! with what funds?!) by anyone to critique you is comic paranoia."

Wow, who's the paranoid here? I wasn't talking about you when I said I wouldn't invite a botanist to critique work in an entirely different field. I don't know what you do for a living. Amazing. Should we also add narcissistic to your resume?

I posted - "For that reason, serious academics, like those who attacked Helge Ingstad..."



You ranted - "You've already been told about this,.."

Thanks for your opinion. I've also been 'told' about it by others. I tend not to trust academics of your particular flavor in this case.

Do the group a favor and tell more of the story of Ingstad, Crabby. It's not quite as nice and tidy as you've portrayed. The academics who slammed him weren't the heroes here, as you've tried to paint them, were they Crabby? Perhaps you can start with the abuse he receive for exploring a particular saga while the academics "believed" another one.

Crabby ranted - "It remains abundantly clear that you present us nothing because have nothing. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain."

Thanks for your opinion, Crabby. I present you nothing except my public website. 52 pages should be enough for a DNA expert such as yourself to chew on and crab about for a year or two.

Actually, I'm making claims in the video I pointed the more reasonable readers to. You could rip into that one, Crabby. But, then, you're not really equipped to do that, are you?

Christopher Randolph
5/14/2013 03:09:35 pm

There aren't any veins popping out of my head. There are just lies that pop out of your mouth.

You have no proof of anything that you claim to be searching for and you know it.

Steve St Clair
5/14/2013 03:51:13 pm

Thanks for your opinion, Crabby.

Steve St Clair
5/14/2013 03:55:38 pm

My request to Crabby from above, which went unanswered. Seems I'm not the only one who can be accused of ducking questions - "Do the group a favor and tell more of the story of Ingstad, Crabby. It's not quite as nice and tidy as you've portrayed. The academics who slammed him weren't the heroes here, as you've tried to paint them, were they Crabby? Perhaps you can start with the abuse he receive for exploring a particular saga while the academics "believed" another one."

By not telling us more about the story of the saga debate between Ingstad and the academics, you are leading the readers here to believe that I'm right, Crabby.

Christopher Randolph
5/15/2013 12:29:16 am

Well, no, actually you have no specific question there and you remain the only person in the thread who dodged questions.

The nature of your complaint is that the entire academic world doesn't begin on the same side of every hypothesis. This is too dim to address.

You've had the basics of the issue explained to you, twice. You continue to pursue a fantasy that "academics" - all of them - were on one side of L'Anse-aux-Meadows and spunky untrained believers such as yourself were on the other, and this isn't true. You continue to refuse to accept the fact that immediately upon receiving new information about a real Viking site (one found with the aid of at least one university-trained archeologist) that the academic community immediately invested time and energy into investigation, took in the new valid data and rewrote history accordingly.

You can't accept this because it exposes your lie that academics are suppressing diffusionist claims out of habit.

Joe
5/13/2013 04:25:18 pm

Steve,

Thank you for responding to my post. I am sorry that you did not respond to all questions. I was not trying to argue with you or ridicule your work. I asked those questions based on your site compared to your responses.

I understand that it might be repetitive for you since it appears that you have replied on several different posts. But when you put out an alternative hypothesis, appear on TV shows and participate in blog conversations you should expect skeptisim and doubting.

Reading the post I think it is unecessary to attack someone for their ideas and research and understand it can be frustrating when it happens. But to ignore or refuse to discuss general questions about your hypothesis is only going to bring more questions or comments.

I am not a scientist nor a professional academic, but any scientist or researcher should expect scrutiny in their work. And that scrutiny would be double for any one that explores alternative or unpopular theories.

Also you state:

"Keep in mind, there is research you and this group don't know about. And I have no intention of guiding you to it or bringing it for your review, even after it's published on my website. Nothing personal. Typically, I don't expect the academics among you would invite a botanist to critique your work in an entirely different field"

This is quite a disappointing view in my opinion, not that you would really care on my opinion.

However any serious scientific research product should be able to have their work and conclusions for open review. By denying the ability of others to review your work you again would put doubt into your conclusions. Unless you do not have the intention of releasing your work as any type of scientific or academic work but for just general consumption.

I can see the advantage of doing so with the public interests in topics of Templar lore and alternative history.

Again I do appreciate the response and understand that it can be difficult for a person in your position. I was just hoping for realistic conversation concerning your work and any evidence you have about the Sinclair family.

Reply
Steve St Clair
5/13/2013 05:20:07 pm

Joe, you posted - "any serious scientific research product should be able to have their work and conclusions for open review. By denying the ability of others to review your work you again would put doubt into your conclusions."

The work will be published on my website. Those who want to go there to review it are welcome to do so.

Reply
Joe
5/14/2013 11:31:03 am

So just to clarify, you will publish your completed work on your website with all research methods and sources for review?

If so I look forward into reading it.

Steve St Clair link
5/14/2013 02:01:43 pm

Yes, Joe. It will be published on my website when ready.

Yes, all research methods and source material will be in line at the bottom of the page.

bob
8/22/2013 07:39:05 pm

just read this thread - most of steve st. clairs responses read like clinton saying ' that depends on what the meaning of the word is....is'...

what a damn sleazy full of shit wease....l being from the royal bloodline and all

Reply
Steve St Clair
9/3/2013 04:18:44 pm

Thanks for your opinion, Bob.

Reply
piero sinclair
8/23/2013 06:22:19 am

I haven't read through all these posts, it would take too long. Just want to point out that in that program Steve St Clair is repeatedly described as a relative of Prince Henry Sinclair, and is introduced as his descendant. When actually asked, he said he was a distant relative.
Steve' haplotype is very far from of the Roslin Sinclairs and his genealogy doesn't go back anywhere near that far. He is a distant cousin only in the sense that we are all distant cousins of the nematode worm.


Reply
Steve St. Clair
9/3/2013 04:21:49 pm

DNA SNP matches, Piero. DNA SNP matches. Nothing else matters. You can grope at the de Dreux family all you want. Show us the SNP matches.

Reply
piero sinclair
9/3/2013 10:22:02 pm

I repeat,you are not a match to the Sinclairs of Roslin. The evidence that the distinctive Sinclair subset of Z346* is from Roslin is overwhelming as you well know. The fact that most members of this group have not tested for Z346 is not a get-out clause. If you had read the R1b-U106 forum diligently you'd know the that these Sinclairs have STR markers which always predict Z346*.

Steve St Clair
9/9/2013 02:50:20 pm

I have no idea why you would say something so useless... ah, I forgot. You're useless. That's why.

My genealogical connections, my SNP, and their known history are where they have been for at least 6 years. On the website I maintain for St. Clair Research -
http://www.stclairresearch.com/content/groupingsVa.html

There is not now, nor has there ever been any secret or conspiracy about that you knucklehead.

H Nicholes
10/7/2013 07:13:13 am

As an outside observer who happened on this site via Google it is fairly apparent that those who post under the surname Sinclair and St Clair are not capable of honest discourse. Both quickly and repeatedly resort to name calling and avoid directly answering legitimate questions posed to them. This makes one wonder if they really have any support for their case at all. I think the discourse is more easily followed by skipping past their postings all together. It's really a shame...

Shawn Sinclair
10/7/2013 09:22:11 pm

I quite agree Piero but to address H Nicholes
" it is fairly apparent that those who post under the surname Sinclair and St Clair are not capable of honest discourse. "

I disagree wholesale, we in this coarse of genetic genealogy have made mistakes yes, but to render the lot " not capable" is pretentious and not a comment of serious note, for we can render more information than most will or can understand, when dealing with this issue of Sinclair/St.clair history rather than outsiders, hence why we're here. Please clarify " those" and state names, we are all grown-ups here.
Best,
Shawn Sinclair

Reply
Shawn Sinclair
10/8/2013 10:00:24 am

"I have no idea why you would say something so useless... ah, I forgot. You're useless. That's why."
No Steve it isn't " useless" its accurate. "There is not now, nor has there ever been any secret or conspiracy about that you knucklehead."
I don't believe Piero said anything about a " conspiracy", but only stated facts about the Roslin Sinclairs being 346*. Lets lay off the name calling, it really doesn't get us further ahead does it? If your mad about him stating your not a match to the Roslin/Caithness Sinclairs genetically than just so your not and move forward, its simple. L21 is not U106 yes? Lets move forward than shall we.

Reply
Steve StC
2/13/2016 10:08:53 pm

Shawn "Sinclair" writes of the "the Roslin Sinclairs being 346* " That is not proven, Shawn and you are not the one to carry on a conversation about what is proven in the Sinclair / St. Clair DNA study. You have spent years obfuscating the truth about your connection to our family. By the way, name calling is precisely what is called for here.

Reply
Gloria Aughenbaugh link
11/24/2013 06:34:15 am

I have recently began searching the St. Clairs of Herdmanstoun and the Sinclairs. The St. Clairs were descended form the Norwegians.
Then I read that the Sinclairs came from France with William in 1066.
I have used Burke's and Cracroft's work and am totally confused. I have Mary St. Clair of Herdmanstoun who married 1557 David Makgill. I am descended from James Ross one of Cromwell's deported prisoners. Thank you.

Reply
zarpell
5/15/2014 01:15:00 am

Thank you for your excellent and thorogh evaluation of this disgraceful trend in Television. As a Freemason from Nova Scotia, I was initially intrigued by the show's content. Upon watching a few of the episodes, including this episode, it became increasingly clear that Mr. Wolter's work is worthy of tabloid publication at best. It is so unfortunate that our culture is so willing to embrace this approach to entertainment as fact, when the theories and conclusions presented are one step away from complete fiction. Actually, much of it is complete fiction. Thank you for your time. I wish you the greatest success in your efforts to open the eyes of the general public.

Reply
Marc Powers
3/15/2015 12:02:52 am

Agree with your comments on trend in this type of television but do find that as long as you don't take everything as gospel and are prepared to research claims etc, the factual elements of such items outweigh the 30 minutes or so spent watching them.

Reply
The Frenchman link
10/29/2014 03:23:55 pm

When Jacques Cartier, on his second voyage in 1535 to what is now the province of Quebec, when visiting the inlet of what is now called the Saguenay river, he was told by the two sons of the native chief, Donnacona, that there was a kingdom that existed of blond haired white men in the place they called Saguenay. These white men bore valuable jewels and possessed great material wealth.
It is said that the name Saguenay comes from the Iroquois word “Saki nip” meaning “where water flows out”, yet there is no hard proof of the origin of the name, while most native names for areas in North America have solid proof as to their origins. It is possible that the name Saguenay was not native in origin, but rather a variation of the name provided by the white people they were speaking of. The words “Sa Gagne” translates “it won”, or “did win”. In a poem by Wolfram von Eschenbach in the year 1210, when he corrects the original author of the grail story, Chretien of Troyes, he uses the words “Did win” to describe obtaining the grail. Sa Gagne and Saguenay are almost identical in pronunciation.
If these people of Saguenay did in fact exist at some point in time, one would think that they would be of Viking heritage, but if so, why did they leave no trace of their existence behind them? The only explanation would be that they did not want future settlers to know they had been there and were perhaps living there as fugitives.
No proof of mining by pre-Columbian European settlers exists in the region, so if they did in fact exist, where did all their gold and silver treasures, which Donnacona spoke of, come from?
Donnacona, with such a high position of leader of the Stradacona, was not likely to be insane or making this story up. The story would have been passed on through oral tradition. It is difficult to believe a story about people with real European characteristics could have been invented considering the people of the area would have had no exposure to white people otherwise, and it would have been just as likely that they would have claimed that they were blue or green, had they been making the story up.
Since Viking settlements in North America in pre-Columbian times were left there, rather than covered up, it is doubtful that these were Vikings and more likely to be people living in somewhat secrecy, such as fugitives.
Donnacona was taken to France, where he shared tales of the “Golden Kingdom of Saguenay”” with the King of France, and continued to profess of its once existence until he died of scurvy 1539.
Due to unusually cold temperatures of 1307, when the Templars are suspected to have set sail with treasures from the port of La Rochelle, the Templars would have likely taken the Canary Current southward (this would be the same time that numerous visits by European sailors began to be made to the Canary Islands) and continued along the North Equatorial Current towards North America. They then likely followed the Gulf Stream up the coast of North America where they finally entered the St. Lawrence inlet where the Labrador Current intersects with the Gulf Stream, making it very difficult to travel further north.
While in what is now the Quebec region of Saguenay, they may have hidden the treasure to keep it away from the Europeans who had knowledge of it, at which time they were witnessed by the local natives of the area. They likely did not stay long enough to build permanent lodgings, and likely did not want to leave a trace of their visit there, in order to secure the safety of the hidden treasure.
The Templars were then likely to continue along the what becomes the North Atlantic Current from the Gulf Stream towards the U.K., specifically Scotland. In the Rosslyn Chapel of the Templar family of Sinclair, there are depictions of fauna which would only be found in North America, such as Aloe and Maize, which is likely evidence that the Templars had indeed visited North America, since the carvings are pre-Columbian in date.
Curiously enough, the late Billionaire Paul Desmarais, who was born in Sudbury, Ontario and for the most part, built his business out of Montreal, purchased a large parcel of land and built his famous estate close to the entrance of the Saguenay River in the area of Sagard, Quebec (I encourage you to look it up on the internet... it has the appearance of a royal French palace). The surname of Desmarais comes from the royal bloodline of Baldwin I of Jerusalem, who’s family (DesMarets which later became Desmarais) ruled Jerusalem during the occupation of the crusades. I can only speculate that Mr. Desmarais chose this location due to its beauty and seclusion, but perhaps there exists a connection that we are unaware of. Paul Desmarais was highly, and I mean HIGHLY influential in both Canadian and global politics (aside from being close to all Canadian prime ministers, he was a very clo

Reply
Lynn Hemeon link
12/16/2014 05:09:43 am

Can anyone explain this?

Reply

Your comment will be posted after it is approved.


Leave a Reply.

    Blog
    Picture

    Author

    I am an author and researcher focusing on pop culture, science, and history. Bylines: New Republic, Esquire, Slate, etc. There's more about me in the About Jason tab.

    Become a Patron!
    Tweets by JasonColavito
    Picture

    Newsletters

    Enter your email below to subscribe to my newsletter for updates on my latest projects, blog posts, and activities, and subscribe to Culture & Curiosities, my Substack newsletter.

    Categories

    All
    Alternative Archaeology
    Alternative Archaeology
    Alternative History
    Alternative History
    America Unearthed
    Ancient Aliens
    Ancient Astronauts
    Ancient History
    Ancient Texts
    Ancient Texts
    Archaeology
    Atlantis
    Conspiracies
    Giants
    Habsburgs
    Horror
    King Arthur
    Knights Templar
    Lovecraft
    Mythology
    Occult
    Popular Culture
    Popular Culture
    Projects
    Pyramids
    Racism
    Science
    Skepticism
    Ufos
    Weird Old Art
    Weird Things
    White Nationalism

    Terms & Conditions

    Please read all applicable terms and conditions before posting a comment on this blog. Posting a comment constitutes your agreement to abide by the terms and conditions linked herein.

    Archives

    June 2025
    May 2025
    April 2025
    March 2025
    February 2025
    January 2025
    December 2024
    November 2024
    October 2024
    September 2024
    August 2024
    July 2024
    June 2024
    May 2024
    April 2024
    March 2024
    February 2024
    January 2024
    December 2023
    November 2023
    October 2023
    September 2023
    August 2023
    July 2023
    June 2023
    May 2023
    April 2023
    March 2023
    February 2023
    January 2023
    December 2022
    November 2022
    October 2022
    September 2022
    August 2022
    July 2022
    June 2022
    May 2022
    April 2022
    March 2022
    February 2022
    January 2022
    December 2021
    November 2021
    October 2021
    September 2021
    August 2021
    July 2021
    June 2021
    May 2021
    April 2021
    March 2021
    February 2021
    January 2021
    December 2020
    November 2020
    October 2020
    September 2020
    August 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    January 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    June 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    February 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    February 2014
    January 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    October 2013
    September 2013
    August 2013
    July 2013
    June 2013
    May 2013
    April 2013
    March 2013
    February 2013
    January 2013
    December 2012
    November 2012
    October 2012
    September 2012
    August 2012
    July 2012
    June 2012
    May 2012
    April 2012
    March 2012
    February 2012
    January 2012
    December 2011
    November 2011
    October 2011
    September 2011
    August 2011
    July 2011
    June 2011
    May 2011
    April 2011
    March 2011
    February 2011
    January 2011
    December 2010
    November 2010
    October 2010
    September 2010
    August 2010
    July 2010
    June 2010
    May 2010
    April 2010
    March 2010
    February 2010

    RSS Feed

Picture
Home  |  Blog  |  Books  | Contact  |  About Jason | Terms & Conditions
© 2010-2025 Jason Colavito. All rights reserved.

  • Home
  • Blog
  • Books
    • Jimmy: The Secret Life of James Dean >
      • Jimmy Excerpt
      • Jimmy in the Media
      • James Dean's Scrapbook
      • James Dean's Love Letters
      • The Amazing James Dean Hoax!
      • James Dean, The Human Ashtray
      • James Dean and Marlon Brando
      • The Curse of James Dean's Porsche
    • Legends of the Pyramids
    • The Mound Builder Myth
    • Jason and the Argonauts
    • Cult of Alien Gods >
      • Contents
      • Excerpt
      • Image Gallery
    • Foundations of Atlantis
    • Knowing Fear >
      • Contents
      • Excerpt
      • Image Gallery
    • Hideous Bit of Morbidity >
      • Contents
      • Excerpt
      • Image Gallery
    • Cthulhu in World Mythology >
      • Excerpt
      • Image Gallery
      • Necronomicon Fragments
      • Oral Histories
    • Fiction >
      • Short Stories
      • Free Fiction
    • JasonColavito.com Books >
      • Faking History
      • Unearthing the Truth
      • Critical Companion to Ancient Aliens
      • Studies in Ancient Astronautics (Series) >
        • Theosophy on Ancient Astronauts
        • Pyramidiots!
        • Edison's Conquest of Mars
      • Fiction Anthologies >
        • Unseen Horror >
          • Contents
          • Excerpt
        • Moon Men! >
          • Contents
      • The Orphic Argonautica >
        • Contents
        • Excerpt
      • The Faust Book >
        • Contents
        • Excerpt
      • Classic Reprints
      • eBook Minis
    • Free eBooks >
      • Origin of the Space Gods
      • Ancient Atom Bombs
      • Golden Fleeced
      • Ancient America
      • Horror & Science
  • Articles
    • Newsletter >
      • Volumes 1-10 Archive >
        • Volume 1 Archive
        • Volume 2 Archive
        • Volume 3 Archive
        • Volume 4 Archive
        • Volume 5 Archive
        • Volume 6 Archive
        • Volume 7 Archive
        • Volume 8 Archive
        • Volume 9 Archive
        • Volume 10 Archive
      • Volumes 11-20 Archive >
        • Volume 11 Archive
        • Volume 12 Archive
        • Volume 13 Archive
        • Volume 14 Archive
        • Volume 15 Archive
        • Volume 16 Archive
        • Volume 17 Archive
        • Volume 18 Archive
        • Volume 19 Archive
        • Volume 20 Archive
      • Volumes 21-30 Archive >
        • Volume 21 Archive
        • Volume 22 Archive
        • Volume 23 Archive
        • Volume 24 Archive
        • Volume 25 Archive
        • Volume 26 Archive
    • Television Reviews >
      • Ancient Aliens Reviews
      • In Search of Aliens Reviews
      • America Unearthed
      • Pirate Treasure of the Knights Templar
      • Search for the Lost Giants
      • Forbidden History Reviews
      • Expedition Unknown Reviews
      • Legends of the Lost
      • Unexplained + Unexplored
      • Rob Riggle: Global Investigator
      • Ancient Apocalypse
    • Book Reviews
    • Galleries >
      • Bad Archaeology
      • Ancient Civilizations >
        • Ancient Egypt
        • Ancient Greece
        • Ancient Near East
        • Ancient Americas
      • Supernatural History
      • Book Image Galleries
    • Videos
    • Collection: Ancient Alien Fraud >
      • Chariots of the Gods at 50
      • Secret History of Ancient Astronauts
      • Of Atlantis and Aliens
      • Aliens and Ancient Texts
      • Profiles in Ancient Astronautics >
        • Erich von Däniken
        • Robert Temple
        • Giorgio Tsoukalos
        • David Childress
      • Blunders in the Sky
      • The Case of the False Quotes
      • Alternative Authors' Quote Fraud
      • David Childress & the Aliens
      • Faking Ancient Art in Uzbekistan
      • Intimations of Persecution
      • Zecharia Sitchin's World
      • Jesus' Alien Ancestors?
      • Extraterrestrial Evolution?
    • Collection: Skeptic Magazine >
      • America Before Review
      • Native American Discovery of Europe
      • Interview: Scott Sigler
      • Golden Fleeced
      • Oh the Horror
      • Discovery of America
      • Supernatural Television
      • Review of Civilization One
      • Who Lost the Middle Ages
      • Charioteer of the Gods
    • Collection: Ancient History >
      • Prehistoric Nuclear War
      • The China Syndrome
      • Atlantis, Mu, and the Maya
      • Easter Island Exposed
      • Who Built the Sphinx?
      • Who Built the Great Pyramid?
      • Archaeological Cover Up?
    • Collection: The Lovecraft Legacy >
      • Pauwels, Bergier, and Lovecraft
      • Lovecraft in Bergier
      • Lovecraft and Scientology
    • Collection: UFOs >
      • Alien Abduction at the Outer Limits
      • Aliens and Anal Probes
      • Ultra-Terrestrials and UFOs
      • Rebels, Queers, and Aliens
    • Scholomance: The Devil's School
    • Prehistory of Chupacabra
    • The Templars, the Holy Grail, & Henry Sinclair
    • Magicians of the Gods Review
    • The Curse of the Pharaohs
    • The Antediluvian Pyramid Myth
    • Whitewashing American Prehistory
    • James Dean's Cursed Porsche
  • The Library
    • Ancient Mysteries >
      • Ancient Texts >
        • Mesopotamian Texts >
          • Eridu Genesis
          • Atrahasis Epic
          • Epic of Gilgamesh
          • Kutha Creation Legend
          • Babylonian Creation Myth
          • Descent of Ishtar
          • Resurrection of Marduk
          • Berossus
          • Comparison of Antediluvian Histories
        • Egyptian Texts >
          • The Shipwrecked Sailor
          • Dream Stela of Thutmose IV
          • The Papyrus of Ani
          • Classical Accounts of the Pyramids
          • Inventory Stela
          • Manetho
          • Eratosthenes' King List
          • The Story of Setna
          • Leon of Pella
          • Diodorus on Egyptian History
          • On Isis and Osiris
          • Famine Stela
          • Old Egyptian Chronicle
          • The Book of Sothis
          • Horapollo
          • Al-Maqrizi's King List
        • Teshub and the Dragon
        • Hermetica >
          • The Three Hermeses
          • Kore Kosmou
          • Corpus Hermeticum
          • The Asclepius
          • The Emerald Tablet
          • Hermetic Fragments
          • Prologue to the Kyranides
          • The Secret of Creation
          • Ancient Alphabets Explained
          • Prologue to Ibn Umayl's Silvery Water
          • Book of the 24 Philosophers
          • Aurora of the Philosophers
        • Hesiod's Theogony
        • Periplus of Hanno
        • Zoroastrian Fatal Winter
        • Ctesias' Indica
        • Sanchuniathon
        • Sima Qian
        • Syncellus's Enoch Fragments
        • The Book of Enoch
        • Slavonic Enoch
        • Sepher Yetzirah
        • Fragments of Artapanus
        • Tacitus' Germania
        • De Dea Syria
        • Aelian's Various Histories
        • Julius Africanus' Chronography
        • Fragments of Bruttius
        • Eusebius' Chronicle
        • Chinese Accounts of Rome
        • Ancient Chinese Automaton
        • The Orphic Argonautica
        • Fragments of Panodorus
        • Annianus on the Watchers
        • The Watchers and Antediluvian Wisdom
      • Medieval Texts >
        • Medieval Legends of Ancient Egypt >
          • Medieval Pyramid Lore
          • John Malalas on Ancient Egypt
          • Fragments of Abenephius
          • Akhbar al-zaman
          • Ibrahim ibn Wasif Shah
          • Murtada ibn al-‘Afif
          • Al-Maqrizi on the Pyramids
          • Al-Suyuti on the Pyramids
        • The Hunt for Noah's Ark
        • Byzantine World Chronicle
        • Isidore of Seville
        • Book of Liang: Fusang
        • Chronicle to 724
        • Agobard on Magonia
        • Pseudo-Diocles Fragmentum
        • Book of Thousands
        • Voyage of Saint Brendan
        • Power of Art and of Nature
        • Travels of Sir John Mandeville
        • Yazidi Revelation and Black Book
        • Al-Biruni on the Great Flood
        • Voyage of the Zeno Brothers
        • The Kensington Runestone (Hoax)
        • Islamic Discovery of America
        • Popol Vuh
        • The Aztec Creation Myth
      • Lost Civilizations >
        • Atlantis >
          • Plato's Atlantis Dialogues >
            • Timaeus
            • Critias
          • Fragments on Atlantis
          • Panchaea: The Other Atlantis
          • Eumalos on Atlantis (Hoax)
          • Gómara on Atlantis
          • Atlantis as Biblical History
          • Sardinia and Atlantis
          • Atlantis and Nimrod
          • Santorini and Atlantis
          • The Mound Builders and Atlantis
          • Donnelly's Atlantis
          • Atlantis in Morocco
          • Atlantis and Hanno's Periplus
          • Atlantis and the Sea Peoples
          • W. Scott-Elliot >
            • The Story of Atlantis
            • The Lost Lemuria
          • The Lost Atlantis
          • Atlantis in Africa
          • How I Found Atlantis (Hoax)
          • Termier on Atlantis
          • The Critias and Minoan Crete
          • Rebuttal to Termier
          • Further Responses to Termier
          • Flinders Petrie on Atlantis
          • Amazing New Light (Hoax)
        • Lost Cities >
          • Miscellaneous Lost Cities
          • The Seven Cities
          • The Lost City of Paititi
          • Manuscript 512
          • The Idolatrous City of Iximaya (Hoax)
          • The 1885 Moberly Lost City Hoax
          • The Elephants of Paredon (Hoax)
        • OOPARTs
        • Oronteus Finaeus Antarctica Map
        • Caucasians in Panama
        • Jefferson's Excavation
        • Fictitious Discoveries in America
        • Against Diffusionism
        • Tunnels Under Peru
        • The Parahyba Inscription (Hoax)
        • Mound Builders
        • Gunung Padang
        • Tales of Enchanted Islands
        • The 1907 Ancient World Map Hoax
        • The 1909 Grand Canyon Hoax
        • The Interglacial Period
        • Solving Oak Island
      • Religious Conspiracies >
        • Pantera, Father of Jesus?
        • Toledot Yeshu
        • Peter of les Vaux-de-Cernay on Cathars
        • Testimony of Jean de Châlons
        • Rosslyn Chapel and the 'Prentice's Pillar
        • The Many Wives of Jesus
        • Templar Infiltration of Labor
        • Louis Martin & the Holy Bloodline
        • The Life of St. Issa (Hoax)
        • On the Person of Jesus Christ
      • Giants in the Earth >
        • Fossil Origins of Myths >
          • Fossil Teeth and Bones of Elephants
          • Fossil Elephants
          • Fossil Bones of Teutobochus
          • Fossil Mammoths and Giants
          • Giants' Bones Dug Out of the Earth
          • Fossils and the Supernatural
          • Fossils, Myth, and Pseudo-History
          • Man During the Stone Age
          • Fossil Bones and Giants
          • Mastodon, Mammoth, and Man
          • American Elephant Myths
          • The Mammoth and the Flood
          • Fossils and Myth
          • Fossil Origin of the Cyclops
          • History of Paleontology
        • Fragments on Giants
        • Manichaean Book of Giants
        • Geoffrey on British Giants
        • Alfonso X's Hermetic History of Giants
        • Boccaccio and the Fossil 'Giant'
        • Book of Howth
        • Purchas His Pilgrimage
        • Edmond Temple's 1827 Giant Investigation
        • The Giants of Sardinia
        • Giants and the Sons of God
        • The Magnetism of Evil
        • Tertiary Giants
        • Smithsonian Giant Reports
        • Early American Giants
        • The Giant of Coahuila
        • Jewish Encyclopedia on Giants
        • Index of Giants
        • Newspaper Accounts of Giants
        • Lanier's A Book of Giants
      • Science and History >
        • Halley on Noah's Comet
        • The Newport Tower
        • Iron: The Stone from Heaven
        • Ararat and the Ark
        • Pyramid Facts and Fancies
        • Argonauts before Homer
        • The Deluge
        • Crown Prince Rudolf on the Pyramids
        • Old Mythology in New Apparel
        • Blavatsky on Dinosaurs
        • Teddy Roosevelt on Bigfoot
        • Devil Worship in France
        • Maspero's Review of Akhbar al-zaman
        • Arabic Names of Egyptian Kings
        • The Holy Grail as Lucifer's Crown Jewel
        • The Mutinous Sea
        • The Rock Wall of Rockwall
        • Fabulous Zoology
        • The Origins of Talos
        • Mexican Mythology
        • Chinese Pyramids
        • Maqrizi's Names of the Pharaohs
      • Extreme History >
        • Roman Empire Hoax
        • America Known to the Ancients
        • American Antiquities
        • American Cataclysms
        • England, the Remnant of Judah
        • Historical Chronology of the Mexicans
        • Maspero on the Predynastic Sphinx
        • Vestiges of the Mayas
        • Ragnarok: The Age of Fire and Gravel
        • Origins of the Egyptian People
        • The Secret Doctrine >
          • Volume 1: Cosmogenesis
          • Volume 2: Anthropogenesis
        • Phoenicians in America
        • The Electric Ark
        • Traces of European Influence
        • Prince Henry Sinclair
        • Pyramid Prophecies
        • Templars of Ancient Mexico
        • Chronology and the "Riddle of the Sphinx"
        • The Faith of Ancient Egypt
        • Remarkable Discoveries Within the Sphinx (Hoax)
        • Spirit of the Hour in Archaeology
        • Book of the Damned
        • Great Pyramid As Noah's Ark
        • The Shaver Mystery >
          • Lovecraft and the Deros
          • Richard Shaver's Proofs
    • Alien Encounters >
      • US Government Ancient Astronaut Files >
        • Fortean Society and Columbus
        • Inquiry into Shaver and Palmer
        • The Skyfort Document
        • Whirling Wheels
        • Denver Ancient Astronaut Lecture
        • Soviet Search for Lemuria
        • Visitors from Outer Space
        • Unidentified Flying Objects (Abstract)
        • "Flying Saucers"? They're a Myth
        • UFO Hypothesis Survival Questions
        • Air Force Academy UFO Textbook
        • The Condon Report on Ancient Astronauts
        • Atlantis Discovery Telegrams
        • Ancient Astronaut Society Telegram
        • Noah's Ark Cables
        • The Von Daniken Letter
        • CIA Psychic Probe of Ancient Mars
        • CIA Search for the Ark of the Covenant
        • Scott Wolter Lawsuit
        • UFOs in Ancient China
        • CIA Report on Noah's Ark
        • CIA Noah's Ark Memos
        • Congressional Ancient Aliens Testimony
        • Ancient Astronaut and Nibiru Email
        • Congressional Ancient Mars Hearing
        • House UFO Hearing
      • Ancient Extraterrestrials >
        • Premodern UFO Sightings
        • The Moon Hoax
        • Inhabitants of Other Planets
        • The Fall of the Sky
        • Blavatsky on Ancient Astronauts
        • The Stanzas of Dzyan (Hoax)
        • Aerolites and Religion
        • What Is Theosophy?
        • Plane of Ether
        • The Adepts from Venus
      • A Message from Mars
      • Saucer Mystery Solved?
      • Orville Wright on UFOs
      • Interdimensional Flying Saucers
      • Poltergeist UFOs
      • Flying Saucers Are Real
      • Report on UFOs
    • The Supernatural >
      • The Devils of Loudun
      • Sublime and Beautiful
      • Voltaire on Vampires
      • Demonology and Witchcraft
      • Thaumaturgia
      • Bulgarian Vampires
      • Religion and Evolution
      • Transylvanian Superstitions
      • Defining a Zombie
      • Dread of the Supernatural
      • Vampires
      • Werewolves and Vampires and Ghouls
      • Science and Fairy Stories
      • The Cursed Car
    • Classic Fiction >
      • Lucian's True History
      • Some Words with a Mummy
      • The Coming Race
      • King Solomon's Mines
      • An Inhabitant of Carcosa
      • The Xipéhuz
      • Lot No. 249
      • The Novel of the Black Seal
      • The Island of Doctor Moreau
      • Pharaoh's Curse
      • Edison's Conquest of Mars
      • The Lost Continent
      • Count Magnus
      • The Mysterious Stranger
      • The Wendigo
      • Sredni Vashtar
      • The Lost World
      • The Red One
      • H. P. Lovecraft >
        • Dagon
        • The Call of Cthulhu
        • History of the Necronomicon
        • At the Mountains of Madness
        • Lovecraft's Library in 1932
      • The Skeptical Poltergeist
      • The Corpse on the Grating
      • The Second Satellite
      • Queen of the Black Coast
      • A Martian Odyssey
    • Classic Genre Movies
    • Miscellaneous Documents >
      • The Balloon-Hoax
      • A Problem in Greek Ethics
      • The Migration of Symbols
      • The Gospel of Intensity
      • De Profundis
      • The Life and Death of Crown Prince Rudolf
      • The Bathtub Hoax
      • Crown Prince Rudolf's Letters
      • Position of Viking Women
      • Employment of Homosexuals
    • Free Classic Pseudohistory eBooks
  • About Jason
    • Biography
    • Jason in the Media
    • Contact Jason
    • About JasonColavito.com
    • Terms and Conditions
  • Search