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. 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.
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.
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
5/5/2013 11:53:01 am
America Unearthed is the gift that keeps on giving to you Jason.
Reply
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.
Reply
Pamela
5/7/2013 03:11:01 pm
Ahhhh!!! Something hit me on the head, the sky has to be falling!!!
Reply
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
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.
Reply
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? 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,
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. 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.
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..."
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?
Reply
5/6/2013 09:03:41 am
I'm not even sure how to begin answering this.
Christopher Randolph
5/6/2013 09:28:28 am
"I'm not even sure how to begin answering this." 5/5/2013 01:01:49 pm
One further point - "all rampant lions [...] almost always in Continental rather than Scottish heraldry"
Reply
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
5/5/2013 01:11:38 pm
Two further statements, then I'm going to stop picking your posting to pieces.
Reply
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.
Reply
5/6/2013 02:10:04 am
Just one more -
Reply
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
5/6/2013 04:45:20 am
Hi Jason, 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
5/6/2013 09:56:06 am
Christopher Randolph, if you don't like my answers, I have an idea - stop reading them.
Reply
Christopher Randolph
5/6/2013 10:28:44 am
"if you don't like my answers, I have an idea - stop reading them."
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."
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."
Reply
Steve St Clair
5/6/2013 12:17:04 pm
"Do you think you're a grail-keeper of some sort" 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!
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.
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
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."
Reply
Steve St Clair
5/6/2013 03:39:57 pm
In my rush, I made typos -
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."
Reply
5/6/2013 04:26:09 pm
First things first -
Christopher Randolph
5/6/2013 04:55:45 pm
Talk about burying the lead! 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
5/6/2013 05:21:39 pm
Christopher Randolph
Reply
Steve St Clair
5/6/2013 05:32:25 pm
Just to clarify a point you squirmed out of -
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."
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?)"
Reply
5/7/2013 01:16:33 am
First, let's review - Your answer to a direct question was not very direct.
Reply
Christopher Randolph
5/7/2013 03:26:37 am
Steve -
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" 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 -
Reply
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.
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. 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. 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." 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.
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." 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." 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. 5/7/2013 01:05:30 pm
LOL !!
Christopher Randolph
5/7/2013 01:05:32 pm
The two options there are: 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 Randolph
5/7/2013 01:31:48 pm
Steve - 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. 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."
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.
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."
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.
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."
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.
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.
Steve St Clair
5/8/2013 03:59:41 am
Oh, I forgot two more important ones -
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.
Christopher Randolph
5/7/2013 03:49:15 am
This is what Steve wrote on this thread:
Reply
5/8/2013 06:27:11 am
Steve says, of Christopher: "You're part of a generally nasty bunch of rude assholes."
Reply
Christopher Randolph
5/8/2013 07:11:45 am
Gunn -
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
5/8/2013 02:15:27 pm
Thanks for your notes and advice Pamela and Gunn.
Reply
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. 5/9/2013 02:25:49 pm
For a little clarity on the dynamics of internet flame-wars---which this one was a doosey!
Reply
Keith
5/11/2013 12:01:12 am
Steve;
Reply
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."
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.
Steve St Clair
5/11/2013 02:01:26 pm
Keith, 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.
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.
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?"
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:
Reply
Steve St Clair
5/11/2013 03:57:29 pm
Reply
Keith
5/11/2013 04:23:49 pm
Yes, perfect, lovely.
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."
BillUSA
1/11/2014 02:31:58 pm
Steve
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 -
Reply
Keith
5/11/2013 04:28:13 pm
No.
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.
Christopher Randolph
5/11/2013 05:40:21 pm
Steve -
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."
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.
Reply
Christopher Randolph
5/11/2013 06:30:54 pm
You're leaving out a few things in your narrative.
Reply
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.
Keith
5/12/2013 06:28:05 am
I continued to use "believe" as it was a word which fitted the purpose.
Reply
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? 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. 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?"
Reply
5/13/2013 05:08:09 pm
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!
Tara Jordan
5/12/2013 10:58:19 am
Shawn Sinclair.
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.
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.
Joe
5/12/2013 11:21:40 am
Steve,
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. 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).
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
Reply
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,
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,
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,
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"
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. 5/13/2013 03:27:03 pm
Hi Joe,
Reply
Christopher Randolph
5/13/2013 08:19:53 pm
"Keep in mind, I distinguish a hypothesis from a claim."
Reply
5/14/2013 01:45:26 pm
Wow, Crabby. Check your blood pressure. I can see the veins popping out of your head.
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.
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."
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.
Joe
5/13/2013 04:25:18 pm
Steve,
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."
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? 5/14/2013 02:01:43 pm
Yes, Joe. It will be published on my website when ready.
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'...
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.
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.
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
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."
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
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.
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
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.
Reply
Your comment will be posted after it is approved.
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorI 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. 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
Terms & ConditionsPlease 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
September 2024
|