The story of Atlantis has been well-studied, and the development of the myth is well-known. But I found an interesting sidelight that ties claims for Atlantis in with some of alternative history’s other weird ideas, thanks to John Dee, Renaissance occultist extraordinaire. Our story begins in 1552, when the Spanish historian Francisco López de Gómara makes an audacious claim. Noting that the Aztecs frequently use the syllable atl in their words, he proposes that Mexico and the Caribbean are the lost continent of Atlantis. But there is now no cause why we should any longer doubt or dispute of the Island Atlantide, forasmuch as the discovering and conquest of the west Indies do plainly declare what Plato hath written of the said lands. In Mexico also at this day they call that water Atl, by the half name of Atlantis, as by a word remaining of the name of the Island that is not. We may likewise say that the Indies are either the island and firm land of Plato or the remnant of the same: and not the Islands of Hesperides or Ophir, or Tarshish, as some have thought of late days. I have published Gómara’s statement about Atlantis in full here and have provided extensive explanatory notes about his references. Of particular interest is the claim that others identified Atlantis with the Biblical Tarshish. This Renaissance-era speculation still exists today, advocated as recently as 2011, when Richard Freund appeared in a National Geographic documentary to claim that Plato’s Atlantis was proof that the Bible was literally true. But today I’m more interested in the idea that Gómara thought Atlantis was America. Gómara was writing in the Historia general de las Indias, a highly influential account of the Spanish conquest of the New World, and one that caught the attention of Richard Eden, an alchemist and translator sponsored by the Earl of Northumberland, a dedicated opponent of the Spanish empire. Eden included selections from Gómara on Atlantis as an appendix to his 1555 translation of Peter Martyr d’Anghiera’s Decades (1530). His translation is the one I have adapted above. Two decades later, John Dee was also in the business of promoting English empire-building at the expense of Spain, and he tried to directly rebut Gómara. In an unpublished 1576 manuscript (discussed by Robert Barone here), Dee relocated Atlantis from the Spanish-controlled Caribbean to the north, where British interests lay: The Lord Madoc, sonne of Owen Gwyndd prince of North Wales, leaving his brothers in contention, and warre for their inheritance sought, by sea (westerlie from Irland), for some forein, and—Region to plant hymselfe in with soveranity: wth Region when he had found, he returned to Wales againe and hym selfe wth Shipps, vituals, and men and women sufficient for the coloniy, wth spedely he leed into the peninsula; then named Farquara; but of late Florida or into some of the Provinces, and territories neere ther abouts: and in Apalchen, Mocosa, or Norombera: then of these 4 beinge notable portions of the ancient Atlantis, no longer—nowe named America. “Apalchen” is the Appalachian mountains, and “Norombera” is Norumbega, the fictional advanced civilization of pre-Contact New England.
Dee, a Welshman, relates this new Atlantis to Madoc, the Welsh prince who sketchy legends vaguely told had sailed westward from Wales in the Middle Ages. By the 1570s, there seems to have been an oral tradition that Madoc’s westward land was America, backed up by traveler’s tales that the indecipherable languages of Native Americans were corrupt Welsh. In Dee’s hands, Madoc became the centerpiece for Tudor claims to control all of America; for, if the Welsh had colonized North America around 1170, they had prior claim before that upstart and knave, Columbus, and his perfidious Spanish benefactors. The Tudors had finished the incorporation of Wales into England, and the Welsh thought of them as a “Welsh” dynasty. Dee passed the story on to George Peckham in 1582, and he published it in A True Reporte Of the late discoveries and possession taken in the right of the Crowne of Englande, of Newfound Landes (1583), the first printed claim that Madoc had reached America. This, in turn, gave rise to the myth of the Welsh Indians, which Lewis and Clark’s men believed, and which some alternative historians still advocate down to the present day. Peckham, in turn, was working with Sir Humphrey Gilbert to build an empire in America. Gilbert obtained a royal charter for vast tracts of North America and died trying to found a colony in Newfoundland. His claim passed to his half-brother, Sir Walter Raleigh, who sponsored the ill-fated Roanoke Colony in an attempt to keep the royal charter from expiring. Dee, too, received a charter for vast territories, but no evidence exists that anything ever came of it—claims for the Newport Tower notwithstanding. Thus ended the great Atlantis-Madoc empire-building mission. The claim that Madoc reached America fell into abeyance under the Stuarts, who, hailing from Scotland, had no interest in promoting Welsh ideas. Not until the Welsh cultural revival of the 1780s and 1790s did the Madoc story reemerge, in time to influence Americans in their westward expansion—a useful propaganda tool for the Americans, as heirs to British claims south of the Canadian border as per the 1783 Treaty of Paris—to use to promote claims to the Louisiana Territory. Interestingly, wherever the Welsh Indians were sought, they were always just beyond the horizon. The “Welsh” Indians first thought to live near the east coast disappeared when sought, and the claim shifted to the Appalachians. When not found there, they were then thought to be up the Missouri. After searching there, reports placed them somewhere in the Plains or the Rockies—anywhere just beyond reach, a phantasm of the imperial imagination.
79 Comments
Gunn Sinclair
3/24/2013 07:22:35 am
"...they were then thought to be up the Missouri."
Reply
3/24/2013 07:26:45 am
Seriously? Even the Victorians recognized that the Mandan claims were nothing but hot air. The Mandans had been in constant contact with Canadians and French since the early 1700s by the time American explorers started claiming these "untouched" Natives were white. The Welsh explorer John Evans concluded that they were not Welsh--in the 1790s!--because they were (a) not white enough and (b) didn't speak Welsh.
Reply
Gunn Sinclair
3/24/2013 07:36:45 am
Please read the book I referenced earlier. The Mandans became extinct. Also, I claimed in an earlier post that I believe they were of Scandinavian DNA, not Welsh, as seems to be indicated by the numbers showing white traits of blond hair and blue eyes, and also indicated by the presence of many Scandinavian-type stoneholes and other evidences (without provenance) throughout the region. 3/24/2013 07:39:28 am
They aren't extinct. You can visit them online: http://www.mhanation.com/
Gunn Sinclair
3/24/2013 07:51:35 am
Okay, the last full-blooded Mandan became extinct, then.
Reply
3/24/2013 07:54:17 am
They did, but they didn't think the Mandan were white; in fact, their color did not impress them in the least. They expedition actually thought the Flatheads were the only whitish "European" tribe they encountered, because their language was so confusing they mistook it for Welsh. It wasn't Welsh either.
Reply
Mary T.
1/28/2018 12:28:33 am
I realize that this is an older discussion. I have an acquaintance, James Scott, who shared his authenticated discovery on his Facebook account. Somewhere in the wilds of Kentucky he found a stone statue of an obvious Viking (Welsh) dressed man. He posted a photo of the statue, and where he made newspaper headlines with his pre-Columbus find.
Reply
John King
2/3/2024 01:40:18 am
Hi Mr. Sinclair. Chief Ross - Ross line Orkney. Chief Vann = Veaux .Veaux and Sinclair out of towns right outside of Orkney went together and share DNA to Orkney. Chief McIntosh i suspect the same. The you had the Mic Maqs with Henry Sinclair...Prince Madoc goes back to the Arthur Legend and Queen of Orkney was Morgan.. and all the Arthurian battles in Edinburg ect,, very neat tale
Reply
Gunn Sinclair
3/24/2013 08:02:41 am
Don't be so selective, Jason. If you do a bit of research, you'll find other references describing the Mandans much differently than you just did. To me, they are evidence of early European blood-mixing. The Scandinavians are much lighter in eye color and hair color--in general--than the French.
Reply
3/24/2013 08:09:45 am
I'm not being selective. The "White" Mandan reference comes from George Caitlin, a Pennsylvania artist, in 1832. Against him you have John Evans, Lewis and Clark, a dozen Canadian fur traders, David Thompson, Henry Breckenridge, Prince Maximilian, Rudolph Kurz, and more who all visited the Mandan prior to 1851 and NOT A SINGLE ONE other than Caitlin felt that they were especially white.
Reply
The Other J.
3/24/2013 02:48:27 pm
Something has been bothering me about this White Indian argument and the insistence for or against some kind of European influence.
Reply
3/24/2013 03:59:23 pm
Black hair and red hair come from the same pigment. In times of famine, black hair will turn red. To oversimplify, hair color comes from more than one gene. For black and red hair, one gene specifies that pigment and another specifies how much. Good and bad food years are more than enough to explain why some travelers report red or fair-haired Indians and Eskimos and others don't and why none are seen today. The tribes aren't extinct, it's just that true famine is extinct in North America.
The Other J.
3/24/2013 07:17:06 pm
Right on about the mammoths -- I'd forgotten about that.
Gunn Sinclair
3/24/2013 08:15:31 am
1738, La Verendrye: "The women are fairly good looking, especially the light colored ones, many of them have blond or fair hair."
Reply
3/24/2013 08:20:08 am
That differs not a lick from the descriptions of other tribes, including the Crow, that were graded on a color scale. Native Americans are not all the same shade--then or now.
Reply
L Bean
3/25/2013 04:22:57 pm
Again, evolution is the likely explanation, given the accounts of similar instances in other tribes, and indeed throughout the history of global native peoples.....just trying to counter teh cray.
L Bean
3/25/2013 04:53:50 pm
Sorry, don't know why that last reply ended up here
L Bean
3/25/2013 07:39:59 am
I'm ignorant of the where the vectors of the early French fur trade would lie on a timeline. Is La Verendrye considered to be the first European to have contact with the Mandan, based solely on his claims of such? If the Mandan were known to have history or connections further east, or even if not; all it takes is one white wanderer 50 years or so earlier, and you'd have a bunch of light or fair Mandans. The fur trade had been going on long enough before that. Some pretty serious exploratory expeditions and the like a la the 'gold rush', must have been going on pretty much continously no? Small bands of (independent)undocumented explorers, included.
Reply
3/25/2013 07:50:49 am
La Verendrye is the first recorded European visitor to the Mandan in 1738/9, and they were in more or less constant contact with French fur traders thereafter.
The Other J.
3/25/2013 10:55:23 am
French trappers/fur traders were working their way into Wisconsin as early as 1650. I'm not sure of all the points of entry -- coming in from Canada in the north or up the Mississippi, but I'd guess the latter. Following the Mississippi and its tributaries and connecting rivers, a person could canoe pretty much all over the Midwest to much of the land west of the Appalachians.
L Bean
3/25/2013 04:18:17 pm
Well I know the general history, but might it not be possible that Mandans came in contact with other traders, previously? It's not like they'd necessarily TELL that La Verendrye chap about it, lol. Especially if it were contact of the 'shameful' variety.
Gunn Sinclair
3/24/2013 08:22:40 am
We'll have to agree that it's a mystery. I'm just speculating based on what I've discovered, personally, so far. There are a lot of weird things that appear both medieval and Scandinavian up here, which cannot be very well explained away. There looks like a pattern. I'm going to visit a site in SD in a few weeks, hopefully. Anyway, it's fun up here, trying to make sense of all this! Peace, Brother.
Reply
Matt Mc
3/25/2013 07:44:37 am
I think the correct way to put it would be "we will have to agree that I [Gunn] thinks its a mystery.
Reply
Gunn Sinclair
3/25/2013 11:26:07 am
Jason, thanks for the acknowledgement and clarification about La Verendrye. Now we can probe a bit further, if you don't mind. We know there were several villages of Mandans, according to reports. I don't know the numbers, but I think we can guess there were at least several hundred or a few thousand individuals represented.
Reply
3/25/2013 02:54:11 pm
All of that is contingent upon the Native Americans being partially Caucasian, when the best that can be said is that some were lighter in skin tone than others. Given that the Spanish found the same thing in South America, the evidence indicates that prior to contact Native Americans had a much more varied genome and the population today represents only a fraction of the diversity that existed before genocide and disease.
Sean
3/24/2013 12:54:24 pm
Does anyone else find the complete denial of actual evidence and subsequent insertion and advocacy for the existence of Welsh (or Scandinavian) Indians in the modern age just as racist as it's ever been?
Reply
Gunn Sinclair
3/24/2013 02:42:41 pm
Looking for truth where it can be found is not racist. Following perceived evidence is not racist in and of itself. Apparently, some people can make the judgement of who is doing what and why. I have not been able to figure out how to do that, and I wouldn't want to be guilty of misjudging another person's motives or heart.
Reply
Christopher Randolph
4/2/2013 05:46:09 am
Well said all the way around, Sean.
Reply
The Other J.
3/24/2013 07:34:04 pm
I'm guessing Gómara didn't consider that Atlantis may have derived from Atlantic, which refers to the ocean west of the Atlas Mountains, and is linked back to the Greek Titan. Which makes sense, considering the dude who first wrote about Atlantis was a Greek. What are the odds that a Greek philosopher would use a word derived from a land and culture he's never actually experienced as opposed to a word that sounds pretty dang similar to multiple words in his own tongue? And it's not like a combination of a vowel and two consonants is automatically specific to one language. Or does the Norse name Atli also come from the Mesoamerican Atlantis?
Reply
B L
3/25/2013 05:13:52 am
"Racism"?! C'mon! I haven't seen any in this thread. Jason has touched on this subject before. Could a person be racially motivated to find a white European connection to pre-Columbus America? Sure. Do I think the respondents to Jason's blog have showed such a motivation? No way! Coming up with a hypothesis about the Mandans based on what one has read doesn't make one a racist. Although, not taking the time to dig deeper, and maybe ask a Mandan descendant might make one lazy it certainly doesn't confirm the leap to "racism". It becomes very interesting to imagine that one's own ancestors may have accomplished a lot more than what conventional history suggests. What's wrong with looking into such things? Later, after further research is compiled and weighted, then Gunn's opinions might change. If, however, knowledge is ignored, myth is accepted, and action is taken based on the myth to subjugate a specific group of people, then holla "racism" all you want. If Gunn Sinclair's comments up to this point could be considered racist then things like affirmative action, Black History Month, and even Columbus Day would be racist too. Just by throwing out the term "racism" all the time for every little thing we marginalize the term and turn it in to a punch line.
Reply
Sean
3/25/2013 07:02:40 am
You're right. Jason has touched on this before elsewhere on the blog, on this post and in the comment thread back and forth with "Gunn". As Jason has and does point out over and again there isn't any evidence supporting this myth. In fact, as Jason has noted, if you trace back the history of the myth it brings with it an enormous amount of evidence of when and how the whole thing was made up.
Reply
B L
3/25/2013 08:17:05 am
I'm at odds with you here, Sean. Based on what I've read in this thread I don't think Gunn Sinclair is ignoring evidence. He seems like he's taking in most of what is being said. Instead, I think he believes he is privy to some information that the rest of are not taking into account (the stone holes he's seen first hand). I think he's wrong, but he will eventually figure that out for himself. He's trying to reconcile this information with what is known, and to do that he's asking questions. Based on what I've read on this thread you will not convince me that Gunn Sinclair is a racist. As far as robbing a culture of its history and sense of self...I don't see it here. There is absolutely nothing wrong with asking questions. Sean, you seem like a very intelligent person. Knowledge is a journey. I'm sure you will agree that a person's point of view will change as more information becomes available. I have no doubt that Gunn Sinclair has not reached the end of his knowledge journey on this subject. Let's wait until he has before we label him a racist. I highly doubt you have never questioned the establishment on anything.
Sean
3/25/2013 08:51:21 am
I appreciate your viewpoint but it seems pretty clear we have seen what he has and yet he would still have us believe in this myth as history despite all evidence to the contrary. Belief and evidence aren't the same thing.
B L
3/25/2013 09:43:14 am
I'm going to put myself at your mercy here (don't tear me apart too viciously, Sean). I don't consider myself a diffusionist, but I am kind of curious about these stone holes or "mooring" holes as some have called them.
Christopher Randolph
4/2/2013 05:57:18 am
Should there not be a great deal of genuine Viking artifacts strewn across the country if this were true? Should there not be a large number of runestones discovered and not one if it were indeed commonplace for Vikings to leave those lying about?
T.
3/25/2013 07:10:57 am
"The Native Americans were savage towards one another, too, before and after the white man showed up."
Reply
John R
3/25/2013 07:16:47 am
Well if there were any Welsh Indians, the Iroquois turned them into Welsh Rarebit long before the Jesuits could come along and tell them no no no.
Reply
T.
3/25/2013 08:54:35 am
Ha! Well played!
Reply
Gunn Sinclair
3/25/2013 10:11:48 am
Everyone knows the expression, "Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder."
Reply
T.
3/25/2013 12:34:51 pm
"As a Christian, I know what a racist is, and I can assure everyone that I'm not a racist."
Reply
Gunn Sinclair
3/25/2013 03:03:00 pm
T, you have no idea because of your shallowness. I will speak the truth here. Why Not? You are the proverbial stone-thrower, or in modern times, cyber-bully. You have a very strange way of extrapolating.
T.
3/25/2013 05:18:26 pm
You're wife is Asian therefore you love Native Americans!? Does your wife know that even though she's Asian you consider her Native American?
Christopher Randolph
4/2/2013 06:00:19 am
"I contend that "Evidence is in the eyes of the beholder," too."
Reply
J.J.
3/25/2013 11:29:52 pm
just a comment on the stone holes: I have researched them since 1998. The carving of the drinking horn is on private property formally on the land my Dad lived on, one mile from where I live today. I started out as a 'true believer' in the work Marion Dahm did and he called them 'mooringstones'. My views have evolved and changed over the years. All the holed stones can not be put in one basket. Yes, research needs to be done on them- that takes money. Glacial granite eratics have a make up of many minerals. It takes a certain time for each to weather. Some hold water in the hole, some don't- that could be a key as to why some look so old. Since there are so many pro and con stories out there- this information is interesting but not something one would use to be an 'end all' to the discussion. The use of science, we hope, will go farther to tell the story of the holed stones.
Reply
Gunn Sinclair
3/26/2013 03:52:35 am
T, you are a master of twisting things around...as I said, your method of extrapolation is wanting. You try to make it look like people say things they aren't saying, which is at least unwholesome. Your personality is not worth commenting on further.
Reply
Gunn Sinclair
3/26/2013 04:05:22 am
Jason, you started this with your description of the very real blond-haired Mandans as a "phantasm of the imperial imagination."
Reply
3/26/2013 04:08:48 am
I didn't stir anything up, Gunn. The "Welsh" Indians were a product of the imperial imagination. Whether there were some Native Americans who were lighter in skin tone or hair color has nothing to do with the fact that, whatever else they were, they were not Welsh.
Gunn Sinclair
3/26/2013 04:31:26 am
How can you be any more sure about the "Welsh" Indians than you were about the Mandans? You still seem to be questioning whether or not there were some Native Americans who were lighter in skin tone or hair color.
Reply
3/26/2013 04:54:48 am
You're the one reading "white" for "Welsh."
Reply
Gunn Sinclair
3/26/2013 05:03:49 am
Okay, what the heck. Do you have OCD, too? You don't want to believe La Verendrye's eyewitness accounting of "many" with blond hair, plus other reports? I think I've gone about as far as I can with you on this one, but that's okay...it had to end sometime! Thanks for sticking with it for so long. 3/26/2013 05:20:30 am
Verendrye actually described the Mandans as "half black and half white." Do you also believe that they had African ancestors? What else could "black" mean, by your logic? It's fairly clear that he meant that they had lighter and darker skin tones, as noted by later travelers, who found it entirely within the range of other tribes. Verendrye also claimed that only the women had European physiognomy, while the men looked like Indians. There's a fine one for you.
The Other J.
3/26/2013 08:42:24 am
Something that's missing in this weird "white Indian" debate is one of the reasons Europeans wondered if Native Americans weren't related to the Welsh: rather than blond Indians with light skin, it was because so many Welsh were so dark. Same with the black Irish. It's not as common today with the more cosmopolitan lifestyle in the Celtic hinterland, but some phenotypical characteristics that marked some Celts as different from the English and continental Europeans was black hair and more olive-toned skin, and it can still be seen today. (I've even seen Gaelic-speaking black Irish be mistaken for foreigners by other Irish.)
Reply
Gunn Sinclair
3/26/2013 06:14:12 am
I just read on page 65 of the aforementioned Sheheke book that La Verendrye was told that the Mandan were a very numerous and prosperous people.
Reply
3/26/2013 06:18:54 am
There you have it: You want to take "white" as literal and "black" as figurative based on your own notion of what "makes sense" to you. You don't get to pick and choose.
Reply
Gunn Sinclair
3/26/2013 06:24:42 am
Yes, we do get to pick and choose, Jason. It's called speculation, which we both were doing. There is nothing inherently wrong with taking white as literal (actually, mixed) and black as figurative, as an expression of another person's vocabulary back in time. You are trying to set the rules for speculation. We get to pick and choose.
The Other J.
3/26/2013 08:55:20 am
Gunn, I mentioned this above, but you didn't respond.
Reply
Gunn Sinclair
3/26/2013 09:32:50 am
The Other J, I don't discount the possibilities you bring up. But I don't want folks to discount the possibility of the Mandans deriving from Scandinavians, either. Both of our speculations are fine as long as they are somewhat based on science or logic.
Gunn Sinclair
3/26/2013 09:16:16 am
No, Jason, it doesn't quite say it all yet.
Reply
3/26/2013 09:22:15 am
Please see The Other J.'s comments about blond hair, genetics, and the dark complexion of the Welsh.
Reply
Gunn Sinclair
3/26/2013 09:34:44 am
The Other J, I don't discount the possibilities you bring up. But I don't want folks to discount the possibility of the Mandans deriving from Scandinavians, either. Both of our speculations are fine as long as they are somewhat based on science or logic.
Gunn Sinclair
3/26/2013 09:45:04 am
I hope my comments to The Other J cleared this confusion up for you, Jason. Some shades of dark aren't by variation, but by description in one's mind. I do not reserve the lightest shade for Caucasian race-mixing. Where did you pull that out? 3/26/2013 09:50:08 am
I didn't accuse you of racism, Gunn. But what conclusion am I to draw from the fact that you happily ascribed all of the darker shades of brown to natural variation but claim that lighter shades are due to Caucasian contact? This implies that you have in mind a particular shade of brown as the baseline (natural) shade of Native Americans, below which is natural variation but above which is race-mixing. In reality, though, people of all races come in a variety of shades, in rather fine gradation.
Matt Mc
3/26/2013 09:26:25 am
Being open minded as you state is not dismissing Black but accepting White.
Reply
Gunn Sinclair
3/26/2013 10:00:45 am
I guess we should probably stop, Jason. Earlier, I said it was possible that slaves escaped and went to 1700's North Dakota, causing a natural variation of darkness, and I also said it is possible that evolution created lighter people, so your conclusions are wrong, based on faulty input. Where is the "whitey" thing coming from?
Reply
Gunn Sinclair
3/26/2013 10:15:35 am
"In reality, though, people of all races come in a variety of shades, in rather fine gradation."
Reply
3/26/2013 10:37:12 am
You are the one making racial a claim I was critiquing on logic and evidence. I have never used the word "whitey."
Reply
Gunn Sinclair
3/26/2013 12:07:30 pm
No, Jason, and I didn't specifically say you did. I'm just asking where it's coming from. It seems to be coming from you and a few others who have visited the blog and made cyber-personal-attacks. You are more subtle:
Reply
3/26/2013 12:55:04 pm
I don't think there's anything subtle about calling out a Christian extremist for using racial language ("the white guys") in terms of what he sees as a battle between civilization and savagery.
Reply
Gunn Sinclair
3/26/2013 04:02:00 pm
It always comes back to "demonstrable proof," as it should; meanwhile we speculate. We differ on what demonstrable proof is, as we can see in our own comments. I went on at length way above somewhere showing how people evaluate "proofs" differently. Evidence is one thing to one person, something else to another, which is why we have jury trials.
Reply
Matt Mc
3/27/2013 02:19:36 am
Belief is a strong thing. I fully support and recognize the value of a given individuals belief system be they Jewish, Christian, Islamic, Buddhist, ect.. But when it comes to history or science a researcher should be able to set those beliefs aside and look objectively and non biased at the given subject. That can be a challenge but objectivity should be more important to find out the answers, by bringing a belief system into the equation bais is automatically applied. Many great historians and scientist have been able to separate personal religious beliefs into there explorations and because of that we gained some great knowledge.
Reply
Sean
3/27/2013 03:06:58 am
It seems inevitable that you will return to this blog and enter some other conversation so there are some things in your approach and methodology that, if you want make a proper argument, you need to realize and/or change.
Reply
The Other J.
3/27/2013 10:10:19 am
"'Proof' requires multiple pieces of verifiable evidence that can be independently evaluated and confirmed and THEN is interpreted into a narrative that reflects the evidence."
Sean
3/27/2013 11:44:26 am
"You're right about that, but therein also lies the problem -- the evaluation."
The Other J.
3/27/2013 12:44:52 pm
Sean, a good example of what you're describing might be this:
Sean
3/27/2013 01:53:47 pm
That's an example of people who are trained in science but then doing paranormal research anyway. That kind of thing seems to happen a lot so not really sure what you're point is. Otherwise there wouldn't be shows like 'Finding Bigfoot' or 'America Unearthed'. Sometimes people go crazy. No matter what they've done previously once that break with reality occurs their reputation is worthless.
The Other J.
3/28/2013 08:37:40 am
"That's an example of people who are trained in science but then doing paranormal research anyway. That kind of thing seems to happen a lot so not really sure what you're point is."
L Bean
3/27/2013 05:36:47 pm
projecting...anti-white sentiment on this blog.
Reply
1/18/2021 09:43:43 pm
Being relatively new to this blog I am just backreading tp earlier posts. Dee did in fact attempt to create a picture of a greater "British Empire" (his neologism) that could take in most of North America upwards from the Spanish Florida claims. And, yes, like Raleigh he had designs for his own settlement project in the New World (he did get a river named after himself, even if his settlement failed).
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
|