Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: Secret Mark

Expand Messages
  • Jim West
    ... All of the above! ;-0 But when you get there will you please also find the Ark of the Covenant and the Red Heifer.... please. ... The only ms there is is
    Message 1 of 37 , Nov 17, 1998
      At 09:16 AM 11/18/98 +0100, you wrote:

      >Jim West is simply to lazy, indifferent or completely out of money to go to
      >Jerusalem and look for himself. :-)

      All of the above! ;-0

      But when you get there will you please also find the Ark of the Covenant and
      the Red Heifer.... please.

      >
      >Any news on the manuscript and C. Hedrick is highly appreciated. Mahlon?

      The only ms there is is a transcription by Smith. NO ONE has ever seen the
      so called original, except Morton (r.i.p.). He probably had it buried with
      him so that the search will necessitate the exhumation of his body.

      It is, honestly, as great a waste of time to speculate about this silly
      bugaboo as it is to speculate about how many angels can dance on the head of
      a pin- though I suppose that the modern Schoolmen (and women) must have
      something to do!

      >
      >Best wishes
      > Wieland

      To you as well,

      Jim

      ++++++++++++++++++++++
      jwest@...
    • Philip B. Lewis
      Jack Kilmon s speculation today about the motives of the Patriarchate for squirreling away the famous Clenetine letter prompt me to add another consideration
      Message 37 of 37 , Dec 10, 1998
        Jack Kilmon's speculation today about the motives of the Patriarchate for
        "squirreling away" the famous Clenetine letter prompt me to add another
        consideration to the ms interest,

        First, I have no doubt that M. Smith discovered a real document. And I
        would not question the judgment of those who had seen the PHOTOGRAPHS Smith
        provided, that the letter was authentically Clement's. That said:

        Has anyone done a study of the photographic film/plates used? Was it
        orthochromatic or panchromatic? How was it developed? In what solution?
        What lens/camera was used? What FILTRATION was used to make the record?
        From the photos of the document in my 1st edn _Secret Gospel_ the details
        are NOT that clear. It is clear that natural light was used for taking the
        photos. Anyone who has done any photocopying knows that filters HAD to be
        used to distinguish letters in a 200 year old volume. Note that the book
        print itself is quite legible; the copied pages leave something to be desired.

        This has nothing to do with Smith's integrity; I have never doubted it. It
        raises questions of how much of the bracketing [] Smith provided "to make
        the meaning clear" was necessary because of image-lacunae which can occur
        when copying is inexpertly done.

        Anyone able to provide the verification of the photographing process?

        -phil@...
        + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
        "History is the phenomenon living people invent
        and create to establish who they are
        based on what they think they were in the past."
        -- Linda Schele
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.