During the day, as I discharge my caretaking duties, I try to catch the investigative shows on the History Channel. Most of them find shreds of tantalizing evidence, but nothing conclusive. There are lots of disappointments and dead-ends, and just enough "finds" to keep them--and the viewer--interested. The Knights Templar may have been in America, and left carvings with their characteristic "hooked X"; the Ark of the Covenant might actually have been a huge clay pot kept by a group in Africa. The Ancient Alien folks certainly seem to have proven the existence of technologically advanced civilizations in pre-history, but then, I knew that years ago from my study of Hindu scriptures. As for aliens, i.e., the ones who come from other star systems via wormholes, well, their evidence for this gets considerably weaker, in my opinion. Einstein says there could theoretically be tiny wormholes; somebody speculates they might be enlarged, or they might have grown somehow; somebody else speculates that a doorway, carved into solid rock and going nowhere, could have been a portal. And so-on. And then there is Oak Island, which I see is coming back for another season. They remind me of the gambler who throws good money after bad. They even have a "money pit."
But then, yesterday, I happened to watch the fellows who believe that some few of the members of Roanoke Colony survived, being "rescued" and used as slaves by the Indians to pound copper at a copper mine. All this, based on a stone which one of them, Eleanor Dare, may have carved a message onto. This stone was brought in by a mysterious person named Hammond to a professor, in the 1930's. The professor then tried, without success, to find other stones in the area. Finally he put an ad in the paper, with a hefty reward. An enterprising local came in with dozens of similar stones, and ultimately the whole thing was debunked.
These researchers are serious (and I note they are New Englanders, by their accent). They brought experts and technology to bear, and unlike the other shows I've watched, here, the clues check out, bang, bang, bang, one after the other. The stones the local guy brought in were fakes, done on a drill press--but the first stone was genuine. The pivotal moment is when they bring in a linguistics expert, and he notices a tell-tale clue which everyone else had missed--period shorthand for the word "The" leading a sentence. It made no sense, in context, as it had earlier been interpreted, as "Ye" (YE)--but it made perfect sense as an abbreviation for "The." And you could feel the expert's excitement coming right out of the television set.
Then they look for Indian copper mines, where the stone might have originated, using satellite imagery, and they find one. It's not a white man's copper mine, because stones the white man would have extracted copper from via smelting, are discarded. The experts are called in, and they, too, sign off on it.
This is the hallmark of a genuine case. There may be setbacks, but the clues click into place, because they have to. You don't need to force it, or bolster your theory with a great deal of speculating. In other words, if you cut up an apple, and then put the pieces back together, it has to form the same apple again. It is when you insist that you have an apple, and you try to fit a bunch of random pieces together, so that it forms something that could, possibly be construed as being apple-like, that you have this mix of 80% speculation and 20% tantalizing clues.
I say all that to say this. However unlikely it may seem to you, running across my presentation and what you will derisively term my "claims," my research has proceeded like the Roanoke Colony show did. Not like Oak Island, or even like the Ancient Aliens. I have an "apple," a real reincarnation match, and, accordingly, it has to fit back together to form an apple.
I could point to dozens and dozens of discoveries which were as profound as the one the linguistics expert made. In fact, I've shared a number of them in these Updates. But they fall on deaf ears, inasmuch as no-one takes me seriously enough to purchase my book (which is a pretty good indicator).
There are two factors which impede my progress: the inaccuracy of the historical record, and the outrageous nature of my claim. It would, after all, not be so very strange if a few of the Roanoke colonists survived for a time, aided by the Native Americans. The only thing unbelievable about it is tradition, i.e., what we have all read in our textbooks in school.
But, as best I was able to understand (watching, as I do, while working), the reason this version has come down to us, is that there was a deliberate lie by authorities. There was, in short, a coverup. I don't remember the exact rationale well enough to summarize it, here. For some reason, the authorities preferred that the public believed that all were lost. It made it easier to justify abandoning them; or it made it easier to slaughter the Indians; or both.
This is what I discovered in my research into Mathew Franklin Whittier, as well, i.e., that there were deliberate lies in the historical record. Mathew was actively working for the cause of the Abolition; and more radical still, he was, apparently, aligned with William Lloyd Garrison, who was a "disunionist." His job was to act as a liaison; and for his cover, he wrote a humorous travelogue column, which served to notify Garrison and his people of the contacts he had made. He then let someone else take credit for it (which would have served the fellow right, given how dangerous it was if anybody had caught on to what Mathew was doing, and blamed him for it). So Mathew had to work undercover, and he had to use pseudonyms--dozens and dozens of them. At one point I found him doing investigative journalism, under cover, in New Orleans; the result of which was a scathing description of a private slave auction there, published in the most liberal paper in Boston.
The second reason that the historical record was obfuscated, where Mathew was concerned, is that his famous brother was "et up" with sibling rivalry; so Mathew preferred not to tell him what he was accomplishing. That, and the official Whittier biographer was Mathew's son-in-law, and his long-time nemesis, Samuel Pickard. As I mentioned in the previous entry, Pickard gave Mathew deliberate short-shrift when he briefly touched upon the subject of John Greenleaf Whittier's younger brother. I say "deliberate," because, being married to Mathew's daughter, Elizabeth, he still gets Mathew's birthday wrong, as well being way off regarding the length of Mathew's tenure at the Boston Custom House in his later years. And Pickard was a professional newspaper editor. For him to get basic facts about Mathew wrong like this is unthinkable, and had to be intentional (unless he was being extremely careless, which amounts to the same thing). But the rest of the book is meticulous and scholarly, where JGW is concerned. This simply means that nothing which Pickard says about Mathew can be trusted--and it is from Pickard's work that we find 90% of the readily-available information concerning him.
I have to get back to digitizing and proofreading. But having seen the clues fall neatly into place in the Roanoke Colony series, I wanted to convey to the "unbelieving" that this is how it went down with my study, as well. I don't know how to say it any more clearly. But I will say this much--if, as the Roanoke Island mystery researchers claim, their study would be the single most significant discovery of American history, then mine--unmasking as it does the original authors of "A Christmas Carol" and the "The Raven," as well as solidly proving the reality of reincarnation, would be considerably more significant.
Stephen Sakellarios, M.S.
Music opening this page, "The Inspector,"
by Wally Badarou, from the album, "Echoes"