Skip to content

Let’s all be friends …..

Apologies for boring you Nick Pelling (Cipher Mysteries), but all I’m doing is following your example with the VM where you and your colleagues take a great deal of time and discussion to come to a point of agreement about the smallest detail in the manuscript: a glyph, a hanging gallows, a page number, a rosette, a swallow tail, a this or that, a nymph menstruating into a bucket ….. You all spend years poring over this stuff – thousands of hours – then you collectively write hundreds of thousands of words in the search for some clarity.

This is commendable work, a grand chase, though not so noble given the distressingly altered state of some of the nymphs. Nevertheless, a work worthy of your undoubted intellect and no doubt the reason for your stellar reputation as a researcher. Hats off .

But, you see, I’m doing the same thing with your Somerton Man manuscript. Examining everything you write in fine detail. 

For instance:

We were discussing the fact that the body seen alive in the evening was wearing different trousers to the body found dead in the morning. Rather a banal point of discussion I admit, nevertheless our unfruitful exchanges demonstrate what the honest toiler is up against when he ventures into foreign territory with an unpopular fact.

May I quote part of your response again?

12 November 2018.

“If that’s correct (Strapp’s sighting of the man’s striped trousers) – and it’s only a single witness, after all ….. “

I read it as – IF that’s correct – and it’s ONLY a SINGLE witness, AFTER ALL ….

… and realised you are intuitively negative, even when it comes to sworn statements and eye-witness accounts. 

That this blind-eye attitude could come from such a noted researcher such as yourself confounds me.

That’s it. Now you have a good day, won’t you.

 

Cheers for now ..