Re: Review of The King Arthur Conspiracy

Doug Weller wrote:  halrn1p9iiq022pr5nvaibi5jl4rult9v9@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> All but one of the Amazon reviews are, to put it mildly, worthless.
> But an acquaintance of mine, Donald Ball, has written a serious
> review, see
>
>
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1412026423/103-6438203-2351815?v=glance&n=283155


    "At all times, Jim Michael, Alan Wilson, and Barem
    Blackett [research collaborators in the study
    examined by Berkley], have been careful never
    to reveal the Coelbren Ciphers to anyone in
    America. So which Sign corresponds to what
    modern letter is kept as secret as possible. This
    has to be done to avoid allegations of forgery,
    although the majority of Coelbren inscriptions
    have been well known for very long periods and
    were never before identified as British Coelbren.
    It also serves to prevent any 'helpful' forged
    inscriptions being made."

Wonderfull. That will knock the conspirators
off there feet.
And don't scare your readers off with
index and bibliography, as the next
"Excellent! Excellent! Excellent!"
reviewer reveals.

-- 
º°º°º°º < Peter Alaca > º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°