Last week, I mentioned that I'd caught myself considering the possibility that the evidence I've found that supports my working timeline of Sam Bailey's life was manufactured. On the one hand, this is clearly a sign that my involvement in this project has affected my frame of reference. Yes, I'm aware of that.
On the other hand, it's a good idea to evaluate every possibility on it's own merits. Is there anything to the idea that Sam Bailey's life is a hoax?
First off, whoever is doing this would have to be doing it with the assistance of members of the Church, or possibly from within the Church itself. My contacts inside the Vatican are people I know personally, or through personal acquaintances. In at least some cases, I can personally vouch for the legitimacy of their station with that organization. What's more, I don't feel they're the type to get involved with something like this if their interest wasn't genuine, but that's a personal judgment. Let's put that aside for now.
What would the Vatican stand to gain by pretending there's a 600 year old man who they tortured for roughly a century, and then accidentally released?
Not much, that I can see. I'm open to suggestions.
What would people inside the Vatican stand to gain by that same behavior? Possibly they're being paid, but for what? What would anyone stand to gain by this?
Maybe Sam Bailey is just a spoiled rich kid looking for attention, and is manufacturing historical evidence and buying off members of the Church to win some notoriety. At the same time, that seems dangerous. If his ruse is successful enough, he could wind up being the subject of countless potentially lethal experiments.
If the records are to be believed, it's happened before.
Can anyone imagine a likelier scenario where someone might go to all this trouble? While the hoax solution seems implausible to me, it's obviously worth investigating. After all, the alternative is that there is an immortal in our midst.
Thanks, everybody.
0 comments:
Post a Comment