It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Rennes-le-Château, what secrets did this small church hide? The mystery still persists, clues

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 20 2006 @ 12:03 PM
link   
it was all a hoax. the priory of sion is an admitted hoax. brown knew this before he wrote the book, and yet this little fact is ignored by everyone. why? i just dont get it. youve got two guys who have admitted to this hoax, two guys whose stories are the sole proof behind this theory, and yet the theory continues even to the point of becoming a tom hanks movie. are people so hungry to believe the story that they will completely ignore the facts of the case? ridiculous.

the priory of scion hoax

on michael baigent, co-writer of The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail

Voice of Reason: Exposing the Da Vinci Hoax

and many, many more....




posted on Jan, 20 2006 @ 12:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlackGuardXIII
I didn't particularly notice the importance of the mt. top pentagram thing. It could be really important, of course. I find Giza, Stonehenge, Lalibella, Teotihuacan Tiahuanaco, Baalbek, Incan monoliths, and such more compelling. the designs of Washington DC, the Prometheus statue outside Riockefeller Center, JFK, etc. I might as well just list all the threads here. I see alot of the same stuff I read over the last 20 yrs.


That's the beauty of where Lincoln seems to be taking this...connections to the megalithic builders of prehistory. All those mysterious monolithic structures, built to reflect within their structures the cyclic wanderings of planets stars, the great cycles of precession, seasonal turnings and solstices, time and distance, measurements of the earth, accurate mapping...it's all the stuff of thousands of books, pure grist for the ATS thread-mill.
.



posted on Jan, 20 2006 @ 12:32 PM
link   
Bruce Cathie, David Hatcher Childress, Ed Leedskalnin, I had a really long list.



posted on Jan, 20 2006 @ 12:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by snafu7700
it was all a hoax.are people so hungry to believe the story that they will completely ignore the facts of the case? ridiculous.

I don't claim to know if the PS was a Plantard fiction or anything else. I don't appreciate your referring to 20 years of interest, reading literally hundreds of books on related topics, the PS being a very tiny fraciton of the information, ignoring the facts. So I am to accept your insults and say that you know a more credible account than I have surmised. I know that I am incorrect in what I think is goiing on, but I find the dismissive selfassured claim you make, that you are more informed on this because you post 3 links, ...that is ridiculous. Please fill me in on the rest of the story, especially your studies.



posted on Jan, 20 2006 @ 12:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan

What supports this statement?


I'm assuming you mean the prominence of Mary Magdalene in France. I did a bit of googling and found a rather well done explanation in the National Catholic Reporter website and within an essay written by Ed Conroy. It spells out what the history is in that region.


Here
In early Christian communities, she was seen as a woman of courage and wisdom. Called “Apostle to the Apostles” for bravely bearing witness of Jesus’ resurrection, she was also known among Gnostics as “the embodiment of Sophia.”
*snip
In medieval Europe, particularly among the Cathars and some aristocratic families, it was widely believed Mary Magdalene was Jesus’ lawful bride, a sister to Martha and Lazarus of Bethany, mother to a “holy bloodline.”
*snip
Located in the heart of the Languedoc, where the Albigensian Crusade pitted Roman Catholic Christians against Cathar Christians in the first half of the 13th century, it is not surprising that Rennes-le-Chateau’s very old chapel should be dedicated to the Magdalene.


In a description of the church in Rennes-le-Chateau, this is what Lincoln says...


from Key to the Sacred Pattern by Henry lincoln St Martin's Press ISBN0-312-21484-7

It is dedicated to St. Marie-Madeleine -Mary Magdalene- who, legend tells us, came to France bringing the 'True Cross and the Grail. Her statue, bearing in her arms the Cross and the Grail, stands above the church entrance.


edit to fix quote




[edit on 20-1-2006 by masqua]



posted on Jan, 20 2006 @ 12:54 PM
link   
BlackGuard...I should clear up a misconception...Lincolns book, 'The Templars Secret Island' is not referring to Oak Island. It instead is a study of the Templar structures built on Bornholm Island, just off the Danish coast in the Baltic.

here's link to the book and an interview with the co-author

www.templarhistory.com...


edit to add and also later to fix said link

[edit on 20-1-2006 by masqua]

[edit on 20-1-2006 by masqua]



posted on Jan, 20 2006 @ 12:55 PM
link   
13, there is nothing in my remarks that should be offensive. if the facts are offensive to you, then you need to see a psychologist.


plantard admitted publicly that the whole thing was a hoax. what part of that dont you understand? brown entire book is taken from plantards information, information that plantard himself admitted to be a hoax. and yet you guys still believe the story? explain why, because i just dont get it. i mean, it would be one thing if no hoax had been proven. then yes, it would be a possible theory. but dan brown is just using people like you to make money. he knows plantard lied, the writers of holy blood knew he lied, and plantard damn sure knew he was lying.

proof based on a proven hoax is not proof my friend.



posted on Jan, 20 2006 @ 01:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by snafu7700
13, there is nothing in my remarks that should be offensive. if the facts are offensive to you, then you need to see a psychologist.


plantard admitted publicly that the whole thing was a hoax. what part of that dont you understand? brown entire book is taken from plantards information, information that plantard himself admitted to be a hoax. and yet you guys still believe the story? explain why, because i just dont get it. i mean, it would be one thing if no hoax had been proven. then yes, it would be a possible theory. but dan brown is just using people like you to make money. he knows plantard lied, the writers of holy blood knew he lied, and plantard damn sure knew he was lying.

proof based on a proven hoax is not proof my friend.


In relation to Plantard and the PoS, I've got to agree with you, snafu7700.
But there is much more to this story than the shadowy Priory. Baigent and Leigh are suing the publishers of Dan Brown's book, based more than likely on plagiarism in regard to the Holy Blood and the Holy Grail.

However, There is much, much more to the story than just Plantard and his wily interference and disinformation campaign.



posted on Jan, 20 2006 @ 01:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by masqua

However, There is much, much more to the story than just Plantard and his wily interference and disinformation campaign.


yes, i realize this. i've been following this story since 96. i do believe that their is something to the rumors of mary magdalene being more along the lines of the head apostle and that the catholic church decided to make her a whore because this threatened their male dominated order. however, i also believe that the holy grail being christ's bloodline is complete fantasy, as all of the evidence seems to be tainted. if you can show me something that absolutely can not be debunked, i will concede the possibility of truth in the rumor.



posted on Jan, 20 2006 @ 01:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by snafu7700
if you can show me something that absolutely can not be debunked, i will concede the possibility of truth in the rumor.


It certainly will not be from me. Like I said earlier in this thread, all Christian angles in this mystery are, to me, unfounded in fact and I have given up any hope of them ever coming to fruition.

This is the reason I have decided instead to follow the continuing research of Henry Lincoln, who, even though a devout Catholic, has decided to uncover the tantalizing clues of Sacred Geometry in the books he has written since The Messianic Legacy was released. For readers of the Holy Blood and the Holy Grail it is amazing how little that book has meant to them. It is as if what was written in it served to divide those readers who wished for the discovery of a connection to Christ from those others who saw something else in Rennes-le-Chateau...the pagan past.

I belong to the second group.



posted on Jan, 20 2006 @ 01:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by snafu7700
13, there is nothing in my remarks that should be offensive. if the facts are offensive to you, then you need to see a psychologist.

.

I would honour your request for information for you, but my ridiculousness needs to be analyzed by a psychologist, so I don't have the time. Sorry. And yes, thank you for clearing up that mistake I made about your post being offensive. If it was, or wasn't, the main thing is, it wasn't my conclusion, but yours, it is about you. Has zip to do with me. I sometimes forget that and my ego takes things like that personally. Fact is, if you feel its ridiculous, good for you. It is your call.
If I were to try to list all the books I have read, that have added to my view, unless you read them all, you don't have the same information I do. I may be wrong and you could be informed on the topic. If so it would be silly of me to presume I could add to that wealth of data.



posted on Jan, 20 2006 @ 01:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlackGuardXIII
If I were to try to list all the books I have read, that have added to my view, unless you read them all, you don't have the same information I do. I may be wrong and you could be informed on the topic. If so it would be silly of me to presume I could add to that wealth of data.


and chances are that if you listed the books in question, i could probably say that i have read each one. as i mentioned, i have been following this theory since first reading about it in 96. at first, i was a believer. but as i read more information not just from books, but about the authors of said books and the process they used to come up with their "evidence", i started realizing exactly how assanine their conclusions were. they all seem to believe in the graham hancock form of the scientific method:

come up with a theory that sells books, then manipulate the "evidence" to support your assanine theories.



posted on Jan, 20 2006 @ 02:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by snafu7700

come up with a theory that sells books, then manipulate the "evidence" to support your assanine theories.


This is exactly what happened with the release of The DaVinci Code. Dan Brown took the speculation and facts surrounding Rennes-le-Chateau as they were presented by Baigent, Leigh and Lincoln in The Holy Blood and Holy Grail. And this is also why Baigent and Leigh are suing.

That said...there is a difference between Dan Brown and the others. One is a plagiarist and the others are speculative researchers who never once claimed it was anything but speculation.

Graham Hancock, Sitchin, Knight, Lomas, Lincoln, Baigent and Leigh concern themselves on matters of speculation...opening doors to ideas on alternative history which are not mainstream. This is no less an honourable occupation for authorship as such luminaries as C G Jung or Toynbee.

(imho) We'd be poorer without them and richer without Dan Brown.
.



posted on Jan, 20 2006 @ 02:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by masqua

Graham Hancock, Sitchin, Knight, Lomas, Lincoln, Baigent and Leigh concern themselves on matters of speculation...opening doors to ideas on alternative history which are not mainstream.


i'm sorry masqua, but putting hancock's name up with the likes of sitchin is just plain wrong. the reason i used hancock as an example is because he manipulates the evidence to make his theories workable. sitchin is very careful to present the evidence as it is. in short, sitchin is respectable, hancock is a snake (i wont go into what i think of baigent). it is one thing to go against mainstream archeology (and for the record, i do believe that some of what hancock says is based in truth, but his methods are inscrutable), an act that brings instant ridicule. but it is completely another to falsify evidence to fit your theories. hancock is guilty of this, IMHO.



posted on Jan, 20 2006 @ 02:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by snafu7700

and chances are that if you listed the books in question, i could probably say that i have read each one.
come up with a theory that sells books, then manipulate the "evidence" to support your assanine theories.

I read Holy Blood Holy Grail over 20 years ago. For 9 of those years I was reading at least one book a week. I took a break from tv land for a while. I am now hooked back up to cable, at the request of my fiance. And in these last two months since that happened, my reading has slowed to a crawl. But the ability to spell seems to still be there. My 'asinine' theories are no less valid than yours, in any case. I agree with you about authors manipulating the information they find, but I have found that in those cases that 'carelessness with the truth' is not as hard to discern as they may have hoped. One particularly clumsy author in that respect, imo, is Von Daniken. There are also many books that are based on material that it is hard to corroborate. Laurence Gardiner's for example. No matter. I will agree to disagree with you. It is a good thing that people have different views. That is healthy. I may, in the future, find I have seen enough to be of the same view as you. I don't know. One thing I am quite sure about my theories is that they are wrong. It is my belief that I have not read anywhere near all the information. All I can do is keep learning.



posted on Jan, 20 2006 @ 02:52 PM
link   
As we are all readers of the above mentioned authors...we, as a matter of course, will form opinions of their work. This is our own intelligence at work and how we dissemble what we read. I like Hancocks stuff and visit his website almost daily to see what has been gleaned in the field of archeology and displayed on his home page. It's a font of information perfect for the ATS affectionado. That does not mean that I think his ideas are true. I can go on with his interpretations and apply them to whatever else I find.

There has been plenty of the same kind of skullduggery within the scientific community as well. The latest revelation of the Japanese and the Stem Cell research is an example...as is the old story of a man chipping the side of one of Stonehenges slabs in order to make his measurements fit the math he had worked out. This is disturbing stuff, certainly. Human nature...


That said, it should be noted that we are diverging dramatically from what this thread is about...Rennes-le-Chateau. Let's put aside the way we feel about authors and try to understand, instead, what the heck is so interesting about that little burg...what is the true treasure? And, lastly, what can we say about it that is a fact?

edit for grammar

[edit on 20-1-2006 by masqua]



posted on Jan, 20 2006 @ 03:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by masqua
BlackGuard...I should clear up a misconception...Lincolns book, 'The Templars Secret Island' is not referring to Oak Island.

Thankyou masqua for the link. I had not at all felt you had said that Oak Island was the island, which is why I asked. It was just a question. I actually felt that it was likely some other island, but Oak Island was the only one I knew of, and it was possible that it was the island.



posted on Jan, 20 2006 @ 03:21 PM
link   
'if you can show me something that absolutely can not be debunked, i will concede the possibility of truth in the rumor.' snafu7700
It will not be from me either. In fact, I have read two books by Jewish authors who give lots of evidence to support the idea that Josephus created the character of Jesus. The view they believe is that Jesus never existed, and neither did any of the disciples or members of their entourage or families. It is possible. I have no disillusions that a 2000 year old account of anyone can be absolutely proven. Like has been said, it is all speculation. Just like the majority of the theories in the three links that are supposed to prove something. I feel the likelihood Plantard is honestly not claiming to be Jesus' descendent quite plausible. It is not fact. And that was the most probable point that I read in those posts. They are just as questionable, imo, as the claims they purport to disprove.



posted on Jan, 20 2006 @ 03:28 PM
link   
I remember Nygdan asking in another thread somewhere about evidence of Templars on the North American Continent. Oak Island is a perfect fit for those master builders. Another item was a typical Templar-carved grave marker and a lighthouse structure. These two items reside only in my dim head and no amount of scratching has uncovered where I found this information.

That being said, there is a notion I've nursed that someday we're going to come across these evidences, and that somehow we are going to be looking at an American 'Rennes-le-Chateau'. If you've carefully read what Lincoln has been uncovering in relation to the English Mile and how the Templars used the pentagon for placement of their structures, we might even be able to extrapolate from Oak Island and, say, that lighthouse on the east coast and find another location which has yet been undiscovered.

Wouldn't that be fun? There may also be a tantalizing link between the earthworks of the Native Americans much as how the Templars used the megalithic structures of prehistory, as evidenced on Bornholm.

Speculation is a lovely pastime...

.



posted on Jan, 20 2006 @ 03:51 PM
link   
The style of the Newport Tower, which does not have a known origin, is suggestive. The Tower was a mystery in the 1600's. It had just always been there. The researchers I read claimed that the style was most closely reminiscent of a 14th century Scandinavian style. That is the best they could do. But, since Henry Sinclair is pretty firmly established to have sailed to Nova Scotia in the 1390's, and he was a Jarl of Norway, fits. The Templars are also pretty fond of round stone towers. I have seen a painting of a Sinclair, not sure if it was Henry, his father or grandfather, but I think it was Henry, in armour upon a horse, wearing the red Templar cross on a white background. The design and creation of the Oak Island money pit is very advanced, and required a good sized labout force to complete. There are many theories on who might have had the skills and manpower to do it. I have not found a more suitable explanation than a group of Templar Knights.




top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join