This is a series of you tube videos based on the book "The king Arthur Conspiracy by Alan Wilson and Baram Blackett.
So in short, the conspiracy is about that there are actually two King Arthurs, and that there is actually archeological evidence to support it. This
evidence is suppressed by main stream academia, and these two have had multiple attempts on their lives as a result of their research. Alan was put
into a coma for two weeks from a bomb.
So this of course, begs the question, why? If King Arthur is a myth and only a myth, Why would academia and quite possibly the Royal Family go to such
lengths and violent lengths to boot to prevent this research from getting out into the open? What is it they have to lose?
The video is in four parts and each parts is roughly ten minutes long.
I hope this is a new conspiracy for you guys. It certainly is a new one to me.
edit on 3-6-2012 by EvilSadamClone because: (no reason given)
No-one knows for sure if Arthur was a myth or not, there are several references to him dating back to the 9th century, more than 300 years after he
was supposed to have existed, I think this is why the "experts" question the reliability of said references.
before you pass judgement on my view hear me out there are some nteresting FACTS in the story be there are some inconsistencys. Dependeing on wich
article or story you have read king aurthur came into power when we was just a boy and died somewhere between his 70s-80s. you have to think life
expectancy in those day wasnt long. about 50 years. so going on that how could 1 man have ruled for over about 55 years. king aurthur was a name used
by several kings just to keep up with the legend of aurthur. There was a king aurthur. I am of welsh decent and in my family there are stories of
Authur. They state that aurthur was welsh and after he died the knight of the round table found a "replacement". He turned out to be tyranical so he
was overtaken by the knights. After that knights of the round table formed into templar knights to uphold the legacy of the first Aurthur. And so they
did and he was a good king. thats why there is more than 1 refrence to king aurthur. Im going on the basis that every ancient cultural myth has some
basis in truth. past civilazations documented things as they seen as acuratly as they could because they didnt understand what we do today and could
not explaine it the same as today
edit on 3-6-2012 by 33degree because: part left out
From everything I was ever told about Arthurian Legend in school, the modern version is a combination of several old mythologies together. There's
the old Welsh Triad, the Roman stuff, the Celtic stuff, the Saxon stuff and the parts the Christians added into it after they got power. Because of
this, it's very difficult to tell what is real history and what is the myth.
Remember also that there have been multiple kingdoms in what is now Great Britain at once in the past. Theories of varying degrees of validity are
postulated all of the time about Arthur, and consensus is impossible to reach on what was what.
A few years back I bought a book called "King Jesus: From Kam (Egypt) to Camelot: King Jesus of Judaea Was King Arthur of England," the plot
goes as follows:
On a quest to locate St. Paul (Saul) in the historical record, scholar Ralph Ellis found evidence that St. Paul was actually Josephus Flavius, the
first century Jewish historian. This novel identification has exposed new perspectives on the life of Jesus. Ellis asserts that contrary to orthodox
perceptions, King Jesus and Queen Mary Magdalene were the richest couple in the Levant, owning a city-state in eastern Syrio-Jordan and a private
army. The Romans wanted to impose taxes on Jesus and Mary, an imposition that provoked the Jewish Rebellion. King Jesus fought and lost that war, and
so he was crucified, reprieved and placed in custody. The safest place to corral this dangerous royal rebel was in a fortress at the opposite end
of the Roman Empire, which is why King Jesus was exiled to England. In those remote Romo-Celtic lands, King Jesus became famous once again, but there
the locals called him and his disciples 'King Arthur and the twelve knights of the Last Supper Table.' All research and quotations are from
original sources, including the New Testament, Tanakh, Talmud, Josephus, Origen, Eusebius, Irenaeus, Herodian, Suetonius, Tacitus, Clement, Barnabas,
Chretien and many others.
- From an Amazon review (by the author).
So yeah, Jesus was King Arthur. I actually enjoyed the book quite a lot and spoke with the author at the time and he seemed like a very knowledgeable
I mention this merely to highlight how potent myths can be to an inquisitive mind, and how anyone with enough will power and imagination can take a
myth and turn it on it's head. The beauty being that nobody can properly argue against. Some could argue that my above example is combining two myths
into one, perhaps a bit too convenient for my liking. But human beings are lured to them like moths to a flame. As Carl Jung said; “We can keep from
a child all knowledge of earlier myths, but we cannot take from him the need for mythology."
Originally posted by EvilSadamClone
I thought there'd be a lot more interest in this subject.
I have interest in the subject, but I really don't care to plow thru 95% conspiracy to get 5% historical info. If they have an archeology story to
tell, they should just tell it and present their evidence and interpretations.
Leave the conspiracy theories for another time....
The Above Top Secret Web site is a wholly owned social content community of The Above Network, LLC.
This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.
All content copyright 2013, The Above Network, LLC.