-Caveat Lector- from: prioryofsion digest 592 http://www.onelist.com The mailing list resource page can be found at the following address http://www.albino.com/circle/pos/ ----- An interesting list. Om K ----- Message: 9 Date: Thu, 13 May 1999 11:04:10 +0100 From: "xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Subject: Re: de sede+forged parchments xxxx wrote >xxxxxx is a Mason, I am not. >Therefore there is no way I can discredit his theory. I don't support it >but I don't deny it either. interestingly the list seems to be polarising at the moment between the bloodliners and the geometricians - i belong to the latter and for the record enough masons have read my book for it to be public knowledge if i were trying to mislead i feel the need to clarify the interesting position of the ign i took the masonic ritual - decoded it and drew a triangle then a square and then a circle on the ign map - exactly as the masonic code dictated - the circle was 9 mile in diameter and was already marked on the ign map by 33 os points - the chances of this happening accidentally are very very low so far all i have proved is that someone at the ign is a freemason and had preceded me with the decoding by putting some os points on one of their maps until you realise that all of these points are further supported by physical features - the serpent rouge - 2 miles long - the pierre dressee - saunieres calvary feature and on and on the physical features will not go away and so it is time to unveil one more such physical feature and this one owes it's discovery to tim maidment who was doing some computer graphics work for me on one of my photos and noticed an extra ordinary feature - a 30 foot high carved head on the side of pech cardou - watching over the pillar in which i suggest that the descending arches are built - you may feel that this is the templars "head of god" i have attached 2 photos - the first of the head and the second after it has been heavily airbrushed to remove the vegetation and infill a chunk broken off the nose i am still awaiting an aerial photo of pech cardou - not easy to obtain and then i will disclose yet another head - or rather a skull - which supports my thesis of pech cardou as the golgotha of the new jerusalem centred on pech cardou regards xxxxx ===== Message: 13 Date: Thu, 13 May 1999 09:18:45 -0400 From: "xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Subject: Re: de sede+parchments From: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > From: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > I really don,t know what it adds up to. That is the problem. We have a variety of geometries and theories regarding them to pick from; body of christ, ark of the covenant, etheric grid technology, treaure and so on. Good point. We don't know what is there. Every theorist has his or her own view and tries to have that view adopted by everyone. i.e. one theory foundation. As for the etheric grids, look at how many cathedrals and monasteries built by the cistercian order lie on these grids. I think you'll be surprised. > But it is there, and many of these theses fit together, ie. one mans > geometry fits in part to anothers. They are both looking at the same > pentagram, as it were, but can,t agree why it may be there or how or when it got there and what the hell it means. > My geometries are not based on any other's geometries. If they fit in another's, that is odd indeed. I've given my geometries to the list back in March. They are not based on Poussin's pentagram. They are based on clues left by Sauniere and PP/Corbu/De Sede. The fact that Sauniere himself left a geometry has never been discussed. And I have shared it with everyone. Just as Patrick has shared his with everyone. Sauniere's geometry offers us something very different. Those on the list who have looked at it cannot deny its presence. Just as Patrick's cannot be denied either. The oddity is that out of all the authors, only TofG did not use any landmarks in their shapes. Not a single square uses a landmark, no triangle uses a landmark, no circle uses a landmark in their theory. It is taking 'Out of Darkness comes light' a little too seriously. Something which Sauniere and Boudet could not have fullfilled. We know from testimonials that Sauniere and Boudet placed landmarks, moved a few of them and even reused some elsewhere. Those they could move. > Shame. I have been very impressed with xxxxxxx book. Likewise ToG > actually got a confirmed hit on the geometry (According to JL Chaumeils unveiling of De Cheriseys cypher). At least they got the clues according to the parchments correct (for what thats worth). I don,t buy Woods theories for various reasons, and Simon Miles(www.consciousevolution.com) has an excellent, well researched and highly persuasive site. There are others too. These are just some of the theories I like. We need a unifying theory, and the closest I have seen to this is at the web site. > I'll check out the site and give you my opinion later. I've been trying to establish a solid foundation of evidence since the begining. It has no choice but to be done piece by piece. > I think I said I didn,t dismiss the genealogical aspects entirely. But my opinion is that the bloodline idea is not necessarily what is important any more. I am taking it to mean the keepers of the Real Secret. Maybe a family. Maybe a group or groups. I also think that the context of anti republican right wing politics in France as this story develops (ie 50s to late 80s) must be taken into account when talking about the fake genealogies. What was supposed to be achieved with this? What were people supposed to believe and why? > Keepers of any secret have to have 2 things in order to function properly: Honour and Power. Honour their secret and the power to honour it. Money also comes in to play. Hence the search for a bloodline which is an arrow into Monarchy's heart.Rather Nobility's heart. > I do not, and never will believe that a bloodline; family, person or name can ever be in any way better, or more special in any way, than any other. To say otherwise, IMHO, you would be standing on very dubious ground - morally ethically and politically. > I agree with you. But the general population's vocabulary is still reduced to 10 words whenever they see the Kenedys or the Windsors. It is the general population which has to be shown the truth. This means simplicity. Something which every author has a tendancy to forget. Myself included. xxxxxxxxx > > > > xxxxxxxxx > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Got an opinion? > http://www.onelist.com > Make it count! Sign up for the ONElist Weekly Survey now. > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > The mailing list resource page and the FAQ can be found at http://www.albino.com/circle/pos/ ===== Message: 18 Date: Thu, 13 May 1999 12:25:45 -0400 From: "xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Subject: Re: bloodline vs. geometry From: nxxxxxxxxxxxx > From: bxxxxxxxxxxxx > > some posters are suggesting that an emphasis on sacred geometry > cancels out bloodline theories and vice versa. why should this be so ? geometric patterns can be metaphors for other information, in this case information about the bloodline. > It may or may not have anything to do with anything. The only way to prove anything is to dig and find out if it matched one specific geometry. That is the only way to say, and prove the geometry actually stands for something. We all know that geometry is present in art and geographically. xxxxxxx and I, and probably others, have established other geometries that don't have the Vagueness that TofG has based on nothingness), or the Fluidity that Lincoln/Woods has. If its a square, it looks like a square, it does not look like a rectangle. A bloodline would establish what exactly ? Monarchy has been disolved in France. Once Elizabeth 2 passes on, Monarchy will probably be disolved or held as Pomp icons with no power and no tax-payer's money to support them. Which they should not be getting in the first place. People are starving while some ultra rich family gets my hard-earned tax money. I don't think so. Its time to make things right. Finding evidence of a Bloodline would help to understand certain mentalities which are still up for discussion. Would it prove Christ's existence ? Unless a specific birthmark, I think the prophecies state the mark of the prophet (Which is ?), could be proven legitimate. The Bourbon line has maintained such a birthmark on the Mamaries (Spelling?). A claim to Merovigiens has to be through a Male descent which many will probably fight me on. except, if you look at all the Merovingiens, there were only males. They had wives who had more influence than the kings but it was still male descent that ruled. The Bloodlines off some interesting tidbits of history which cannot be denied either. Anyone claiming that the Bloodlines, or the Geometries cancel out the other, they are wrong. It is only using what you want to use without looking at other possibilities. If you look and decide not to use something, that is your choice, but look at it before making a decision. xxxxxxxxxx > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > ONElist members are using Shared Files in great ways! > http://www.onelist.com > Are you? If not, see our homepage for details. > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > The mailing list resource page and the FAQ can be found at http://www.albino.com/circle/pos/ ===== Message: 21 Date: Thu, 13 May 1999 12:51:56 EDT From: Mxxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: Re: bloodline vs. geometry In a message dated 5/13/99 12:26:57 PM Eastern Daylight Time, nxxxxxxxxxxx writes: > Finding evidence of a Bloodline would help to understand certain mentalities > which are still up for discussion. Would it prove Christ's existence ? One of the major mentalities in question being the Holy Roman Church, of course. I really have to wonder what real, verifiable proof that Jesus survived the crucifixion (which I just spelled crucifiction--how Freudian!) as opposed to dying and rising from the dead would do to the faith of the masses. I know that Catholic theologians prefer to deal with the underpinnings of their religion as being symbolic rather than literal in nature--in other words, it doesn't really MATTER what happened 2000 years ago, it's the idea behind the story that is important--but people in general seem so literal-minded, don't they? Cheers, xxxxxxx ===== Message: 22 Date: Thu, 13 May 1999 10:00:48 -0700 (PDT) From: Txxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: Re: for txxxxxxxxxxx: importance of bloodline --- bxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > From: bxxxxxxxxxxxx > > txx- - -two points > > 1/i agree with you about the importance of the bloodline in all we discuss. BUT is it not possible that we MIGHT be dealing with perceptions about the bloodline rather than the reality of it. i.e., that we actually have two options when looking at priory-related matters > ------a/the bloodline exists in reality and certain individuals possesses certain facts about the bloodline > ------b/priory-associated individuals believe passionately in the bloodline and act on those beliefs while in actuality no > such bloodline exists. their actions, their planning, would no less intense > since they're motivated by something they devoutly cherish. You're absolutely right on both counts - either scenario could be true. If "a" were true, then it's surprising that no-one in the last 2,000 years has come forward with the evidence. Or if "b" is accurate, one wonder why the rumors haven't been put to rest by now. It was suggested to me many years ago by a German prince that the entire concept of rule by divine right was not based upon the concept of God's favoritism bestowed on a fortunate ancestor who bullied his way to a throne; but that it was based on actual kinship to God's "chosen" king, David. The maintenance of blood equality through marriages of "equal birth" guaranteed this so-called "purity" of the blood strain, and was thought to keep the bloodline from becoming too diluted. I doubt very seriously that past generations of rulers had any knowledge of DNA but it seems reasonable that they assumed that keeping the level of "pure" blood on the high side was to their benefit. Hence the often loveless "marriages of state" which were seen as a sacred responsibility, and the very distinct laws of succession which relegated illegitimate children, and even legitimate children of morganatic or unequal marriages, unfit for succession. I'll go even further and suggest that there is an option "c" - that the cherished bloodlines are collateral to that of Jesus's ancestors, but do not emanate from Jesus himself. Therefore, even if Jesus fathered no children, the line of a brother, uncle, cousin, or even a distant relative would be every bit as valid if it came from the same source, i.e. the Davidic line. There is no hard evidence that Jesus fathered children - at least not any that's been confirmed or made public. There is also no solid evidence that Jesus was himself of David's blood. The New Testament makes this claim for Jesus through his father Joseph, and yet offers two distinct conflicting genealogies as proof - and then contradicts this claim by stating that Joseph was not Jesus' biological father. No European dynasty has ever publically claimed descent from Jesus, and yet many have claimed descent from David. Let's face it - on a mundane level, Jesus did not fulfill the Messianic exectations of Hebrew prophecy, i.e. he did not drive the invaders out and restore the unified Kingdom of Israel. We have only the Bible to identify Jesus as Israel's rightful king, and yet the scriptures contradict themselves. It was then left to the architects of Christianity to redefine just what those Messianic expectations were, on a spiritual rather than a temporal level. But it didn't end there. If the planners of the First Crusade were the good Catholics they are thought to have been, they probably would have accepted Jesus's role as defined by the church as a "fait accompli". Why did they feel the need to essentially "finish the job" - to accomplish what Jesus himself failed to do - when the church asserted that Jesus's mission was accomplished? Why would a man like Godfrey de Bouillon, a descendant through both paternal and maternal lines of families claiming Davidic descent, undertake a crusade to fulfill Jewish prophecy if he accepted the idea, as defined by the church, that Jesus had already done so? And why do so many of Europe's crowned heads (or would-be crowned heads) still claim the honorific title "King of Jerusalem"? Whether or not there is a bloodline emanating from Jesus himself has never been proven, and has only recently been publically claimed by people like Plantard and Gardner. But there is a long tradition of "divine kingship" in Europe's royal families that stems not from descent from Jesus necessarily, but certainly from David. > 2/i always wondered about the stories of plantard > cooking up a genealogy to link him to the > merovingians. why bother ? a number of pos > nautoniers had no merovingian connections. Why do people put their faith in the "primacy" of Merovingian descent? What do we really have to go on? A cryptic allusion to Dagobert II in the parchments found by Sauniere, and the attempt by Plantard to assert that it refers to Jesus's bloodline through Dagobert II and down to himself by means of a fabricated family tree. Where in the Sauniere documents is it stated that Dagobert II was a descendant of Jesus? Nowhere. What references can we cite to show that the Merovingians specifically considered themselves descendants of Jesus? None. We have Plantard to thank for creating this presumption; and even though his attempts to link himself to the theory have been discredited, I'd say most of those who ascribe to bloodline theories still cling to this connection. With this mindset, then of course we are bound to note that while many of the Nautonniers were themselves of Merovingian blood, many were not - and we wonder why this is so. But if the bloodline theories are not actually dependant on a Merovingian connection, then this question becomes irrelevant. Txxxxxxxxxxxx _________________________________________________________ x ______________________________________________________________________________ _ ______________________________________________________________________________ _ ===== Message: 23 Date: Thu, 13 May 1999 10:30:31 -0700 (PDT) From: Txxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: Re: bloodline vs. geometry --- Nxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > From: "Nxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > From: nxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > > From: bxxxxxxxxxxx > > > Unless a specific birthmark, I think the prophecies > state the mark of the prophet (Which is ?), could be proven legitimate. The Bourbon line has maintained such a birthmark on the Mamaries (Spelling?). Funny you should mention this, Nxxxx. I read something many years ago that said that both Henri IV and Louis XIII each had a third nipple, and that the absence of an additional "mammary" on Louis XIV was taken by some as an indication that the child was not really Louis XIII's son. It isn't known whether or not Henri's father Antoine de Bourbon was similarly "afflicted". xxxxxxxxxx _________________________________________________________ x ______________________________________________________________________________ _ ______________________________________________________________________________ _ Message: 24 Date: Thu, 13 May 1999 10:52:02 -0700 (PDT) From: Txxxxxxxxxx Subject: Re: bloodline vs. geometry --- Mxxxxxxxx wrote: > From: Mxxxxxxxxx > > I know that Catholic theologians prefer to > deal with the underpinnings of their religion as > being symbolic rather than literal in nature--in > other words, it doesn't really MATTER what happened > 2000 years ago, it's the idea behind the story that > is important--but people in general seem so literal- > minded, don't they? Ah, yes - but the Church hasn't always been so figurative in it's thinking. There was a time when questioning the literal meaning of anything in the Bible could get you burned alive. It's only been since the Church hasn't had the ability to threaten people's lives that it has opted for the "symbolic" explanations when dealing with discrepancies and contradictions. No wonder it was considered a sin for all but the aristocracy and clergy to learn how to read. Each owed it's position in society in large part to the other, and they couldn't have the lower echelons reading and thinking for themselves for fear of losing their positions. Funny thing is, what they predicted would happen if the common folk got educated has pretty much come to pass. And yet it's now the Church that doesn't insist on the literal meanings of scripture and the "masses" who do! Txxxxxxxxxxxx _________________________________________________________ x ----- Aloha, He'Ping, Om, Shalom, Salaam. Em Hotep, Peace Be, Omnia Bona Bonis, All My Relations. Adieu, Adios, Aloha. Amen. Roads End Kris DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substance—not soapboxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
