Arcadia Discussion Zone

Hi Rain,

Rain wrote:



Perhaps the answer involves the purpose of the original Priory Documents and what it was that they actually claimed (meaning what the actual Documents asserted). Perhaps the purpose of HBHG (if it had a purpose apart from simple fame and fortune for BLL) was not to diminish one religion but instead defend another religion.

Regards,

Spartacus

If it had a religious agenda, it wasn't so much anti-Catholic as wind-up the Born Again mob across the pond. But who financed the HBHG ?..Well who stood to make money out of the hype ? ...Mirrored, I may add, years later, with the publisher hype (and big advances for the authors) for Tomb of God. Difference being ToG was one almighty yawn whereas HBHG was a page-turner.

What, trapped by Steiner? It's good to know before hand. Still makes it interesting.

Ravenscroft claimed that he had been a pupil of Stein's, and that Stein would have written the former book but for his untimely death.
However, investigative reporter Eric Wynants discovered the Stein/Ravenscroft connection was a complete fabrication while interviewing Ravenscroft for an article in 1982. According to Wynants, Ravenscroft admitted during their interview that he had never actually met W.J. Stein, but "talked to him only via a medium".' Similarly, the biography of Walter Stein by Johannes Tautz does not support Ravenscroft's claim to have ever met Stein. Retired London Publisher Neville Armstrong who issued The Spear of Destiny described Ravenscroft as "certainly the most difficult and devious malchick I have ever published" in his autobiography.
Both of Ravenscroft's books have been said to fail to give an accurate account of Stein's work, and to misquote him in several places. Concerning Ravenscroft's claim that Stein met Hitler in 1902, Stein himself said that the first time he actually saw Hitler in person was at a public hotel in 1932, and nowhere states that he actually spoke to Hitler. A reviewer of the Tautz biography, Daniel Hindes, said, "Now it may be that all the claims in Ravenscroft’s book are so patently ridiculous as to require no serious investigation. But their existence ought to be mentioned in the only biography of Stein, if only to dismiss them."

No, by Ravenscroft's conclusions.
BTW.
Steiner wasn't Ravenscroft's source. This was the Austrian Walter Johannes Stein according to Ravenscroft - which is a lie.

See auntie Wickie:



... and also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Lance
>>>
Trevor Ravenscroft’s 1973 book, "The Spear of Destiny" claims that Adolf Hitler started World War II in order to capture the spear, with which he was obsessed. At the end of the war the spear came into the hands of US General George Patton. According to legend, losing the spear would result in death, and that was fulfilled when Hitler committed suicide.

Rue Sous Cassan
74100
ANNEMASSE


and/or

Romagny sous Cassan (74100 - ANNEMASSE)

http://priory-of-sion.com/psp/id85.html

http://priory-of-sion.com/psp/id85.html

i think the main problem as usual, is that people don't read what is in front of them.

I just remembered something I read, in the DVC vs HBHG case one of the Author's said that HBHG had a "specific architecture" which means it was formatted in a very specific way. It also means that the target audience was a specific audience that could actually understand what was being written so whoever "sponsored" HBHG knew what they were doing. And now the statement of the "specific architecture" is an "on the record" admission that the HBHG was an intentional book/message.

Actually, you should be quoting Gertrude Stein, as in "There's no there, there", when it comes to the artfully capillo-tracted suppositions offered by Paddy. But very creative nonetheless!

Baigent and Leigh were also trying to persuade a judge that they'd been plagiarized. Twice. Unsuccessfully. As the only "specific architecture" to be discerned was a pattern of presenting information hypothetically and eventually progressing it to "proven fact" it would appear that their target audience were gullible Anglophones who wouldn't have been able to sort it out.

TCP

'...artfully capillo-tracted suppositions'

If it had a religious agenda, it wasn't so much anti-Catholic as wind-up the Born Again mob across the pond. But who financed the HBHG ?..Well who stood to make money out of the hype ? ...Mirrored, I may add, years later, with the publisher hype (and big advances for the authors) for Tomb of God. Difference being ToG was one almighty yawn whereas HBHG was a page-turner.

I just remembered something I read, in the DVC vs HBHG case one of the Author's said that HBHG had a "specific architecture" which means it was formatted in a very specific way. It also means that the target audience was a specific audience that could actually understand what was being written so whoever "sponsored" HBHG knew what they were doing. And now the statement of the "specific architecture" is an "on the record" admission that the HBHG was an intentional book/message.

If it had a religious agenda, it wasn't so much anti-Catholic as wind-up the Born Again mob across the pond. But who financed the HBHG ?..Well who stood to make money out of the hype ? ...Mirrored, I may add, years later, with the publisher hype (and big advances for the authors) for Tomb of God. Difference being ToG was one almighty yawn whereas HBHG was a page-turner.

That was mentioned before about the right-wing extremists mainly of the south, but didn't HBHG have more of a readership Europe-wide?
Who do you think financed the hype if it wasn't the publishers, Pilrig?

TCP do you know who sponsored HBHG if it was not the publishers?

I understand the point you're making especially in the Brown case but initially HBHG would not really be expected to become as popular as it did.

And you know this how, exactly? They were lying when they denied knowledge of certain ads and displays?

You should say that "you don't believe anyone but the publishers promoted the book"...

(BTW "sponsored" has a different meaning, we're speaking here of promotional expenditures. Considering your place of employment, I'd have thought you'd be keenly aware of the difference.)

If that were true, Random House wouldn't have picked it up in the first place.

TCP

Imbecile! Re-read the thread... you're simply reiterating my point, as if it were what you'd said.

This is one of those "mouthy" episodes you might want to control.