[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
In 1850, the TRUTH was that man could not fly. In 1900, the TRUTH was
that there was no such thing as gorillas. They simply didn't exist.
The TRUTH is that on On Friday the 13th of October 1307, the Knights
Templar were captured in France and arrested on a variety of charges and
accusations. The trials lasted until March 19th, 1314. At that time
Jacques de Molay, the last known Grand Master of that order, was burned
at the stake.
What's not known is whether the order was extinguished in its entirety.
What's not known is what happened to the order's ships. What's not known
is whether or not a secret order called Freemasonry, who claims to have
existed in England and other countries for so long, existed for
centuries in secret and was in fact a continuation of the Knights Templar.
So let's ask ourselves - If something is not proven, can it have
existed? Did gorillas exist in the jungles before they were discovered
by Western Man ? According to Tim Wallace-Murphy, the answer is an
absolute NO. They did not exist until they were discovered by western
And the Knights Templar "who were suppressed over 127 years prior to the
foundations of Rosslyn even being laid" could not have existed in some
other form as J.J. Carpenter suggested in the book "Born in Blood – The
Last Secrets of Freemasonry." And they could not have possible had
anything to do with either Rosslyn or Henri St. Clair's voyages. It is
impossible that they could have been operating in secret under a
different name, in different parts of the world, carrying out whatever
their plans and missions were BECAUSE MR. WALLACE-MURPHY DOESN'T KNOW IT
Mr. Wallace-Murphy recommends we "fantasist(s)" stop entertaining
ourselves with what might have happened and adhere to the facts that are
known. My question to Mr. Wallace-Murphy is this - What do you suppose
motivates us to go out and seek those truths that are not yet known? I
suggest it's the possibilities, the fantasies that we want to prove. If
we adhere only to what's known, and adhere only to a path of what's
already been discovered, I suggest we'd never learn anything.
The TRUTH probably lies somewhere between our extremes - Mr.
Wallace-Murphy's cautious, pragmatic approach... And those of us on this
discussion list who enjoy the hunt, the speculation about what might
have happened. Perhaps I'm in violent agreement with Mr. Wallace-Murphy.
Perhaps we seek the same end via a different method. I for one enjoy the
method of speculation, the method of the "fantasist." And I argue there
is method here. The method of forming a hypothesis and then seeking to
prove it. And, while I agree some of the hypotheses are grand, many of
them have already been proven.
If, in 1900, you had told me there were large, hairy manlike apes in the
jungles, I would have told you "well, let's go look for them." Mr.
Wallace-Murphy would have told you you're a fantasist.