+ Reply to Thread
Page 31 of 42 FirstFirst ... 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 ... LastLast
Results 301 to 310 of 411

Thread: Thoughts and Findings related to the Maranatha "Key" Pt. II

  1. #301
    jlockest is offline Expert Twelever Sapphire jlockest is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,661

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rubyfelixir View Post
    JLOCKEST, buddy! <slaps you on the shoulder>
    QUOTE JLOCKEST Thoughts and Findings related to the Maranatha "Key" Pt. II
    "It seems to me that the snag is now that in the 'exposes' that D has made since the demise of the LRB, none of them include any 'facts' that can be directly seen to 'illuminate' RLC."
    END QUOTE

    Have you forgotten Duncan's article "Exploring a Masonic Solution to the Mystery of Rennes-le-Chateau" in The Heretic Magazine Volume 5 April 2014? But by your use of the word "illuminate", I see that you have not. Or Duncan's talk at the Rennes Group Meeting in August 2011, which was filmed, about "The Rennes Masonic Key"?

    Duncan has been consistent in his Masonic solution for the interior church decorations of the church in Rennes-le-Chateau, although he shies away from claiming that Father Sauniere was himself a Freemason. Duncan's interpretation of the church decorations as Masonic is his evidence for his Masonic solution to Rennes-le-Chateau. I am not sure how you expect it to be turned into a "fact" so you will feel comfortable with it. Do you expect there to be a note from Sauniere's Mother? A draft plan for redecorating the church labelled "Masonic Plan For Redecorating the Church" signed "F Mason"?
    That's the good thing about facts Ruby isn't it? It doesn't matter if people are comfortable with them. They stand irrespective.
    So as the spokesperson for PPubs, what happened to the facts?......

  2. #302
    Rubyfelixir's Avatar
    Rubyfelixir is offline Twelever Silver Rubyfelixir is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    In Australia.
    Posts
    382

    Default

    What I mean is, you are rejecting a solution because you claim that it is not a 'fact'. You will only accept it as a solution for RLC if it is a fact? Great. OKAY. By what process or by whose authority are you prepared to accept Duncan's solution as a fact?
    WE DIE TO KNOW

  3. #303
    jlockest is offline Expert Twelever Sapphire jlockest is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,661

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rubyfelixir View Post
    What I mean is, you are rejecting a solution because you claim that it is not a 'fact'. You will only accept it as a solution for RLC if it is a fact? Great. OKAY. By what process or by whose authority are you prepared to accept Duncan's solution as a fact?
    By 'provability' or acceptance. Isn't that how facts work? For instance, the earth is round isn't actually a fact - but I would say that for most people in the street, it is 'accepted' as being a good enough approximation.
    I'm not sure in D's 'Masonic Church decoration' case that either criteria is met. There is no evidence, as you quite rightly point out, that there is anything saying categorically that the church was decorated using Masonic symbolism and I don't think that the evidence that D presented is enough for his ideas to be any more than that - ideas. They are not 'accepted' from what I can see.

    But you ducked the question anyway Ruby - as the spokesperson, surely you are aware of the facts that support D's ideas. So what are the facts Ruby?

  4. #304
    hayward's Avatar
    hayward is online now Good Twelever Aquamarine hayward is an unknown quantity at this point
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    934

    Default

    Here we are yet again. The same framing of the same argument, the sides of which both lack in fully substantiating a satisfactory conclusion. Which is why we must accept the idea that a conclusion presented from either side will be speculative; we can only work with evidence either in support or in opposition to raise the probability of an acceptable answer. One of us will wonder how the other is willing to accept something as true when, at best, it can be proven only as an opinion. The other might wonder the same of the other also: how can they rest on the conclusion that none of it is true if they don't really know it for certain.

    There is no argument that can be won with a position questioning the probability of whether a solution is possible or not possible.

    When the argument is that:
    A. A solution is possible -or-
    B. A solution is not possible

    ...the truth is that a solution to the conundrum we have here is both: it can be either possible and not possible. The truth is, we don't fully know what the answer is in this situation. Thus in order to build any degree of acceptance we therefore have to construct reasonable arguments.

    jlockest's argument presents a valid position. So far we have looked at several pieces of information, read stories, theories from a multitude of sources, on and on, and it would appear that within all of it there is little we can do to substantiate a factual conclusion. D's essays and writings have been ultimately speculative in nature. They take themes and ideas detached from their authors and compare them with familiar terms or symbolism in the present in an attempt to draw forth a conclusion as to their original meaning or intent. His argument uses information available only to him and compares it with the limited amount of information available in the story for us to infer a possible connection.

    Thus... the conclusion we have here is that since we can not verify the factual nature of the information presented, then we must accept it as false.....

    This argument however, is also not a truly objective position that is acceptable. If no one is able to prove acceptance of our theories, through whatever information one is able to collect and present, this does not automatically prove that the converse is true: that they are false. What we need are reasonable arguments, presented through accessible information, to construct reasonable conclusions. It also does not prove that the information contained within is actually not-fact. Although the premise might support an assumption (or uninformed opinion) of their being false, it does not essentially -or actually- prove it as such. The same goes for the opposing position; simply because no one can disprove a theory in response to a certain string of events, it does not automatically prove the theory as being true. We can only conclude that either is simply not substantial enough to sway the course of an outcome in any particular direction. Ultimately, unless we can provide a counter-position that proves their invalidity (that the truth is in fact an alternate truth) we are again unable to prove that this particular theory is entirely false.

    Without either position being made completely evident at the surface, we can thus only work within the area of presenting and reviewing information offered through the context of the subject to help determine the probability or non-probability of any theory that exists. Again, we are only left with weighing evidence and making reasonable inferences.

    So taking a position of doubt, without placing an investment into weighing the information and evidence, and attempting to diminish the validity of an argument using the argumentative structure of "if you can't prove something is a fact then it must be false" is not applicable to the situation at hand. Nor can we conclude through any such course of reasoning that 'since opinion and fact are opposite that a person's opinion is false', much in the same way that we can't truly say that 'since opinion and fact are opposite that a person's opinion must be true'. These simply aren't equivocal terms relative to the task of building an argument either in support or opposition to the events that have taken place.

  5. #305
    jlockest is offline Expert Twelever Sapphire jlockest is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,661

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hayward View Post
    Here we are yet again. The same framing of the same argument, the sides of which both lack in fully substantiating a satisfactory conclusion. Which is why we must accept the idea that a conclusion presented from either side will be speculative; we can only work with evidence either in support or in opposition to raise the probability of an acceptable answer. One of us will wonder how the other is willing to accept something as true when, at best, it can be proven only as an opinion. The other might wonder the same of the other also: how can they rest on the conclusion that none of it is true if they don't really know it for certain.

    There is no argument that can be won with a position questioning the probability of whether a solution is possible or not possible.

    When the argument is that:
    A. A solution is possible -or-
    B. A solution is not possible

    ...the truth is that a solution to the conundrum we have here is both: it can be either possible and not possible. The truth is, we don't fully know what the answer is in this situation. Thus in order to build any degree of acceptance we therefore have to construct reasonable arguments.

    jlockest's argument presents a valid position. So far we have looked at several pieces of information, read stories, theories from a multitude of sources, on and on, and it would appear that within all of it there is little we can do to substantiate a factual conclusion. D's essays and writings have been ultimately speculative in nature. They take themes and ideas detached from their authors and compare them with familiar terms or symbolism in the present in an attempt to draw forth a conclusion as to their original meaning or intent. His argument uses information available only to him and compares it with the limited amount of information available in the story for us to infer a possible connection.

    Thus... the conclusion we have here is that since we can not verify the factual nature of the information presented, then we must accept it as false.....

    This argument however, is also not a truly objective position that is acceptable. If no one is able to prove acceptance of our theories, through whatever information one is able to collect and present, this does not automatically prove that the converse is true: that they are false. What we need are reasonable arguments, presented through accessible information, to construct reasonable conclusions. It also does not prove that the information contained within is actually not-fact. Although the premise might support an assumption (or uninformed opinion) of their being false, it does not essentially -or actually- prove it as such. The same goes for the opposing position; simply because no one can disprove a theory in response to a certain string of events, it does not automatically prove the theory as being true. We can only conclude that either is simply not substantial enough to sway the course of an outcome in any particular direction. Ultimately, unless we can provide a counter-position that proves their invalidity (that the truth is in fact an alternate truth) we are again unable to prove that this particular theory is entirely false.

    Without either position being made completely evident at the surface, we can thus only work within the area of presenting and reviewing information offered through the context of the subject to help determine the probability or non-probability of any theory that exists. Again, we are only left with weighing evidence and making reasonable inferences.

    So taking a position of doubt, without placing an investment into weighing the information and evidence, and attempting to diminish the validity of an argument using the argumentative structure of "if you can't prove something is a fact then it must be false" is not applicable to the situation at hand. Nor can we conclude through any such course of reasoning that 'since opinion and fact are opposite that a person's opinion is false', much in the same way that we can't truly say that 'since opinion and fact are opposite that a person's opinion must be true'. These simply aren't equivocal terms relative to the task of building an argument either in support or opposition to the events that have taken place.
    I would agree had D not himself stressed the value and importance of the 'facts' behind the LRB. Do not forget the alleged team got together to establish facts (or so their press blurb said) - NOT just to present another theory. When quizzed on the provability of the discovery, D emphasised that it was provably factual. Not speculation. Go back through the interviews here and just read what D said about it being factual. Also, please note whet he says about the solutions and what had been presented so far:

    '....<cthree> Without giving anything away, has anyone came close to correctly identifying the 'key'?
    <cthree> to your knowledge
    <Sacred_Prize> Yes and No. Some are guessing close, but lack the factual evidence ...'

    I

  6. #306
    hayward's Avatar
    hayward is online now Good Twelever Aquamarine hayward is an unknown quantity at this point
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    934

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jlockest View Post
    I would agree had D not himself stressed the value and importance of the 'facts' behind the LRB. Do not forget the alleged team got together to establish facts (or so their press blurb said) - NOT just to present another theory. When quizzed on the provability of the discovery, D emphasised that it was provably factual. Not speculation. Go back through the interviews here and just read what D said about it being factual. Also, please note whet he says about the solutions and what had been presented so far:

    '....<cthree> Without giving anything away, has anyone came close to correctly identifying the 'key'?
    <cthree> to your knowledge
    <Sacred_Prize> Yes and No. Some are guessing close, but lack the factual evidence ...'

    I

    Ok, here we have a problem at the beginning trying to figure out what the facts are that he is even mentioning. Are the facts the historic events? Are the facts the observable geometry? Also, we have to take with it a grain of salt because with D nothing has or will ever be presented as fact; protected either by oath or personal caution. You are simply left to infer a conclusion on your own.

    But is there something there, with the history and with the events that took place that one should be able to indicate something?

    As for whether or not it rises above speculation, (and yes I have my convictions and thoughts aside) from my point of view also, the f-a-c-t-s so far are not indisputable. I will continue with attempting to construct, but I am not going to do so without any solid materials to work with.

    What D has done so far (and not the only one) is claimed that the events, people and church at RLC have certain similarities with Masonic-type symbolism, themes, and/or ritual. With this, and based on my familiarity with such Masonic information, I do understand how he would make these associations. That is, the associations do seem clear. With the inclusion of information surrounding the personal actions and activities of Sauniere (such as his attendance to a Martinist lodge in Lyons as a guest, psuedo-alchemical/Rosicrucian paraphernalia in his possession, connections to people who had an interest in Freemasonry), I could also see why D -or anyone- would try to account for the unusual features present at a Church (especially from a Catholic perspective) by looking into several facets of Freemasonry.

    But are these measures conclusive? Not entirely. However, there is such additional evidence that might support -if not actual membership- at least an affiliation with such individuals or ideas:

    Lyonese friends

    Saunire and the occult

    Saunire, Freemason?

    Of these (if accepted as true fact) perhaps the most interesting fact is the supposition that Sauniere was a Martinist and had registered in a log in Lyons as a guest from another lodge. Martinism is known to have connection to Freemasonry; however the connection is present only within certain aspects of its structure -one of its rites-, as well as mutual membership among members (which begs the question of why be a member of two divisions if in fact they are the same entity), and should therefore not be concluded as being entirely Masonic. Does this prove that his work at the church is thus Masonic? Not exactly then. It might show proclivity to such ideas and might also show similarities with Freemasonry, but without placing him as an actual member to a lodge, it is rather difficult to do so.

    Martinism on the other hand -around since 1740- could hold a link with the 'Masonic-esque' similarity in his church.

  7. #307
    hayward's Avatar
    hayward is online now Good Twelever Aquamarine hayward is an unknown quantity at this point
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    934

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hayward View Post

    Martinism on the other hand -around since 1740- could hold a link with the 'Masonic-esque' similarity in his church.
    That is- if, in fact, this was done by such intent and not by some idiosyncratic measure of his own design.

  8. #308
    hayward's Avatar
    hayward is online now Good Twelever Aquamarine hayward is an unknown quantity at this point
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    934

    Default

    So, looking into the origins of Martinism, it appears that its founder did come out of a Masonic practice and started the organisation based upon an initial Masonic structure. But then, it led into a much more mystical direction than freemasonry currently espouses. Today, the Martinist order has been assumed with in the auspices of the AMORC (Ancient Mystical Order Rose Croix).

  9. #309
    jlockest is offline Expert Twelever Sapphire jlockest is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,661

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hayward View Post
    Ok, here we have a problem at the beginning trying to figure out what the facts are that he is even mentioning. Are the facts the historic events? Are the facts the observable geometry? Also, we have to take with it a grain of salt because with D nothing has or will ever be presented as fact; protected either by oath or personal caution. You are simply left to infer a conclusion on your own.

    But is there something there, with the history and with the events that took place that one should be able to indicate something?

    As for whether or not it rises above speculation, (and yes I have my convictions and thoughts aside) from my point of view also, the f-a-c-t-s so far are not indisputable. I will continue with attempting to construct, but I am not going to do so without any solid materials to work with.

    What D has done so far (and not the only one) is claimed that the events, people and church at RLC have certain similarities with Masonic-type symbolism, themes, and/or ritual. With this, and based on my familiarity with such Masonic information, I do understand how he would make these associations. That is, the associations do seem clear. With the inclusion of information surrounding the personal actions and activities of Sauniere (such as his attendance to a Martinist lodge in Lyons as a guest, psuedo-alchemical/Rosicrucian paraphernalia in his possession, connections to people who had an interest in Freemasonry), I could also see why D -or anyone- would try to account for the unusual features present at a Church (especially from a Catholic perspective) by looking into several facets of Freemasonry.

    But are these measures conclusive? Not entirely. However, there is such additional evidence that might support -if not actual membership- at least an affiliation with such individuals or ideas:

    Lyonese friends

    Saunire and the occult

    Saunire, Freemason?

    Of these (if accepted as true fact) perhaps the most interesting fact is the supposition that Sauniere was a Martinist and had registered in a log in Lyons as a guest from another lodge. Martinism is known to have connection to Freemasonry; however the connection is present only within certain aspects of its structure -one of its rites-, as well as mutual membership among members (which begs the question of why be a member of two divisions if in fact they are the same entity), and should therefore not be concluded as being entirely Masonic. Does this prove that his work at the church is thus Masonic? Not exactly then. It might show proclivity to such ideas and might also show similarities with Freemasonry, but without placing him as an actual member to a lodge, it is rather difficult to do so.

    Martinism on the other hand -around since 1740- could hold a link with the 'Masonic-esque' similarity in his church.
    Hayward,
    Again, all I would do is point you at the interview transcripts. ...
    ...<Sacred_Prize> I would like to clarify, that the item and the knowledge, is fact not theory
    <cthree> Ok so in reference to the last question,
    <cthree> The key leads to both, and they are based in fact.
    <cthree> correct you'd say?
    <Sacred_Prize> Yes the key is fact, both as an item and its knowledge. ...'
    ......
    '...<astreeturover> You said that the key is fact, not theory. Would most people interpret it that way if they knew what you, or other team members, knew?
    <Sacred_Prize> The most yes, some would need a little further understanding of the issues
    <Sacred_Prize> Either way, we can prove the discovery is fact ....'

    Your opening comments with regard to the observable geometry is not a fact any more than any other geometry drawn on an object using abitrary points - as if Ds geometry is valid and a 'fact', then so is any other geometry drawn on the images. That would have had Poussin spend more time working out the myriad geometric shapes that people have seen than actually painting. I think D would have to provide more to claim that 'his' geometry is a fact - maybe some form of intent by the artist?

    As for the Masonic associations and symbolism at the church - do you not at least find it a bit of an oversight, that Baigent - a relatively high ranking Mason, didn't make the same associations? Any Mason you know who made the same associations? Any - even after they've been pointed out?

  10. #310
    hayward's Avatar
    hayward is online now Good Twelever Aquamarine hayward is an unknown quantity at this point
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    934

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jlockest View Post
    Hayward,
    Again, all I would do is point you at the interview transcripts. ...
    ...<Sacred_Prize> I would like to clarify, that the item and the knowledge, is fact not theory
    <cthree> Ok so in reference to the last question,
    <cthree> The key leads to both, and they are based in fact.
    <cthree> correct you'd say?
    <Sacred_Prize> Yes the key is fact, both as an item and its knowledge. ...'
    ......
    '...<astreeturover> You said that the key is fact, not theory. Would most people interpret it that way if they knew what you, or other team members, knew?
    <Sacred_Prize> The most yes, some would need a little further understanding of the issues
    <Sacred_Prize> Either way, we can prove the discovery is fact ....'

    Your opening comments with regard to the observable geometry is not a fact any more than any other geometry drawn on an object using abitrary points - as if Ds geometry is valid and a 'fact', then so is any other geometry drawn on the images. That would have had Poussin spend more time working out the myriad geometric shapes that people have seen than actually painting. I think D would have to provide more to claim that 'his' geometry is a fact - maybe some form of intent by the artist?

    As for the Masonic associations and symbolism at the church - do you not at least find it a bit of an oversight, that Baigent - a relatively high ranking Mason, didn't make the same associations? Any Mason you know who made the same associations? Any - even after they've been pointed out?

    There were not comment's' in the plural sense with regard to the observable geometry. I phrased as a question "Are the facts the observable geometry?" Then you have decided to redirect the discussion to introduce your opinion about whether or not (again) it is or is not possible whether Poussin could have provided this information. This approach is rather tiresome, since we have already determined that it can be both possible and not possible.

    The tilted hexagram as a shape is a fact. The fact that it can be drawn tilted at exactly the same degree in relationship to the frame across several paintings using exact compositional points within the painting to construct it is a fact. I have addressed it also here: Hidden Geometry in Da Vinci, Rennes le Chateau, and Maranatha Et in Arcadia Ego: Guest Post by Hayward Gladwin – Mysterious Writings. If you are refuting it based on either a personal bias or lack of time invested in the subject, I can't go any further into this discussion.

    Again- your final paragraph addresses whether or not it is or is not possible for the Masonic associations to appear in the church, using circumstantial knowledge of what the opinions are of others to help support your case that it isn't possible. It is both possible and not possible. Questioning whether or not a high ranking Mason would or would not A. Make the same associations or B. Care to have cause to publicly comment on them is an extremely weak position.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 31 of 42 FirstFirst ... 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts