Pardon my ignorance then, I thought the Priory did exist although the list of patrons/leaders seemed rather far-fetched. But was Brown really stating its existence as fact? Like "oh anyway there was this secret organisation that....etc" or was he putting the existing theory forward and getting some nice publicity to boot? Bad writer or not, I don't believe he is some gullible conspiracy nut, unlike many of his readers
Was the guy on French TV the one who claimed he was Le Comte de St Germain? (See also: Foucault's Pendulum)
tbc.
zero_23@mac.com wrote:
On 7 May 2006, at 22:13, Simon Glass wrote:
> Anyone who criticises Brown for stating supposition as fact is
> perhaps overlooking the point that this is a novel, therefore it is
> the characters therein who
are believing every nugget of conjecture
> spoonfed to them, plus indirectly, millions of gullible readers.
> It's not something Brown himself is guilty of, as it isn't claiming
> to be a history or archaeology book
no, that is exactly what he did do
not only at the start of the book does he state as fact that the
Priory of Sion is a real organisation as are the Dossiers Secrets but
he's said it on television interviews too.
one fact that all his research seems to miss was that in fact the
Priory of Sion was invented by 3 french guys in the 1970s as an
elaborate hoax to put forward one of them as the rightful heir to the
french throne, only the guy behind it all lost his nerve and
confessed to it on french national tv at the end of the 70s
_______________________________________________
KLF mailing list
KLF@mailman.xmission.com
http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/klf
Report
list abuse to list-abuse at studio-nibble.com
New Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Call regular phones from your PC and save big.