Comments on: Knights Templar hid the Shroud of Turin, says Vatican http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/Blog/?p=2092 Anti-Theory Conspiracy Sat, 25 May 2013 04:56:13 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.1 By: Terry Melanson http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/Blog/?p=2092#comment-5912 Terry Melanson Thu, 09 Apr 2009 05:01:10 +0000 http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/Blog/?p=2092#comment-5912 Don't get me wrong, I'm not one of those shroud freaks, nor do I particularly care about the Templars. I read that Lomas/Knight book in the 90s when it came out. At that time I was credulous toward a whole range of alternative viewpoints. But I specifically remember how lame their thesis was. The whole book felt like a con-job (even that they were deceiving themselves). It was in fact the poorest conspiracy theory book I had ever read - and I had plowed through hundreds of 'em by then. That being said, the shroud is known to have been in the hands of a family that consisted of Templar knights. And if the Sabbatier testimony is believed, Templars were in possession of it before Demolay's death (rendering meaningless the crux of the Lomas/Knight argument anyway). It only matters that <em>they</em> believed the shroud was worthy of veneration. The Baphomet tales have remained a mystery; that it was in fact the shroud now seems the most plausible explanation. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not one of those shroud freaks, nor do I particularly care about the Templars.

I read that Lomas/Knight book in the 90s when it came out. At that time I was credulous toward a whole range of alternative viewpoints. But I specifically remember how lame their thesis was. The whole book felt like a con-job (even that they were deceiving themselves). It was in fact the poorest conspiracy theory book I had ever read - and I had plowed through hundreds of ‘em by then.

That being said, the shroud is known to have been in the hands of a family that consisted of Templar knights. And if the Sabbatier testimony is believed, Templars were in possession of it before Demolay’s death (rendering meaningless the crux of the Lomas/Knight argument anyway). It only matters that they believed the shroud was worthy of veneration. The Baphomet tales have remained a mystery; that it was in fact the shroud now seems the most plausible explanation.

]]> By: Jay Dyer http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/Blog/?p=2092#comment-5910 Jay Dyer Thu, 09 Apr 2009 04:11:08 +0000 http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/Blog/?p=2092#comment-5910 Oh, I just meant doubting that it was Christ's shroud. I think its a stretch what Lomas and Knight say, but yeah, it surely could have been. Oh, I just meant doubting that it was Christ’s shroud. I think its a stretch what Lomas and Knight say, but yeah, it surely could have been.

]]> By: Terry Melanson http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/Blog/?p=2092#comment-5828 Terry Melanson Mon, 06 Apr 2009 21:28:22 +0000 http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/Blog/?p=2092#comment-5828 Whatever the ultimate origin, or purpose, it has a lengthy history. That the Templars had possession of it is well-established already. This Vatican scholar merely offers supporting evidence. It seems pretty clear to me that the shroud may indeed be the Baphomet of the Templars. Check out <a href="http://templarcodefordummies.blogspot.com/2009/04/frale-knights-templar-protected-turin.html" rel="nofollow">this link</a> too. Whatever the ultimate origin, or purpose, it has a lengthy history. That the Templars had possession of it is well-established already. This Vatican scholar merely offers supporting evidence. It seems pretty clear to me that the shroud may indeed be the Baphomet of the Templars.

Check out this link too.

]]> By: Jay Dyer http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/Blog/?p=2092#comment-5826 Jay Dyer Mon, 06 Apr 2009 21:17:15 +0000 http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/Blog/?p=2092#comment-5826 Personlly, I've always doubted all this shroud stuff. Personlly, I’ve always doubted all this shroud stuff.

]]>