markfiend

*sigh*
It has been convincingly demonstrated that the whole Sauniere / Grail / Zion story is bunk. Sauniere got rich selling masses, not from any "mysterious" treasure. The "Grail documents" were forged as a practical joke by Pierre Plantard. Any "theory" based on either of these premises thereby crumbles to dust.

Amedeo

YOU just stated things you have heard, and YOUR estimate is that they have been convincingly demonstrated.
How accurate are you?
You just quoted me, but the statement within the quotes is NOT my statement. It is an estimate, probably yours, but certainly not mine. Whoever made it obviously did not read, or understand, what I wrote, and probably never read "Holy Blood, Holy Grail.

In answer to the quoted estimate AND the estimate you wrote after the quote, I will say a few shocking words, but I hope that there are people with READING COMPREHENSION:

Most of my essay consists in presenting historical facts and insights into history. Behold the reality of the crusades, of Godfrey of Bouillon, of the conquest of Jeruslem, of the Templars, of what they did in Jerusalem, of the history of France and the Templars, of Axum, of the claims of Axum to the possession of the Ark (and I did not mention that there was an Israeli attempt to break into the fortified building where an ark is kept), of FOUR VIDEOTAPES WHICH ARE ABOUT THE INVESTIGATIONS OF THE TEMPLARS AND OF THE LIFE AND DEEDS OF SAUNIERE, and of innumerable FACTS. Except for the interpretation of "san greal"(which I credited), all that I wrote IS NOT stated or implied by "Holy Blood, Holy grail." Whoever wrote that estimate does not know know his elbows from his ear-holes.

One of the things I did and wrote down was to point to two of Mr. Lincoln's mis-interretation of two Latin statements which precluded him from locating the Templar treasure. Incidentally, it was ONLY I that identified the "treasure" with the Ark, to begin with. Mr. Hancock's quest for the Ark ended in Axum; he did not engage in detective/inferential work about the Ark. Now, whether the documents which Sauniere alledgedly found are authentic or not (and it is not true that they have been demonstrated to be fakes), the fact is that they lead to a location where the Ark would be. Now, you say or, rather, some people say that Sauniere got extravantly rich by selling masses, and that he did not really find a treasure. But then, historical facts and Sauniere deeds (not the found documents) led me to the Calvary as the place where the Ark should be. You offer no objections to this detective/inferential process and assume that there is no Ark to be found. YOU DID NOT find anything wrong with my detective/inferential process! As for myself, I recognized the non-absolute certainty of the inference, and I affirmed that there is only a high probability as to where the Ark is. Most importantly, I identified this probable place. Therefore, all one has to do IS TO LOOK INTO THE PLACE beneath the cross. My hypothesis is VERIFIABLE and I even asked some French people to verify it. All the opinions that the Ark may not exist, may be in a warehouse, may still be in the stables of Solomon, and what not, ARE SPECULATIONS and have no truth merit.

As for Sauniere getting so rich by selling masses that he could rebuild a church, build new buildings, built a great garden, and so forth, I just would like to see how much people used to pay for a mass (which, anyway, would be only for special occasions, such as funerals), and how many masses it would take to have the weath he used a short period after he went around begging for money to just repair the roof of the church. Talk is cheap; speculations are groundless.

Amaleq13

TZD (Twilight Zone Debates)?

spin

C'mon. Call 'em X-Files and be done with it.