Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Man... this shows such an appalling ignorance of how historians work that I wonder for your sanity...

You are about 100 years too late in imagining the way that history is viewed is the way you suggest.

"how historically accurate is history itself?
In most cases we may never know the answers, but that should not stop us asking the questions."

Which are questions we have been asking for so long we are amazingly bored with them. Historical research has actually moved PAST this very basic question which kids learn about in Secondary school as a part of the very basics of the study of history- attacking the source and working out how well its provenance can be viewed.

All this is just to back up some more half-thought and and totally outlandish conspiracy theory of yours. As ever, not one iota of intelligence or sense behind it.

And you say 'existing Historical Record' as if we have it all put in one big book that everyone agrees with.

Seriously, this entire question is scarily ignorant.

depends on the source.

Is it contemporary or written years, decades, centuries later?

Is the author reliable, qualified, biased?

Of course it's about interpretation. You need to have a scooby or you could end up believing that WTC were flattened by something other than a couple of massive aeroplanes and some big fires.

Also, it's handy for Dan Brown to muddy historical waters because he makes a good living writing books about dodgy/unlikely/improbable historically related stuff.

Absolutely. History is all about interpretation. Lackiong a time machine, it is an attempt to make a best guess about what the past is like making use of evidence which is, inevitably, always flawed and/or biased. No-one ever said it was easy.

And hence history is being re-interpreted all the damn time. To try and make out that there has been one version of history simply forced upon us is ludicrous. Like any academic area, trying to define history is a warground between various views and different ideas, continually changing.

So hence again, the basic premise of this thread is nonsense. And the answer to the question of the thread is- "Not very, that's why history is a skilled subject."

I agree, a lot of ppl have no idea of how historians works

I always thought they used souped up DeLoreans.

You learn something new every day I guess.........

*shakes head*
boy boy boy... trying to get a conspiracy out of this

come on, if you have any idea about how historians work, you wouldn't say such things

A - Author
B - Bias
C - Content
D - Date

Always forgive your enemies; nothing annoys them so much.

i forgive you all

Originally posted by Deano
Always forgive your enemies; nothing annoys them so much.

i forgive you all
Err...I think this is intended to work a little bit different.

explain..

Lets give Deano what he wants a conspiracy bases around the "Davinci Code". I love it when a plan comes together. "Holy blood and Holy grail" is the book Dan Brown rips off it in turn is based on a con.

http://petragrail.tripod.com/hoax.html

Originally posted by Deano
explain..

Like you can't just forgive your enemies for nothing.....forgive them either if you beat them fair and squarte that they even started fighting you...or forgiving for cruel acts they did....

Deano, I worry for your mental health.

Originally posted by mechmoggy
Deano, I worry for your mental health.




im mentally and physically fine

its the others who are not..

Originally posted by Bardock42
Like you can't just forgive your enemies for nothing.....forgive them either if you beat them fair and squarte that they even started fighting you...or forgiving for cruel acts they did....

its ok ..i forgive you...

How historically accurate is Deano?

Originally posted by Deano
its ok ..i forgive you...

.....you see now you got it

Deano this conspiracy is real just not the one you wanted

As his vehicle to power, Plantard casts his eyes upon a nearby mountain called "Sion" and decides to call his tiny group of followers the "Priory of Sion" . A year later, unsucessful, Plantard revises his plan , much as Hitler had done after his early setbacks. Casting his gaze beyond the local Sion, Plantard next devises a grand scheme of unprecedented chutzpuh:

Pierre Plantard begins to stake a claim that he is a biological heir of the Messianic throne of Jesus . He changes his name to Pierre Plantard St. Claire and produces an impressive series of forged genealogies to link himself to Jesus and Mary Magdalen .

None of it is true, of course. Plantard forges the documents and fabricates the history . He has recruited a couple of people to help him, but the entire thing (except for two 19th-century texts ) is a hoax, as he will eventually admit under oath in a French court in 1993 .

You see conspiracies in EVERYTHING, Deano. Can't you just accept that maybe things actually are as they seem?

And you should know that if you post stuff that clearly shows very little understanding of something (like this thread) you're going to get called out as being wrong.

Originally posted by Lana
You see conspiracies in EVERYTHING, Deano. Can't you just accept that maybe things actually are as they seem?

And you should know that if you post stuff that clearly shows very little understanding of something (like this thread) you're going to get called out as being wrong.

im not afraid of being wrong

Originally posted by Deano
im not afraid of being wrong
That is good....cause you are

Deano this conspiracy is real just not the one you wanted, its all made up including the Priory of Sion. reposted due to being at the bottom of the page.

As his vehicle to power, Plantard casts his eyes upon a nearby mountain called "Sion" and decides to call his tiny group of followers the "Priory of Sion" . A year later, unsucessful, Plantard revises his plan , much as Hitler had done after his early setbacks. Casting his gaze beyond the local Sion, Plantard next devises a grand scheme of unprecedented chutzpuh:

Pierre Plantard begins to stake a claim that he is a biological heir of the Messianic throne of Jesus . He changes his name to Pierre Plantard St. Claire and produces an impressive series of forged genealogies to link himself to Jesus and Mary Magdalen .

None of it is true, of course. Plantard forges the documents and fabricates the history . He has recruited a couple of people to help him, but the entire thing (except for two 19th-century texts ) is a hoax, as he will eventually admit under oath in a French court in 1993 .

Originally posted by Bardock42
How historically accurate is Deano?

99.9%

Originally posted by Bardock42
That is good....cause you are

prove to me..

Originally posted by Deano
im mentally and physically fine

its the others who are not..

A little paranoid perhaps?

I told you being a Wolves supporter is bad for your health...

Originally posted by mechmoggy
A little paranoid perhaps?

I told you being a Wolves supporter is bad for your health...

being a supporter of any team can be bad for your health

(this is just a general note, not an attack on anyone in particular)
if you can't get that a book is fiction, especially the Da Vinci Code, there is a good right that people worry about your mental health

Read "the rough guide to the Da Vinci Code", it rips to pieces a lot of Langdon's (or Brown's, depending on how you view it) theories.

most of the book is half fact half fiction

Originally posted by Deano
most of the book is half fact half fiction


no

Yes...

Most of the things in the book can not be proven and are just theory's but a lot of historians agree that they are very possible theory's. I had a very long discussion about this book in my history class and although we didn't reach a real answer we did come to the conclusion that there is absolutely nothing real to suggest that the book is fake or real for that matter.

We do know that the church was lying on several things that are mentioned in the book and looking at things logically you could come to the conclusion that what Brown claims is true. On the other hand you could just think the biblical story is true, or find yourself hanging somewhere in the middle having no idea what is true.

Fact is however history is written by the victor, and most of our history comes from the church, what are they going to do make themselves look better or tell the truth?

Originally posted by Fishy
Yes...

Most of the things in the book can not be proven and are just theory's but a lot of historians agree that they are very possible theory's. I had a very long discussion about this book in my history class and although we didn't reach a real answer we did come to the conclusion that there is absolutely nothing real to suggest that the book is fake or real for that matter.

We do know that the church was lying on several things that are mentioned in the book and looking at things logically you could come to the conclusion that what Brown claims is true. On the other hand you could just think the biblical story is true, or find yourself hanging somewhere in the middle having no idea what is true.

Fact is however history is written by the victor, and most of our history comes from the church, what are they going to do make themselves look better or tell the truth?


Psion is a fake it was admitted in court.

Its rubbish, a rip off of Holy Blood, Holy Grail, which was also rubbish and based on fakery

Originally posted by whirlysplat
Psion is a fake it was admitted in court.

Its rubbish, a rip off of Holy Blood, Holy Grail, which was also rubbish and based on fakery

Priory of Sion is indeed most likely fake. Strange is however there have been a few shows on TV here about people who have researched the same things and they talked about it as if it was real.. Very strange, also admitting to it being false had no real purpose to the people that created it. Maybe morale purpose but thats about it. Still the Priory is far from the most important thing that is claimed in the book if you ask me.

Who cares about people that could be the descendent's of Jesus, what is is important is the question if Jesus was truly the son of god, if Jesus was married or not things like that. Who cares about grandchildren. Its not like we learn about the possible descendants from Julius Caesar that could be alive now either, they aren't really important.

No but the grail is (its not real) sorry

Jesus (can he be proved) sorry

etc etc etc.

I think there is ony one important thing here and that's to follow jesus's teachings of loving your neighbour and not if he was the son of (a) god

But were they his teachings or written by others?Originally posted by yerssot
I think there is ony one important thing here and that's to follow jesus's teachings of loving your neighbour and not if he was the son of (a) god

that's not the point, the point is that if you follow them, the world would be a better place

Originally posted by yerssot
that's not the point, the point is that if you follow them, the world would be a better place

Fair point with most moral teachings, the same could be said for Buddha etc

indeed, it's the teachings, not the person that counts

Originally posted by yerssot
indeed, it's the teachings, not the person that counts

I agree with you totally.

However back to the thread he is speaking of things extrapalated from the bible as historical fact, you have to agree this is silly.