Dan Brown and Priory of Sion

If anyone read The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail you'll know where Dan Brown got his idea and should have lost his suit.

actually if you have ACTUALLY READ HBHG , you would know that Baigent, Lincoln, and Leigh were NOT the originators of most of the theory Brown uses. In fact they quote
other sources freely, including reference material and locations in their appendices
and bibliography.

IMO baigents siut was just a way to publicize his newest book. Its hard to prove something is yours when you have published your sources.

Not to mention that HBHG is more concerned with the artwork of Nicholas Poussan, especially the "Shepards of Arcadia" and not on Leonardo. It is likely that brown got the "DaVinci" aspects of his story from "The Templar Revelation" by Lynn Picknett and Clive Prince. Brown alludes to this as the book is listed as one of the volumes on Teabing's bookshelf.

Originally posted by Nygdan
I think you've really got to keep that advice and apply it to yourself. The priory is fake, its been known to be fake since before Brown wrote the book. Nothing between the covers must be true, its a fictional book.

The priory might have been debunked however, the documents that existed that first led people to believe it existed ARE REAL. The information on them may not be true, but they are real. Therefore, basing this information on those documents saves him from the battle of the Priory being fake.

Nothing between the covers must be true, its a fictional book.

I'm not sure I understand what you are trying to say. I think you are saying that because it's a fictional book, everything in it MUST be false, which is far from the truth. There are tons of facts in that book; but the STORYLINE and the actual EVENTS that take place within the book are imaginative.

What Dan Brown did was take conspiracy theories and news of the weird from lots of different places and tie it all together, opus dei, Plantard, gnostic jesus, goddess worship, the grail legends, the knights templar, all rolled up into one giant conspiracy enchilada, nice and spicey.

And? He said the documents in which he referred to were real; he NEVER said that his storyline on the conspiracies were TRUE.

The preface to the book is part of the fiction, it makes the book more beleivable as you rear it.

The preface is not part of fiction; it's based on true documents; if that forces people to believe everything they read in the book, then that is their own ignorance.

The preface is not part of fiction; it's based on true documents; if that forces people to believe everything they read in the book, then that is their own ignorance.

So, if we assume, as you say, that Dan Brown is claiming that it is only the DOCUMENTS that are real, and he is using the Protocols of the Elders and the "Secret Documents", then we have to assume that Nygdan is right, and EVERYTHING is fictional. If you read the above posts, you will find the verification you need to tell you how BOTH have been proven fakes. There is nothing about either of them that is true. BOTH were manufactured by men trying to further their own particular political ends. They are in no way, shape, or form factual. All this really proves is that either A, Dan Brown did not know that these were fakes, B, he is just an idiot, or C, that all of it was an intentional slander of the Christian faith in order to bring about a higher publicity and therefore higher sales. Choose your option. Either way, it's all a bunch of BS.



[edit on 9-5-2006 by EdenKaia]

I know not what Dan Brown's thoughts were when he used information from those documents; I'm just saying the documents exist and he didn't do anything wrong in my opinion. There IS factual information in the preface, such as the location of Opus Dei headquarters, as well as recent controversies regarding them and their accused "practices". I'm not trying to say that everything Dan Brown said in his book is factual, BUT I'm saying that he tells you at the beginning that it's based off existing documents, and it's a fact that they exist, whether or not they are right.

I've just kind of lost interest in this topic. Anyone who thinks this book is factual, or that Dan Brown claims it's factual hasn't listened to him respond to any questioning or read the first few pages of the book.

It's a fictional novel written by a novelist. It has some facts, but the entire storyline is fiction. That's it; it shouldn't be the center of some huge controversy.

In fact, I recently went to my cousin's church, and they handed out 16 page booklets that talked ONLY about the Da Vinci Code and about how Dan Brown is an enemy of the church; etc., etc., etc. It's ridiculous in my opinion; don't give the man THAT much credit...

Originally posted by EdenKaia
If you read the above posts, you will find the verification you need to tell you how BOTH have been proven fakes.

If you read the above posts you will see that the Protocols have not yet proven to be fakes.

Originally posted by EdenKaia
and he is using the Protocols of the Elders and the "Secret Documents

I’m confused here, when did Dan Brown mention the Protocols?

Originally posted by ConspiracyNut23
I’m confused here, when did Dan Brown mention the Protocols?

He didn't. That confused me too.

Originally posted by d1k
If anyone read The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail you'll know where Dan Brown got his idea and should have lost his suit.

Correct.......................and correct.

Originally posted by Omniscient

Originally posted by Nygdan
The priory might have been debunked however, the documents that existed that first led people to believe it existed ARE REAL.

Yes, they phsyically exist, but they are not from 1099 and are not authentic documents, they are frauds.

Therefore, basing this information on those documents saves him from the battle of the Priory being fake.

No, it doesn't. The priory is NOT a real organization. Period. Its fake. His book is a fictional book. He simply took the name of the group and the fact that that list has Davinci as one of its grand masters and combined it into the enter story of the secret codes in davinci's paintings.

I think you are saying that because it's a fictional book, everything in it MUST be false, which is far from the truth.

Clearly I am not saying that. I already stated that it has 'truths' in it, such as the louve being in paris and paris being in france. Or there being a pyramid at the louve. What I am saying is, just because the book has a blurd that says 'such and such thing in the book is true' hardly means that it is.

And? He said the documents in which he referred to were real; he NEVER said that his storyline on the conspiracies were TRUE.

What part of 'the priory of sion is a real organzation existing since 1099' aren't you getting as part of the fiction?

The preface is not part of fiction; it's based on true documents; if that forces people to believe everything they read in the book, then that is their own ignorance.

No, the preface is part of the fiction. Why are you beleiving whats in the preface? Its demonstrably false, there is no priory of sion that has existed sinc 1099, the priory of sion itself is a fraud, the preface would have us beleive that it is a real organization to which davinci belonged.

and he didn't do anything wrong in my opinion.

I don't think he did anything wrong either. Its a work of fiction, he can preface it with 'yo yo yo, dis schtuff is for realz', it makes it more exciting to read.
Michael Chricton's "Eaters of the Dead" 'the 13th warrior' is a movie adaption of it) is prefaced with a largish introduction section, explaining the history of the research invovled in the story, citations of documents, and then the book ends with an appendix and list of citations. That hardly means that ibn Fadlan fought the wendigo along side beowulf, or that he even reported anything that could be taken as such, its all part of the fiction.
Take for example, Brown's description of archetecture and artwork, thats not 'non-fiction', its all intperpretation, that such and such person is a female, or that this structure is a reference to this beleif, etc.

I mean, yes, there are documents proporting to be the documents of the priory of sion, but they're fake. Brown can hardly be said to be telling anything other than a fictin when he says 'the priory of sion is real', its like saying that the Justice League of America is real.

On the lawsuit, I didn't understand how the HBHG authors could be suing for Brown using the ideas in their books; after all, they claim its research, and you can't keep a copyright on research.

HOWEVER, thats not what they were suing over. They claimed that Brown had lifted entire sections, word for word, from their book, which is just rank plagarism.

Not to mention that HBHG is more concerned with the artwork of Nicholas Poussan, especially the "Shepards of Arcadia" and not on Leonardo. It is likely that brown got the "DaVinci" aspects of his story from "The Templar Revelation" by Lynn Picknett and Clive Prince. Brown alludes to this as the book is listed as one of the volumes on Teabing's bookshelf.

FACT: this is in fact impossible The copy right date of HBHG is 1982.
the copy right date for TR is 1997 with first publication 1998. Secondly anyone who
has read TR AND looked through the bibliography will know that ALL 3 of Baigent, Leigh,
and Lincoln's books are listed in the bibliography.

I mean, yes, there are documents proporting to be the documents of the priory of sion, but they're fake. Brown can hardly be said to be telling anything other than a fictin when he says 'the priory of sion is real', its like saying that the Justice League of America is real.

The Original order dating from ca.1099 is independantly documented by extant (at least they were extant in the mid 1980's) charters and documents, and references
from historians in the mid1600's just to start.
are the two organizations the same, with the same agendas and plans? Who knows.

To say the Priory is fake is the same as saying The US had no military presence
in The Republic of vietnam before 1965, There are no American Military Personell
still held captive in said republic, ( which today may be true,all having died), and that
none of the alphabet soup organizations attached to the US Government ever in their entire history ran a single black op.


And all that rates right up there with
the checks in the mail
Ill still respect you in the morning
and
I wont well you know the rest.


Oh BTW most if not all of the books Brown mentions in Leigh's bookcase are or were(
i lost my entire library in a house fire 10 years ago) in my bookcase long before TDVC was ever written.

[edit on 10-5-2006 by stalkingwolf]

I think you mistook my quote - I was stating that Dan Brown got some of his ideas from TR. Not that the HBHG's authors did - we all know that's the book that started it all (well not really of course, it was Gerard deSede's novels - but that's another story)

Originally posted by stalkingwolf
The Original order dating from ca.1099 is independantly documented by extant (at least they were extant in the mid 1980's) charters and documents,

Are you talking about somethign other than the Secret Dossiers?

and references from historians in the mid1600's just to start.

What historians? I am unfamiliar with this aspect.

The is supposedly a Papal Bull issued in 1099 that mentions the founding of an Ordre du Sion in newly captured Jerusalem.

The only place I have found any mention of this is from HBHG and websites that support the mystery in some way.

I don't think you're getting what I'm saying Nygdan; I'm not trying to claim that the Priory existed. I'm saying that based on the documents Brown did his 'research' on, they "existed"; even if those documents have been proven to be fake, the documents still SAY that the Priory existed, whether they are fake or not.

Originally posted by Roark
The Protocols of the Elders of Zion have already been debunked, by much more learned men than we.

They are inarguably a forgery.

They are always "inarguable a forgery" because nobody will actually argue the actual content. So, those who do not want to believe just dismiss them outright never even trying to argue a single point.

About Lenin's brothers, Lenin had more than one brother, one was hanged in 1887 for trying to kill the Tsar. I haven't found conclusive proof that the other was also hanged in 1905, but it was in the Jewish Revolt of 1905 that Lenin was arrested for trying to overthrow the Russian government.

it.stlawu.edu...

But my point is still the same, Russia was under constant Jewish attack that disguised itself as communist, but really worked for big banking interest from Switzerland.

thewebfairy.com...

The actual preface in case anybody cares is this.

all descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents and secret rituals in this novel are accurate

So its not even FACTUAL, its accurate. Meaning that yes, secret rituals exist, the documents exist, the artwork exists, and the architecture exists.

Just a book though people, stop getting your panties in a bunch.

As Wolf Stated, and as I was typing to say myself...

Brown never claimed the novel was to be true. Alls he said was the documentation he used was factual. Descriptive accounts of the Louvre are accurate, Hieros gamos is described accurate, other SS rituals are accurately accounted.

The story itself was not meant to be fictional or literal, it is left to the interpretation of the reader. He merely presents a story with factual background and the rest is up to the reader.

Originally posted by SwatMedic
60 Minutes did a piece on this exact subject two weeks ago.

It showed exactly how and why the Priory of Scion was faked.

It is all crap and Dan Brown bases his whole book on these supposed "facts" at the beggining of his book.

the best part is how plantard claimed he was the current leader of PS....hehehe....oh, and the docs were dated to be only 40 yeasd old....


whats funny to me is I had several boring insurance business meetings at the opus dei building in NYC. The book came up in small tallk afterwards, and they made a very odd comment. They said, "we don't like the book, but dan brown better be careful, the masons may actually do something about his next book"

it was a very thinly veiled referencre to the masons harming him in some way.....