Talk:Laurence Gardner

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Keep claimed titles, or not[edit]

why is there no information on this man in Wikipedia. Censored information is B.S.

Should we really keep his claimed titles (I mean, Knight Templar, right) as if they were actually true. I mean, he's the author behind the Michel Lafosse claims, and his material is mostly ignorant tripe based on the fact that there are ignoramuses who will take it as face value because they have as little clue on actual early Imperial scholarship as he probably does. Because of personal bias (made clear above), and because I am physicaly far from being able to access primary sources, or reliable secondary ones, I am reluctant to edit it yet. Those titles which he claims to have, thus far, been unable to be confirmed, except for those which require nothing other than simply joining the listed organization, which anyone could do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.81.36.33 (talk • contribs)

(Wraithcat) - His claim on his webpage as of 27 Jun 2006 to be a "Professional Member of the Institute of Nanotechnology" have been refuted directly by them. I emailed them directly and they indicated that "Laurence was a member of the institute for a short while until we found out about his unfounded claims and his membership has not been renewed since." This if nothing else casts great doubt upon the veracity of his claims, and indeed his very honesty in continuing to claim membership of this organisation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wraithcat (talk • contribs)

Why not take it as true? The majority of people in the Western world, and particularly America, seem willing to believe the far more preposterous idea that the son of God came to earth, before being killed and then coming magically to life after three days. Yes he makes the claim that some things that have been recorded as fictional or legendary may have basis in reality. Does he back these claims up with evidence from several sources? Why, yes, it appears that he does. Try actually reading the books, or something. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.63.61.2 (talk • contribs)
We aren't operating at the standards of "the majority of the people in the western world" here. We're operating according to the the standards and policies of Wikipedia, particularly the five pillars of Wikipedia. Even when it comes to articles about Christianity we strive to maintain NPOV and keep assertions verifiable. --Jackhorkheimer 20:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Me Again; amusing summary of his writings, which do get stranger in time (he is claiming that LOTR is non-fiction and much of his theories require that the Priory of Sion exist, and might be the single least outrageous proposal needed to make his ideas work) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.81.36.33 (talk • contribs)

He is NOT claiming that LOTR is non-fiction; he is claiming that it is a fiction based on customs and traditions that have long been forgotten thanks to the oppression and persecution by conservative Christian society.
Laurence Gardner’s Bloodline of the Holy Grail steals from Barbara Thiering’s book explaining the pesher technique of New Testament interpretation (she believes that scions of the Judaic royal houses had to abstain from having sex with their spouses for six years between each conception) with efforts to track the Grail lineage in British (as opposed to French) history. Gardner seems to have the strange dual goals of anointing Prince Michael of Albany the current Stewart (and hence Grail-Messianic) king, and to convince Americans that they were once (and probably should thus be again) willing to accept a Stewart constitutional monarchy as a viable form of government. Gardner’s motives seem tied up with the mysterious Dragon Order which he is a member of — a chivalric group which may or may not be in some way allied or tied into the PoS. In recent articles in Nexus magazine, Gardner has suggested the secret of the Grail bloodline may be some sort of mysterious elixir, "StarFire," which provides immortality and the ability to travel through space and time. He has also hinted that the Grail ‘bloodline’ may, in fact, consist of albinistic elflike extraterrestrial beings that feast in a vampiric fashion on pineal glands. Gardner’s writings seem to be getting stranger and stranger — I wish I was making that last sentence up.
and me again. Who are you to say that that does or doesn't happen? Have you proof that it's not true? Did you do extensive research both archaelogical and historical? You have to love skeptics. 'I don't believe this, therefore it must be wrong'. It's not even as if he hasn't tried to prove it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.63.61.2 (talk • contribs)

Yet Again: http://graal.co.uk/affiliates.html ; claims to verify (HIRH Otto von Habsburg-Lothringen doesn't seem to know this European Council of Princes he's supposed to have presided) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.63.61.2 (talk • contribs)

--- Someone else entirely here, and, you cannot prove a negative, you can however rationally dismiss anything nonsensical that is claimed to be true with no supporting empirical evidence.

And then there's the 'gold powder' thing.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chryx (talk • contribs)

"Presidential Attache to the self-styled European Council of Princes" also "Prior of the self-styled Celtic Churches Sacred Kindred of Saint Columbia" The words 'self-styled' in these quoted titles are misleading. Gardner did not refer to 'the European Council of Princes' as 'self-styled', nor 'the Celtic Churches...etc.' The 'self-styled' may be true, but Gardner never said it, so should not be within the quotation marks. Radex09 (talk) 19:45, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopedic?[edit]

Most of this article is nothing more than a cut and paste of Gardner's articles so I'm going to delete them. Even if the author put them here himself they would still be extremely unencyclopedic for the purposes of this site and would need to be thoroughly reworked in order to be Wikified.--65.113.254.207 23:01, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also suggest reverting to last October's version (which I'll do in one week pending an answer), as the part about his top-10 position seems somewhat sycophantic, especially in that records of a top-10 position have yet to produce verification. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Snapdragonfly (talk • contribs)
The top-10 business is copied off Gardner's website: http://graal.co.uk/index.html Mrdallaway 11:34, 25 January 2006 (UTC.


Has anyone actually disputed his sources? chrisporker@hotmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.178.8.2 (talk • contribs)

He has no sources. It's purely conjecture with references that having nothing to do with his speculation. There is not a single reliable source that, for example, ties together his "white powder gold" theory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.188.98.26 (talk) 07:26, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I happen to think that Gardner is on to something, and the fact that you speak so strongly against his claims is only proof to the sensitive nature of the material under scrutiny. People don't enjoy having their comfort zones messed with. Daily routines, familiarity and a certain sense of predictability are what help people to find peace and direction. If the world woke up one day to find out we'd been living a lie, wouldn't we be pretty angry about it? Confused? Discomforted? If this was such "tripe", you wouldn't have anything to worry about, would you? You wouldn't mind that an academic who's willing enough to take his work away from the norms of mainstream academics, and ask some difficult questions that most people are too afraid to ask, wanted to write a few books and share his finds with the general public. You mention Gardner's work on the monatomic gold... everything I've read and seen has been completely supported by the most modern EMPIRICAL scientific testing procedures that Gardner discusses. If you can't disprove his claims any more than you say he can prove his, then you have no right to edit this entry in a grossly negative manner, supporting only your own seemingly self-righteous beliefs. Thanks for your opinions, though. Always welcome. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.108.83.98 (talk • contribs)

Agreed, but 'reconsidering' his findings or methods does not necessarily have to mean you do it because he's messing with your comfort zones. It's easy to imply, but it doesn't have to be the reason. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Toomanyprotestsingers (talk • contribs)

If you want to keep this article neutral, it's very simple. You list him as an author, you list the books he's written, and describe what each book is about. Not how you feel about the book, or wether you think what he's written is a bunch of BS. You simply put the facts down, and let people come to their own conclusions.

What about the so called "White powder gold"?[edit]

What about this supposed panacea against age effects, illness, etc., "reputed" to be the "Food of Gods" and nutrition of souls?. Mr. Gardner appeards to be linked in any way to this stuff (http://www.whitepowdergold.com/). Anybody can scientifically say what really is this?.

Please email to malpy2004@yahoo.com

Enrique De Tomás —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.39.141.166 (talk • contribs)


While I do not have easy access to sources on hand (all my books are packed away. My mother had a stoke and I was forced to move back home to help my dad with her, so everything I own - all 5 rooms of it, is spread through their house. It looks like we're hoarders! LOL)

I ingested Monatomic Gold (i.e., "White Powder Gold") daily for 7 years. What did it actually do for me? I'm not sure that I can easily explain that. I no longer sleep for long periods of time. I tend to stay up all night and sleep during the earlier part of the day. I was later told this was one of the side effects of ingesting it. Lovely. They couldn't bother telling me that beforehand? It has to do with the cycle of Melatonin & Serotonin production in the brain, but I don't know the science behind it - just that I've had a screwed sleep cycle since around 2002, which is when I officially began taking it on a daily basis. I most definitely seem to have a better grasp of things. What I mean is that I seem to find better solutions when problems arise. Like the sleep cycle issue - the easiest solution was for me to take a night job. As for it being an anti-aging thing, or any of that. Perhaps in it's purest form, made directly from Gold - that may be true. What I was taking was not made from converted gold, it was made from crystals and minerals that had formed where a meteor struck the Earth. (Look for a product called "Etherium Gold". That was the brand I took. The company has quite a bit of the research on their website.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thosewhocallemtim (talk • contribs) 12:43, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete?[edit]

Right now the page has only one line, and even that is disputed due to neutrality. Should we just delete the whole thing?68.239.209.107 17:17, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

POV[edit]

I just read the page, he is a real author, I have most of his books. That is the neutrality dispute about? Chikanamakalaka 04:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I for one have no reason to conceal my IP address,(as others have done here by logging in) and as such I claim that Laurence Gardner is much more detailed as an investigator, linguist, and historian, than many whom I have read. I have personally researched early christian history for 35 years. There is quite a difference between reading some half baked "expert" who have published some christian literature on the subject, and taking an objective view of the subject. In order for that to happen, you need to reference hundreds if not thousands of literary works. When you do, the picture becomes perfectly clear. Its not a picture that any "organized religion" wants to be made public. Remember that there is no dispute among historians that "those that win the battles write the history you read". I caution everyone to use their own brains and do the work. Its called DUE-DILLIGENCE. Its the stuff that creates science in every form. You must be dilligent, do your homework, otherwise you could easily be sold a bill of goods. That bill could be your support of a war that might not be legitimate, or it could be the support of a religious establishment serving their own purpose. Laurence Gardner has done his homework. Research his life history, do your homework. As someone who has traveled this earth and visited over 36 countries, and has a personal library of over 3000 books related to Theology, and belief system, I can assure you that unless you are dilligent, you can be sold anything. Why have you spent so much time researching this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex56l (talk • contribs) 21:01, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please point me to scientific evidence that shape-shifting reptilian aliens once ruled our land. If you think science is basically about footnoting everything you read, you need to educate yourself. --124.188.98.26 (talk) 07:31, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Citations removed[edit]

They simply didn't meet WP:V. Two of them didn't even cite the reviewers real name. --notJackhorkheimer (talk / contribs) 18:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paranormal tag[edit]

To be a conspiracy theorist is not necessarily to be a paranormalist, or vice versa; plenty of people who believe JFK was shot by a US government cabal roll their eyes at the notion of extraterrestrials...and likewise, vice versa. What connection is there to The Unexplained other than that? --Chr.K. 10:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see your qualms, but you'll note that he's not catted under paranormal. I think the header is just there because the paranormal project decided they'd look over and maintain the page. --notJackhorkheimer (talk / contribs) 17:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not good enough[edit]

This is an utterly paltry article for a fairly high profile author who writes detailed books on complex subjects. Whether you agree with his ideas or not you can't deny that there should at least be information here as to what they are. Deleting huge swathes of text on the basis that "Most of this article is nothing more than a cut and paste of Gardner's articles so I'm going to delete them" is not the kind of attitude to take at all. If you think something is unencyclopedic then either take the time to re-write it carefully or leave it alone. Sachabrunel 10:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree with Sachabrunel. The sensorship and negativity directed towards this article is appalling. The purpose of Wikipedia is to inform the reader about facts. An article about an individual may contain description of the individual's beliefs. It is a fact that the individual holds a particular belief and that fact should be presented on Wikipedia. This does not mean that the belief is true or false. The claim is not that the belief is a fact, simply that it is a fact that the person believes it. It is up to the reader to decide for themselves what to think of the individual(Laurence Gardner)'s beliefs; not an over zealous Wikipedian deleting everything he/she dislikes. sloth_monkey 09:35, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. This article makes Mr Gardner out to be some sort of David Icke figure, not the respected author he is. The article as it stands is a totally biased hatchet job and not impartial at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.18.167.87 (talk) 17:29, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Facts on author?[edit]

Does anyone have any facts on the author e.g. where/when he was born, working history etc? I thought he was English but I'm reading one of his books and he uses the US English spelling of words instead of UK English.Burns flipper 11:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you are reading a US issue of one of his books it has likely been edited grammar- and spelling-wise for a US audience. Xanthippe 03:58, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Laurence Gardner was British. His books were published by an American Publishing company, so their editors would have used American English rather than British English. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thosewhocallemtim (talk • contribs) 11:48, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Parentage[edit]

Is Laurence Gardner the son of Gerald Gardner (as alleged here)? Theelf29 17:24, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This has been alleged numerous times by the same types of people who claimed Laurence Gardner was a "shape-shifting reptilian alien". There has been no proof put forth that he was Gerald Gardner's son, just the allegation. I would say that, considering his friendship with Nicholas de Vere and his views on Genetic Witches (i.e., Witches as a race) vs. the religion called "Wicca"(founded by Gerald Gardner), I would find it highly unlikely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thosewhocallemtim (talk • contribs) 12:28, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Revising History - Recovering Knowledge[edit]

I have read Laurence Garner's books, have gone as far as possible in verifying his numerous and valuable references, and have followed a similar path in examining the evidence of our history.

This has led me to conclude that Laurence Garder is as close to the truth on his many subjects as any other comparable researcher and author.

In attempting to cover so much ground, it is enevitable that some of his work has been subject to revision, which he has not hesitated in carrying out.

Over some twelve years I have noticed the same pattern of arrogant, repetitive and shallow critizism from a group of individuals who are clearly incensed by the revelation of truths, which deeply challenge established religious teachings.

The fact that Laurence Gardner attracts those who denigrate his character and smear his scholarship, without any genuine level of examination of the subjects he covers, tells the world that this books should be taken very seriously.

These works represent serious historical research, supported by a very large section of the informed book buying public as interest and sales of his books demonstrate.

The infantile statements and discriptions of Laurence Gardner and his scholarship, which imply otherwise on this website are a disgrace.

Edkidu —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edkidu (talk • contribs) 20:52, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Genuine examination of his work shows that his research is NOT scholarly. Scholarship is about method, not volume. The fact that he present what are clearly forged documents (a high school Latin student could see flaws in the document) in support of "Michael of Albany" suggests further purports the notion that his methods are very dubious.--124.188.98.26 (talk) 07:38, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unsubstantiated claim[edit]

The below
Arizona Milder, which is interviewed in the movie "The Biggest Secret, tells that Laurence is one of the Humanoid Reptilians that conspire with the Illuminati controlling the politics and finance of the world..[1]
I have today removed here, unless it can be fully substantiated in a comprehensible form -- SockpuppetSamuelson (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:23, 8 July 2009 (UTC).[reply]

References

  1. ^ The Biggest Secret—Viddler, in the 14th of May, 2009

Death[edit]

It's being reported in forums and Whitley Strieber's site, but not in the news. The Daily Mail gave him an award, but searching its site turns up zilch. Dougweller (talk) 11:31, 13 August 2010 (UTC) ==Death== Oh it's Dougweller super cyber cop at it again. ...how about I have direct confirmation from Laurence Gardner's wife within two-three hours of his passing...as did his webmaster and a few others around the world. Or do you want us to produce his marraige certificate for you, just to prove that the announcement came from his wife? Doug, again you have taken things too far and shown real insensitivity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.82.160.237 (talk) 17:00, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why use reason why a personal attack will do? You're almost as bad as the person whose name you wisely removed from here. We've have this funny policy of wanting reliable sources for articles, particularly biographies. We've had our fingers burned before with fake death notices. This is an encyclopedia, no one will get hurt if it takes a few hours or even days to report a subject's death. It's a bit more insensitive to report a live person as being dead, wouldn't you say? We aren't going to take an IP's word for it. If his website has been changed, then you should note that here. Dougweller (talk) 19:26, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Doug is about to get his come-uppance when his last book 'The Origin of God' publishes and blows Kharsag worldwide... ;-) (watches the ticking timebomb) p.s. big respect for sticking to the rules at the same time! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.111.22.245 (talk) 21:25, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lol. I don't think it will have any more impact than any of his others, he's a niche writer. It may have an impact in his niche, and maybe that's 'worldwide' in one sense, but... And thanks for the compliment. I have taken this to WP:BLPN by the way for other editors to comment on. Dougweller (talk) 07:07, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • - Its simple, as Dougweller correctly says, we need a strong quality report to add such a claim, WP:RS . Please do not add such claims without one. Thanks Off2riorob (talk) 14:55, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Off2riorob asked for my view. I think that with the statement on his official website by Karen Lyster, and with two posts on sites run by people who knew him ([1][2]), this is confirmed. I'm not sure mainstream press are going to pick up on his passing. Fences&Windows 11:45, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gardner was pseudohistory[edit]

What is there to discuss? Has anyone here actually read the works by Laurence Gardner? They will never be seriously entertained by any serious researcher. Take the first two statements in the article - Chevalier Labhran de Saint Germain was a Fake Title and the European Council of Princes never existed. His works certainly do not fall under the category of historical revisionism. Lung salad (talk) 20:47, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He certainly did not write or lecture on historical revisionism or pseudohistory, He wrote pseudohistory (or 'bogus history'), I can find a cite for that, Damian Thompson's Counterknowledge. Is the 'historical revisionism' bit something we created? Dougweller (talk) 21:17, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can everyone cool down and keep it non-POV. Garder's ideas may well not have been correct, but the venom displayed here is really something else. I've read a couple of his books, and while most of what he wrote is unsubstantiated by any evidence, and much is highly speculative, there is nevertheless a lot of interesting stuff in there, whether it's true or not. Compare this to Bill Bryson, for example, a fairly well respected and very popular writer who, if anything, does less research and makes more up. Is his page comprised of personal attacks? Obviously not. Save it for a 'criticisms' section. By the way, all this nonsense about "Fake Titles" - as if this matters! Who has the right to give out a title anyway? Who cares? Utterly irrelevant. Yours, Baron Bienfuxia (talk) 15:43, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cheeseman and Williams, Rebels, Pretenders & Impostors, footnote 20 to Chapter 4 (Dreamers and Hoaxers). Lung salad (talk) 17:20, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What is this? Are you expecting everyone to go and buy this book to find out? Bienfuxia (talk) 23:51, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Laurence Gardner. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:42, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Laurence Gardner. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:27, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Laurence Gardner[edit]

Obit of Gardner, The Independent, Aug 2010:. "He was born Barry Laurence Gardner in Hackney, London. In 1943". He in fact worked with Dr Whitman Pearson (US), while in Dulverton, UK , formed the Anglo American Lorna Doone Society, and helped commission the LD statue there. Both explored the Doone or Doune name as connected to Scots nobility. His books on LD were authored as Barry Gardner, eg. Lorna Doone's Exmoor, later he used Laurence as he focused on the Grail bloodline. Bloodline of the Holy Grail is dedicated in memory of Pearson a "fellow pilgrim". Ronblackmore (talk) 18:50, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stale Google Videos Link should be replaced[edit]

Could someone update the video link that is given in the article?

I am watching the original video now re-uploaded to YouTube. I found this by searching YouTube for these keywords... monatomic gold ark covenant secret

and found the video listed about the third or so down the YouTube search results.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gLFytyjV7h4 ORMUS | Lost Secrets of the Sacred Ark | Laurence Gardner [FULL 480]

I recalled vaguely that sadly this man had died, so wanted to know more details about this so came to Wikipedia to get the unfortunate details and discovered that this video was linked in its very old form from de funked Google Videos link that should be replaced with its YouTube videos counterpart above. Thanks. Oldspammer (talk) 14:17, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Laurence_Gardner&oldid=1202213662"