"Eric Stevens" <eric.stevens@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> Somewhere in the maze of the past threads on the subject I said that I
> could find no evidence of a connection between Templars and
> Scandinavia. Now I have encountered http://tinyurl.com/auw6u which
> describes a templar connection to Bornholm. I've ordered the book and
> will have to wait see what it says.
> This led me to http://www.merling.dk/gbehguide.html and on to
> I'm sure that this will provide fresh fodder for a stone throwing
> exercise. :-)
No stones, but I'm sure you realize Henry Lincoln is invovled. A lot has
been written by serious archaeologists in opposition to Haagensen and the
idea of the Bornholm alignments, but mostly in Danish and Swedish. When you
have read Haagensen you should also try:
For an article in Swedish about such alignments see
> I've also been exploring the nature of Templar crosses. Previously I
> said something along the lines of "the Templars seem to have used
> every form of the cross under the sun" or something to that effect. I
> am now begining to suspect that the apparent emphasis of the Templars
> on the geometry of their churches and positioning of multiple churches
> may also have a connection to what is and what is not a Templar cross.
> It's not just sufficient that it has the general appearance of a
> Templar cross but it must exactly fit the geometry of a Templar cross.
> http://home.pacific.net.au/~turner23/eyepage/cross.JPG may be one form
> of Templar cross. Its not to hard to draw the lines connecting points
> on the circumscribing circle.
> I have found no version of the Cross Patee on the internet which fits
> the Templar geometry but one can be drawn with the aid of a pair of
> 1. Draw a circle.
> 2. Without changing the compasses draw a series of inscribed arcs
> from centers at 0 degrees, 90 degrees, 180 degrees and 270 degrees
> around the circumference.
> 3. Cut out the circle.
> 4. Remove the bits enclosed by two or more arcs. (I think I've got
> that right but if you are truly creative I am sure you will show me to
> be wrong.)
> What you have is Cross Patee with rounded ends and the sides of the
> cross conforming to a particular geometry.
> All of this is a subset of the much wider field of 'sacred geometry'.
> The ideas behind 'sacred geometry' seems to be much older than the
> Templars - see http://www.isleofavalon.co.uk/history/pennick.html -
> and with suitable complication can be built into just about anything
> as can be seen if one does an image search on the subject.
> Persons who were unaware of the sacred geometry of the Templar
> cross(es) could make crosses which looked like Templar crosses but
> which, to the eye of the cogniscenti, could be seen to not be Templar
> crosses at all.
> Eric Stevens