Pope is a Liar: #5 The Dark Secret of the Vatican Pagan Gods

I will briefly summarize what’s to follow in this thread which is created in support of my hypothesis that the Ancient Rome is one and the same with the Holy Roman Empire. It appears that Vatican and Rome became visibly Christian only around the middle of the 19th century. The same, most likely, applies for the remainder of European territories. In other words Jesus existed in Europe along the likes of Zeus, Apollo and many other Gods until approximately 1850s. It was normal and it looks like we have multiple facts to back it up. Why our society chooses to ignore these facts is beyond me.

The Scream of Gargoyles

The world famous Notre-Dame de Paris gargoyles, and chimeras were the objects which made me question the Christian nature of the Gothic Cathedrals. While the Notre-Dame de Paris is obviously in France, the same applies to the Italian Gothic Cathedrals as well. As a matter of fact, it probably pertains to all the Gothic Cathedrals out there, for most of them have gargoyles and chimeras present.


The main questions to ask here would be:

  • Why do we have gargoyles and chimeras mounted on the allegedly Christian structures?
  • What do these symbols of the ancient pagan religions have to do with Christianity?
  • How come Vatican gave their consent to have them displayed?

Here is what the narrative tells us about all those gargoyles and chimeras mounted on the Gothic Cathedrals:

  • The gargoyles’ main purpose is very practical. As rain water runs down the roofs, it needs to drain off without dripping down the walls and potentially damaging them. By evacuating rain water, the gargoyles protect the cathedral and protect the stone from damage caused by excessive runoff. That is in fact the main difference between gargoyles and chimeras. The former serve to drain rainwater, the latter are purely decorative.

KD: I do not know about you, but it sounds like a BS justification for having symbols of other religions present on the allegedly Christian places of warship. Gargoyles and chimeras do not belong to Christianity, look creepy, and do not really project any feelings of love, peace and friendship.

Gothic Cathedrals

Originating in 12th-century France, it (Gothic Architecture) was widely used, especially for cathedrals and churches, until the 16th century. What is the official explanation for naming this style of architecture “Gothic”? Well, here is what we are being told:

  • The term “Gothic architecture” originated in the 16th century and was originally very negative, suggesting something barbaric. Giorgio Vasari used the term “barbarous German style” in his 1550 Lives of the Artists to describe what is now considered the Gothic style, and in the introduction to the Lives he attributed various architectural features to “the Goths” whom he held responsible for destroying the ancient buildings after they conquered Rome, and erecting new ones in this style.

Let’s see. The Goth Germanic people that invaded the Roman Empire from the east between the 3rd and 5th centuries. once you get through all the gibberish in the Wiki article, it becomes apparent that after 711 AD the Goth presented no historical significance. Yet, the narrative has to cover the inconsistencies produced by the made up history. Hence we have the following line:

  • In the late 18th century, Gothic tribes who remained in the lands around the Black Sea, especially in Crimea – then known as Crimean Goths – were still mentioned as existing in the region and speaking a Crimean Gothic dialect, making them the last true Goths. The language is believed to have been spoken until as late as 1945. They are believed to have been assimilated by the Crimean Tatars.
    • Crimean Goths were the least-powerful, least-known, and the longest-lasting of the Gothic communities.

KD: According to the traditional historical narrative, the Goths were border line non existent after 711 AD. All the damages they allegedly inflicted to Rome were done between the 3rd and 5th centuries AD. Yet, we are expected to believe that some 16th century brainiacs were so pissed off at some 1,000 year old events, that they started to call this style of architecture “Gothic”.

  • Simultaneously, there had to some “least-known” Gothic tribes which survived all the way into the late 18th century, with a Gothic dialect spoken until 1945.

If this explanation (why the style is Gothic) is not fishy, I do not know what is. Sounds like we know nothing about who the Goths really were, and why these style of architecture was called “Gothic”. Even less do we know what any of these cathedrals have to do with Christianity.

Food for thought:

Ancient Roman Religion

Religion in Ancient Rome includes the ancestral ethnic religion of the city of Rome that the Romans used to define themselves as a people, as well as the religious practices of peoples brought under Roman rule, in so far as they became widely followed in Rome and Italy. The Romans thought of themselves as highly religious, and attributed their success as a world power to their collective piety in maintaining good relations with the gods. The Romans are known for the great number of deities they honored, a capacity that earned the mockery of early Christian polemicists.

I do not want to get into too many details on the religions present in Ancient Rome. I think the narrative provided a rather satisfactory story line on this one. The most important thing to understand here is summed up in the following sentences:

  • The Roman had their traditional ceremonies and they worshiped Roman gods as well as gods from other provinces and city states.
  • Romans worshiped gods from Babylon, Persia, Europe and Egypt. Those stationed in remote provinces often worshiped local gods.

KD: In other words, there were multiple religions present in the Ancient Rome. The last year attributed to the Ancient Rome in Europe is 476 AD. What are the odds of the same multitude of various faiths to exist in the “Renaissance” driven Holy Roman Empire of 15th – 19th centuries. Well, may be a bit more than we thought.

Roman Inquisition

The Roman Inquisition, was a system of tribunals developed by the Holy See of the Roman Catholic Church, during the second half of the 16th century, responsible for prosecuting individuals accused of a wide array of crimes relating to religious doctrine or alternate religious doctrine or alternate religious beliefs. In the period after the Medieval Inquisition, it was one of three different manifestations of the wider Catholic Inquisition along with the Spanish Inquisition and Portuguese Inquisition.


Like other iterations of the Inquisition, the Roman Inquisition was responsible for prosecuting individuals accused of committing offenses relating to heresy, including Protestantism, sorcery, immorality, blasphemy, Judaizing and witchcraft, as well as for censorship of printed literature. After 1567, with the execution of Pietro Carnesecchi, an allegedly leading heretic, the Holy Office moved to broaden concerns beyond that of theological matters, such as love magic, witchcraft, superstitions, and cultural morality. However, the treatment was more disciplinary than punitive. The tribunals of the Roman Inquisition covered most of the Italian peninsula as well as Malta and also existed in isolated pockets of papal jurisdiction in other parts of Europe, including Avignon, a papal enclave within the territory of France. The Roman Inquisition, though, was considerably more bureaucratic and focused on pre-emptive control in addition to the reactive judicial prosecution experienced under other iterations.

KD: Basically we all think that we know what the purpose of inquisitions was. If you deviate from the accepted church doctrine – you are toast. Even altered versions of Christianity were allegedly prosecuted by the Church. We are talking about monotheistic Christianity here. What do you think was supposed to happen to those who supported polytheistic religions in the 16th century?

Ivan the Terrible and Antonio Possevino

We all know who Ivan the Terrible was. He was born in 1530 and died in 1584. What religion was the only possible religion in Vatican during the years attributed to Ivan the Terrible? You are totally justified in thinking that it was Christianity, but was it really so? To answer this question we will have to get familiarized with a certain Jesuit named Antonio Possevino.


Antonio Possevino (1533 – 1611) was a Jesuit protagonist of Counter Reformation as a papal diplomat and a Jesuit controversialist, encyclopedist and bibliographer. He acted as papal legate and the first Jesuit to visit Moscow, vicar general of Sweden, Denmark and northern islands, Muscovy, Livonia, Rus, Hungary, Pomerania, Saxony between 1578 and 1586.

  • Antonio Possevino, a Jesuit monk, theologian, scholar, and papal envoy, arrived at Moscow on February 14, 1582. At that time the Russian Tsar Ivan IV sought the pope’s mediation in the cause of peace with Stephen Báthori, the King of Poland. Possevino was sent by the Pope Gregory XIII as his legate. With the permission of Ivan IV he conducted a public dispute about the matters the faith, trying to convert Ivan IV to Roman Catholicism. The Tsar was so infuriated that he almost killed Possevino. He left Moscow laden with honors but not deceived as to the success of his efforts. Possevino wrote several very interesting treatises on Russia, including “Moscovia”, rich of factual material and astute observations, and the less known Missio Moscovitica.

We have this interesting discussion between Ivan the Terrible and Antonio Possevino, which allegedly took place in 1582 AD. The prince is Ivan the Terrible.


To which Antonio Possevino replied with the following:


The above is the translation (p. 69-70) of the below excerpt from Vita Del P. Antonio Possevino Della Compagnia Di Gesu (p. 256). I used image translating services to verify the translation from Italian. I think Ivan the Terrible mentioned sixty faiths in the original. I also understood that translating images is not my piece of pie. So if @Jim Duyer or whoever else is versed in languages, could assist with the translation of the below passage from Italian, we all would be grateful. I would like to know what the reply of Antonio as per the original below.



KD: In 1582, Ivan the Terrible stated that Rome had sixty religions. Antonio Possevino replied that it was not the case. Well, let us see who we should believe.

Papal Tombs

What could be a better way to determine whether polytheistic religions were present in the 15th-18th century Rome other than the remaining physical evidence. And what could be a better reflection of the life paths of the Popes other than their Burial Tombs. Luckily we have this valuable List of Extant Papal Tombs we can examine. The list raises a lot of additional questions but for the purposes of this thread, let us concentrate on the appearance existing Papal Tombs.

Pope Gregory XIII

Somehow we have Minerva aka Athena incorporated into this Gregory XIII’s Tomb. Why would a Christian leader who died in 1585 have this Roman Goddess on his Tomb. We are talking about a pagan Goddess of War on the tombstone of the Pope here. I think the one on the left is Clio the Muse, but I’m not sure.


Pope Leo XI

The guy died in 1605. How come the Pope of Rome has Roman Goddesses Minerva and Fortune. Do they really think that we are not gonna question Fortunes horn of plenty? And why did they break Minerva’s spear? Where is the second half, or was it meant to make the ridiculousness less obvious? What does any of this have to do with the Pope of Rome and Christianity?


You can play this game on your own. All this pagan symbology at the heart of the Roman Catholic Church (aka Vatican) with Roman Inquisition running rampant makes how much sense? Zero?

Pope Julius III: Coat of Arms

Pope Julius III (1487 – 1555), born Giovanni Maria Ciocchi del Monte, was head of the Catholic Church and ruler of the Papal States from 1550 to his death in 1555. Allegedly this perverted depiction of the Christian Pope’s coat of arms was influenced by Michelangelo himself. How did the Roman Inquisition allowed two naked dudes with packages hanging out to hold Saint Peter’s Keys of Heaven?

Julius III coat of arms.jpg

And what about the below pearl?

The Triton Fountain

The Triton Fountain is a seventeenth-century fountain in Rome, by the Baroque sculptor Gian Lorenzo Bernini. Commissioned by his patron, Pope Urban VIII, the fountain is located in the Piazza Barberini, near the entrance to the Palazzo Barberini that Bernini helped to design and construct for the Barberini, Urban’s family.

  • The fountain was executed in travertine in 1642–43. At its centre rises a larger than lifesize muscular Triton, a minor sea god of ancient Greco-Roman legend, depicted as a merman kneeling on the sum of four dolphin tailfins. His head is thrown back and his arms raise a conch to his lips; from it a jet of water spurts, formerly rising dramatically higher than it does today. The fountain has a base of four dolphins that entwine the papal tiara with crossed keys and the heraldic Barberini bees in their scaly tails.
  • Triton is a Greek god, the messenger of the sea. He is the son of Poseidon and Amphitrite, god and goddess of the sea respectively, and is herald for his father. He is usually represented as a merman which has the upper body of a human and the tail, soft dorsal fin, spiny dorsal fin, anal fin, pelvic fins and caudal fin of a fish, “sea-hued”, according to Ovid “his shoulders barnacled with sea-shells”.

KD: So, what do we have happening here? On one hand inquisition was allegedly fighting heresy, on the other hand Vatican was promoting the religion of the Ancient Romans and Greeks? The same religion which supposedly died off over a thousand years ago?

Renaissance Art

Renaissance art is the painting, sculpture and decorative arts of the period of European history, emerging as a distinct style in Italy in about 1400, in parallel with developments which occurred in philosophy, literature, music, and science. Renaissance art, perceived as the noblest of ancient traditions, took as its foundation the art of Classical antiquity, but transformed that tradition by absorbing recent developments in the art of Northern Europe and by applying contemporary scientific knowledge. Renaissance art, with Renaissance Humanist philosophy, spread throughout Europe, affecting both artists and their patrons with the development of new techniques and new artistic sensibilities. Renaissance art marks the transition of Europe from the medieval period to the Early Modern age.

  • The images on the pertaining Wikipedia page are so supportive of the narrative. What about the other type of images?​
Hercules and the Centaur Nessus (1599)


Perseus With the Head of Medusa (1545-1554)


Check this nonsense out. You really need to know the difference, for the narrative insists that there was a break in time between the Ancient Rome and the Holy Roman Empire.


Cosimo I de’ Medici

Cosimo I de’ Medici (1519 – 1574) was the second Duke of Florence from 1537 until 1569, when he became the first Grand Duke of Tuscany, a title he held until his death.

Right, what can be better than depicting one of the most powerful Christian men of the time with the winged head of Medusa on his chest, and wearing Ancient Roman attire 1,000 years after its fall? I guess the Roman Inquisition did not mind little acts of heresy like this.

What else do we call Tuscany? Right, we call it Etruria. And never mind that Etruria was non-existent since about 509 BC, for:

Isn’t it amazing that 2,000 years after the fall of Etruria they simply brought back the name? Let’s call ourselves Etruscans from now on they said. Well, may be they did not say that, but the narrative compilers sure did.

One way, or the other, but those Medici were serious about their Etruria.


Heck, the Etruscan Language somehow made it onto the Europa Polyglotta map of 1730. Of course, we are told that some of those languages are ancient.

  • This is the Europa Polyglotta, published in 1730 by Gottfried Hensel (or Henselius, after the contemporary fasion of latinising surnames). Its full title, translated from Latin: ‘Multilingual Europe, showing the genealogy of the languages, together with the alphabets and modes of writing of all peoples’.

The Pantheon

They tell us: The Pantheon (from Greek Πάνθειον Pantheion, “[temple] of all the gods”) is a former Roman temple, now a church, in Rome, Italy, on the site of an earlier temple commissioned by Marcus Agrippa during the reign of Augustus (27 BC – 14 AD). It was completed by the emperor Hadrian and probably dedicated about 126 AD. Its date of construction is uncertain, because Hadrian chose not to inscribe the new temple but rather to retain the inscription of Agrippa’s older temple, which had burned down.


KD: We are being told that this “Temple of all the Gods” was completed by the Emperor Hadrian who died in 138 AD. But do they explain what “all the Gods” mean? As a matter of fact they do. Above in the Roman Religion bullet it says:

  • The Roman had their traditional ceremonies and they worshiped Roman gods as well as gods from other provinces and city states.
  • Romans worshiped gods from Babylon, Persia, Europe and Egypt. Those stationed in remote provinces often worshiped local gods.

This meant that Pantheon was for all the Gods. This would include the Christian God as well. Additionally we need to remember that the word “catholic” from Greek “katholikos” means universal. The below definition was provided by the google search.



Raphael was an Italian painter and architect of the High Renaissance. His work is admired for its clarity of form, ease of composition, and visual achievement of the Neoplatonic ideal of human grandeur. Together with Michelangelo and Leonardo da Vinci, he forms the traditional trinity of great masters of that period.

Who here thinks that Raphael was Christian? I do, but I do not really know if he was. The narrative probably says that he was. Why does it matter? Well, where is he buried at? Coincidentally his tomb is in the Pantheon. As a matter of fact, he, allegedly, was the first person to be buried in the Pantheon.


Some critical thinking will suggest that a christian artist would probably object to being buried in the pagan temple. I do not know if he objected or not, but his tomb is definitely in the Pantheon. Under what circumstances would that be possible? Only if we are being lied to, and the Pantheon was indeed for all the Gods, or if Raphael was not Christian.

And why wouldn’t they put his tomb in the Pantheon? Raphael was, with no fear creating the art promoting paganism during the time of the Roman Inquisition?

The gods of Olympus by Raphael

The gods of Olympus by Raphael.jpg

Most importantly Mr. Raphael was not the only one promoting paganism at the time of the Roman Inquisition. A whole bunch of others did as well. Well, when even the Christian Pope himself participated in the promotion of the paganism, we can not really blame these guys, can we?

The Christian Rome

So, when did Vatican and Rome become Christian? Well, the last time Gargoyles and Chimeras were added to the Notre-Dame de Paris Cathedral was around 1844. The fact that the cathedral is located in France is irrelevant. It still falls under the rule if the Vatican.

At the same time the correct answer for the above question would probably be – never. It’s only Christian for us, normal slave-type regular folk. For those “in the know” the Vatican has always been pagan, whatever that means.

The Pope Hall

The Paul VI Audience Hall is a building in Rome named for Pope Paul VI with a seating capacity of 6,300, designed in reinforced concrete by the Italian architect Pier Luigi Nervi and completed in 1971. It was constructed on land donated by the Knights of Columbus.


That, according to the artist Pericle Fazzini, is Jesus Christ rising up from a nuclear crater following a holocaust. The sculpture was commissioned in 1965 by Count Galeassi and was meant to depict the threat of nuclear war in the 20th Century. The problem for a lot of conspiracy theorists is that the sculpture, like the entire hall, contains no crucifixes or Catholic symbolism.


Take it for what it’s worth:


KD Summary: Well, my 2 cents remain the same. We were fooled into thinking that the Ancient Roman period and the Holy Roman Empire were separated by the Dark Ages. In my opinion, these two are one and the same. The Renaissance infatuation with antiquity makes no sense, and was created to hide the fact that there was only one period. TPTB had to make two out of one, but could not conceal all the physical evidence (statues, buildings, art, etc).

This is why we have statues like the three below. The compilation has three well known historical individuals wearing the Ancient Roman togas:

  • Peter the Great: 1672-1725
    • Remember, that Peter’s last name was ROMANov.
  • George Washington: 1732-1799
  • Napoleon Bonaparte: 1769-1821

The narrative tells us that the Antiquity was simply popular “back then“. “Move along people, for there is nothing special to see here,” said TPTB.


Why did TPTB have to artificially extend our history? At this moment I think because of the reoccurring “catastrophes”. The most recent one happened some time around 1850s. If those happen on a regular basis with an interval of 250-500 years, this world is better off thinking that dinosaurs roamed the Earth millions of years ago, and that Pompeii got wiped out in 79 AD instead of 1631. Nobody needs no panic, I could see that.

  • I put the word catastrophe inside the quotation marks, because we do not really know what it means. Could human harvesting be a part of this word? I think it could.
  • I doubt the Global Warming aka Climate Change is being taken seriously by the members of this forum. Yet they indicated the 10-12 year deadline. It sure does make me wonder what upcoming events TPTB could be hiding under the cover of the Climate Change.

At the same time I consider that those Pagan Gods are still out there, and TPTB knows who to warship. All other religions are for us, the enslaved and the insignificant. The sheeple needs to be controlled to remain productive and obedient.




Active member
I can’t make posts as good as yours, Korben. There is a lot to take in here and it’s all really good stuff. I have a few thoughts on these topics myself, and I’ve went a bit meander-y so I tried to remain close to the topic(s) at hand. Here goes…


On Gothic Architecture and GothsRoman architecture and Roman people

I think that so-called ‘Gothic’ architecture is really just a regional variant of ‘Roman’ and ‘Greek’ architecture. Traditional narrative frames this as not a regional difference but a temporal difference (i.e. Gothic succeeds the Roman and Greek styles). It appears more in the northern (and northeastern) and the western parts of Europe than it does in the southern parts though. Its analogue in the southern and eastern parts would be Romanesque, which does seem to be a little more evenly dispersed throughout all of Europe. There are of course exceptions though. We see our cities today and they are rarely aesthetically unified like ancient cities supposedly were, all built with the same materials and in the same style.

As for the Goths (which includes the Burgundians and Vandals) themselves, I never understood how so many allegedly barbarous Germanic tribes Romanized so much to the point where they ruled as Roman Emperors and Kings of the Romans themselves. This goes for the Franks with the Salians, Merovingians, and Carolingians; the Suebi with the Hohenstaufens or Staufers, and the Saxons with the Ottonians. The use of the word German or Germanic to describe these tribes is also odd, considering German means ‘brother’ or ‘relation’, although mainstream wisdom arbitrarily claims that Germanus (with a capital G) and germanus are words that have two completely different origins. The Germanic tribes appear to be bonded only by their family of dialects, which are a recent development defined by the so-called ‘Great consonant shift‘. I am inclined to believe that the Germans or Germanics are the ‘brothers’ of the Romans and in all likely hood one and the same. The Franks have their own Aeneid, the Liber Historiae Francorum, which holds that they are the descendants of Priam and thus kin to the Romans. At least a handful of German families have been attributed descent from Roman families, and some Roman families were once upon a time agreed to have branches that went up into Germany and parts around there (my own family being one of the latter). Now this is simply played off as ‘fashion’ and ‘trend’ of the time.

Prior to that consonant shift, their language was more akin to Celtic, even though it’s called pre-Germanic by scholars. Italic broke away only somewhat earlier. Besides which, the language is almost universally called ‘the vernacular’ or Deutsch and variations like Dutch, Duits, Theodish, Tysk, etc. to differentiate it from the elite language? Germanic languages are purported to have a significant Finnic (i.e. pre-Indo-European) substratum and possible affinities with the Tyrsenian languages, which potentially belong to the Ugric language family. If this is the case, then clearly there was an imposition of an elite language (Indo-European?) over the local language(s) (resulting in the Celtic, Italic, Germanic, et. al. dialect, and eventually language, families?) and I would venture to guess that would be yet another factor in the motive for book burning. I am a Tartaria-skeptic but this does demonstrate a potential relationship with that hypothesis, as the Tatar (Tartar?) languages seem to be a remnant of a larger language family that encompasses most of the Uralic and Altaic family, a relationship which has supposedly been debunked. A side note on language: as the Germans called themselves ‘Deutsche’ or simply ‘the people’, they likewise called the Romans ‘Welsche‘ or ‘Welsh’.

It’s a working hypothesis, but I think that the so-called Volkerwanderung of late antiquity is a possibly a phantom echo of the Indo-European migrations by about 1,000 years. In other words, there were no barbarian migrations because there were no barbarians to migrate. After the traditional dating for the fall of Rome, Italy is reunified under Lombard rule in AD 568 until AD 774 but maybe that is wrong? When removing 753 years from AD 568 you get BC 185, and 753 taken away from AD 774 is AD 21. In this case there is no need to translate to AUC dating and this may be an underlying rule for events that aren’t explicitly Roman. Maybe the Lombard unification of Italy is really just a phantom echo of the Roman conquest of the Italian peninsula? Maybe the Sabines and Suebi are the same (and perhaps the corresponding Umbri and Cimbri in Switzerland and Bavaria)?

The Kingdom of the Lombards in Italy was succeeded in 774 by the Pontifical States which itself could be a phantom echo of the establishment of the Roman Empire which happened in BC 21 (instead of AD 21, so just off by 25 years?). The Pontifical States were established in AD 754, and that translates to AD 1 and is likely the singularity upon which all events in our chronology are tethered. When shifting the layers around and aligning disparate events in time, they fit together well like puzzle pieces.


Crowns, keys, and Gods – Polytheism (i.e. Paganism), Neoplatonism, Gnosticism, and Christianity

The Catholic Church is really just a continuation of the same body of institutions and organizations that participated in religious activities in Rome before Christianity. However, it was not called the Catholic Church (at least as far as it is known) but there is something peculiar about a religion that boasts a name which means universal, broad, or general and yet its mission is very focused and not very all-encompassing (one true way and damnation for deviation, and all that). It is not until recently that it began assuming the name ‘Roman’ Catholic Church, as there was the Gallican church and Hispanic church (now absorbed by the ‘Latin’ or Roman church), the English church (now independent), the Greek church (partly Orthodox now), the Alexandrine church, the Byzantine church, the Coptic church, the Syriac church, the church of the East (independent), etc. Even the Protestant state churches in northern Europe also follow this format. The churches in the east are less centralized though and represent an ‘poly-‘ and ‘autocephalic’ structure that might be a vestige of an older format.


In the other thread about Popes and Emperors, the title of Pontiff is mentioned. The office of supreme Pontiff plays a dual role, as head of the college of Cardinals (the Pontiffs were the priestly officers who ‘built bridges’ between the different cults* for the diverse number gods, which each had their own priests, and the Pontiffs were the ‘cardinal’ priestly officers upon which the particular cult priests were dependent) and as the Rex sacrorum or ‘King of the Sacred’. The Rex sacrorum was the chief-most priest in ancient Rome, even higher in authority than the supreme Pontiff. He was also the priest that administered the liturgical worship for Janus. Janus is the father of the gods and the transcendent creator, he is the first one to have been and therefore he is invoked first in the liturgy. He is also the last god to be invoked during the liturgy. In this sense he is, to borrow a quintessentially Christian phrase, the “Alpha and Omega”. On the more mundane level he oversees doorways, passages, transitions, chaos, peace, war, and time. He is the father of one particular god named Fons or Fontus, whose name means spring or fount and not only oversees actual founts but he also reflects the quality of his father, being the metaphorical well from which all things spring from. Contrary to popular thought, Janus was (is) *not* unique to the Romans, as the Etruscans gave him the name Culsans. A treatise supposedly authored by Marcus Valerius Messalla Rufus concerning the identity of the god Janus as Aion among the Greeks was cited by Macrobius. As Aion he is depicted with a human body wrapped around by a serpent, and with a lion’s head and holding a key. Furthermore, he is not only known as Aion to the Greeks but he is also known by them as Phanes.

phanes (3).jpg

Aion and Phanes​

Interestingly, despite candidates for the office being submitted on a list to the college of Pontiffs, the Rex sacrorum was not elected but inaugurated with witnesses assembled in a conclave (sound familiar?). According to the Wikipedia page, “At Rome the priesthood was deliberately depoliticized;[10] the rex sacrorum was not elected, and his inauguration was merely witnessed by a comitia calata, an assembly called for the purpose.” and this comitia calata appears to play the same role that Papal conclaves do. The vestiges of the Rex sacrorum are plainly visible in the symbolism of the Pontificate – the use of a crown (originally one, but now three crowns perched on a pileus cap) and the key symbolism especially. The tradition of the Pope unsealing the ‘Holy doors‘ at the Pontifical basilicas during Pentecost is likely another carry over from the cult of Janus, despite claims it was only started in AD 1300 by Pope Boniface VIII. The figure of St. Peter, the patron of the Popes, also bears a lot of resemblance to Janus; both are associated with duplicity or two-facedness and roosters in the morning. The office of Rex sacrorum was apparently not popular because it was stripped of political power (I guess the men who were inaugurated into the office felt like they were hung upside down on a cross, just like Peter?), so it is easy to assume that the office may have been united with the supreme Pontiff. Just like an ancient Roman patrician, the supreme Pontiff wears red slippers.

*The word cult in this context is not derogatory, as it simply means ‘worship’ and it remains in use today among modern Romance-speakers if I am not mistaken. The definition of religion as we understand it today, did not begin to germinate until the transition to Christianity was well underway and that word simply means ‘binding’ or ‘to be bound’ (it comes from ligare, which is also related to the modern day word league).

That the Christ (which I would hesitate to equate with the later, post-Nicene literary figure of Jesus Christ) was worshipped alongside Jupiter, Juno, Venus, Apollo, Mars, Minerva, et. al. is highly likely. There probably wasn’t the same Christian-Pagan friction that is often depicted in the Christian narrative, at least not until the reorganization of Rome’s religious policies. But the friction is generally a one-way street; there is no problem with Christianity from a Pagan perspective (I speak from personal experience) but Paganism from the Christian perspective is problematic at best, and evil at worst.

I think that the Gnostic sect(s) was (or were) the closest representation to the closest thing to what ‘early Christianity’ would have looked like, and Christianity in this sense is more about the ‘Christ’ part than the ‘Jesus’ part. Gnosticism looks as though it is a ‘heresy’ of Neoplatonism and it is low-key treated like one, but it is never openly spoken of as one. They share the same cosmological view of the world, although they diverge on some important points. Unlike the Neoplatonists, the Gnostics believed in a cosmic conflict between chaos and order like the Manichees, whereas the Neoplatonists believed in the fundamental harmony between the three hypostases of reality consisting of the mind and the world-soul which is further subdivided into spirit and matter (or using Aristotlean terms, potentiality and actuality). There is a work attributed to the Neoplatonic theologian Plotinus in which he criticizes Gnostic teachings, specifically for their anti-material stance.

Neoplatonism (kheper.net)

Gnosticism also comes at odds with the vague ‘proto-orthodox’ sect that doesn’t seem to exist until the questionable group of authors known as the ‘Church Fathers’ and Athanasius of Alexandria and his vendetta against Arius. I do not know if there is a direct link between Gnosticism and Arianism or Neoplatonism and Arianism (there definitely is between Arianism and Islam), but there looks like there is a link with Marcionism. Basically, the Gnostics and sympathizer sects like Marcionism (if it was not outright Gnostic itself) believed the ‘Father God’ in the New Testament was not be the ‘Father God’ from the Old Testament (i.e. YHWH) that ‘proto-orthodoxy’ claimed him to be. Instead, the Gnostics believed this ‘Father’ to be an ineffable transcendent god (in some cases, godhead like the One in Neoplatonism) or principle that emanated a series of generations that eventually caused the creation of matter and the physical cosmos. The transcendent god the Gnostics called the ‘Father’ and sometimes gets called the Ignotos Theos (Ignotus Deus in Latin) or ‘Unknown God’ and sometimes called Hypsistos (Summanus in Latin) or ‘Most High’. This god has devotees called Hypsistarians or Coelicoloe (lit. Heaven worshippers), who are first mentioned in the 4th century. They remained independent until the Emperors Honorius and Theodosius II integrated their temples and infrastructure by decree into the body that becomes the Catholic Church. The series of generations are together called the Pleroma and within are individual Aeons which bear names that represent abstract ideas. Then matter emerged from the generative acts, and the cosmos was shaped from the material void by the Archons (which the Gnostics considered the classical gods and goddesses, including YHWH) and their ‘leader’ the Demiurge. Christian Gnostics would go on to demonize the Archons for creating the world as an act of ignorance, whilst Neoplatonists or non-Christian Gnostics would in all probability see the Archons as the embodiment of the Aeons.

Gnostics were generally anti-establishmentarian, often hunted by the establishment, and overall cynical about the state of the world – the Bogomils, the Cathars, and some other groups were thought to possibly be remnants of the Gnostics. Of course, this loops back to the questions surrounding the Crusades, like the Albigensian Crusade.

Then from Gnosticism comes ‘early Christianity’, which is then sanitized into orthodox Christianity with the help of synthesis with elements from the Julian and Flavian imperial cults, as well as Hellenized pre-Rabbinical Jewish culture. Christianity wouldn’t really come about until this time with the help of philosophers and scribes. Whoever the original Christus was is nebulous, but the Christus is given a new name (named after the Jewish nationalist insurgent Jesus Barabbas from the Crucifixion narrative) and the Jewish YHWH is syncretically enmeshed with the ‘Father’ god. It is possible that the original Christus was then Apollonius of Tyana, and his identity broken into two literary figures (Jesus and Paul). The story of the choice between the Nazarene and Barabbas appears to be a symbolic narrative for this identity transformation. Apollonius is crucified but lives on as Jesus. While the messianic aspects of Christianity would clearly come from Barabbas, I would be inclined towards the philosophical aspects of Christianity having been derived from the life and philosophy of Apollonius of Tyana. Then the abandonment of the traditional Roman custom of divine reciprocity through offerings and sacrifices is justified by the crucifixion as the ‘sacrifice to end all sacrifices’. Later on, orthodox Christianity adopted a lot of elements from Neoplatonic theology.

Apollonius, Jesus and Paul | Men or Myths?
Apollonius of Tyana and His Historicity

I’ve probably only just begun to scratch surfaces here.



Well-known member
Great post! Anatoly Fomenko may have much to say about the possible addition of a 1000 years to our timeline to hide inconvenient truths.
I can only add that the keys of St Peter are the keys to higher knowledge for only the “elites” to use.
Crowns, such as the ones in The Most Holy Sophia symbol, with two guarding lions, also represent forbidden higher knowledge. Most royal crests have this incorporated into them.
The fish hats (and Christian fish symbols) of the bishops are based on the Babylonian fish god DAGON.
Emperor Constantine may have helped turn peaceful Christianity into a control system with the help of some very bad folks who burned the library of Alexandria and moved all the scrolls to Constantinople for safe keeping.
I have heard, for what its worth, that all popes throughout history are the “Pindars,” or governors of Earth, for the Annunaki.
Their souls are corrupted by negative entities of a lower vibratory rate.


All roads lead to Rome…




Well-known member
KD – once again you outdid yourself in making us think. Well done! The Pope Hall is ridiculously obvious: That picture clearly shows its architecture is serpentine. If the serpent is considered a symbol of Satan, by Christianity, then its is so friggin obvious. And the Wiki article on it, mentions NOTHING about the obvious serpentine architecture. Nothing to see here…

Red Bird

Well-known member

A lot to take in here, but Gnosticism (enlightenment through knowledge) has won out in our day with the undertones of the other gods. The part I’ve quoted is a good example of this: renaming Jesus as Apollonius- the opposite face (in mythical terms, just like Janus as you said).

Also, it is just fairly recently that people do not know/understand the paganism of the Catholic Church. However not to the extent these articles bring up, of course (fake history). The actual message of the Bible is the negation of the gods, and the reason why the Catholic Church has long tried to get rid of Paul.



Well-known member
I always had question about what wanted to show us with his drawing in Pope Rome Raffaello Sanzio da Urbino

What is hidden behind?

And like you see there is plate armour man in the bottom. By official history it was created in the end on 15century.


KD.: Is it not Phrygians cap?
1280px-Raphael_-_Deliverance_of_Saint_Peter.jpgБез названия.jpeg

Last edited: 8/23/19

Jim Duyer

Well-known member
The above is the translation (p. 69-70) of the below excerpt from Vita Del P. Antonio Possevino Della Compagnia Di Gesu (p. 256). I used image translating services to verify the translation from Italian. I think Ivan the Terrible mentioned sixty faiths in the original. I also understood that translating images is not my piece of pie. So if @Jim Duyer or whoever else is versed in languages, could assist with the translation of the below passage from Italian, we all would be grateful.

I’ll look this over as soon as I have the time. I found a thousand year old reference to a mechanical craft, not made by humans, glowing with red rays, shaped like a sunflower, etc.



Active member
So often I want to commend people for an excellent post but refrain as I’d rather contribute content over opinion. I couldn’t resist writing this time – KD this was a stupendous post! I don’t know how you find the time and all the strings to bring so many things together. I am thankful that we get to read your and so many other great minds works.


Well-known member
I’ve only made it through the first few scrolls of the post and am eager to sit with it more later when I have some focused time.

I just want to thank you once again @KorbenDallas for the great work that you do. In spite of the many years i’ve spend clearing my mind of the clutter, you often in a single post break me free from the mesmerization that a life of indoctrination had enmeshed me in.

I’ve often pondered upon cathedrals and gargoyles. But in an instant, your method of drawing attention to it by way of a simple rhetorical question such as “What do any of these cathedrals have to do with Christianity?” broke a lifelong spell that I hadn’t even considered that I was under, regarding this topic.

One the face of it (literally), gargoyles and all, these structures are what nightmares are made of. What a big face-slapping “duh” moment I just had, having ignored and/or rationalized this fact away my whole life.


Jim Duyer

Well-known member
  • Why do we have gargoyles and chimeras mounted on the allegedly Christian structures?
  • What do these symbols of the ancient pagan religions have to do with Christianity?
  • How come Vatican gave their consent to have them displayed?

One way, or another, I’m gonna get ya get ya get ya get ya…… If you cannot entice the lovely people inside of your expensively constructed building, by way of your superior religious experience, and your upright example of integrity, then you get those heathen-pagan bastards by scaring the living hell out of them – making them believe that those demons of old are under your complete control, and all they need to do is step inside to find out how you too, can be part of the powerful in-crowd.

KD: In 1582, Ivan the Terrible stated that Rome had sixty religions. Antonio Possevino replied that it was not the case. Well, let us see who we should believe.
Both were speaking about the same thing, but the topic of “Rome” did not mean that Rome itself, or the Vatican, had split into 60 or 70 religions. Ivan was referring to the fact that his land, much like the Britons, was visited by early representatives of the Christian faith, and even earlier than they arrived in Rome. We have a lot of documentation that the early apostles practiced what Jesus told them to do – go forth and spread the word. Thus a variation of Christianity, that was not similar to that of Roman, arose in a great many countries, and whether it was 60 or 70 is not as important as the fact that Antonio telling Ivan that the Church intended to stamp them out. Which they did, with the most brutal work prior to Hitler and Stalin and Mow, etc. Thus the extermination of Celtic Christianity, and others, who were the real “Protestants” and much earlier than Luther. Celtic Christianity practiced what they preached on Sundays, unlike the Vatican, who would burn libraries, slaughter people, raze entire cities to the ground, ruin the reputation of reporters, spread lies, and create fake documents up the wazoo, just to be sure that you heard the “only true and very sweet words” that they wished you to hear, after paying your 10% that is.





Appreciate the opinion. Respectfully disagree for the physical evidence points in a different direction. Vatican displays Roman, Greek, Egyptian, Babylonian and other Gods.

Unless, of course, the Roman Inquisition was OK with the Paganism, and was solely after the Christians.


Jim Duyer

Well-known member
Appreciate the opinion. Respectfully disagree for the physical evidence points in a different direction. Vatican displays Roman, Greek, Egyptian, Babylonian and other Gods.

Unless, of course, the Roman Inquisition was OK with the Paganism, and was solely after the Christians.

I agree with you that they display Roman, Greek, Egyptian, Babylonian and other pagan gods. And I will examine your evidence further. Really exciting post you made, Thanks.



A lot of obscurity and with the baptism of Russia. On engravings of 16-17 centuries in churches, instead of crosses, incomprehensible spiers. There are no Christian symbols on the tombstones (even on the tombstones of the princely level).
And bone facts, such as downed bas-reliefs in churches of the “pre-Mongol” period (now we do not know what is depicted on them), tombstones laid in the foundation of churches of the 18-19th century.

Enough and ancient monuments and buildings.

Tombstones of the 16-17th centuries. There is no Christian symbolism.

Foundations of tombstone churches.

Tombstone path.

It turns out that Russia has already adopted Christianity for 600 years, and there are no symbols of faith on the tombstones and these tombstones are allowed to build churches and paths.

But the gravestones of the 18-19th century. Christian symbolism in place.

Tomb of Ivan the Terrible and his sons in the cathedral. Orthodox crosses are in place (in fact, the actual tombs themselves are located under them in the basement of the cathedral).


But the real burial. There is no Christian symbolism again.


Walls of the “pre-Mongolian” temple with shot down images (painted on the shelf in the 18th century).
Apparently the images in the temple did not fit into the version of Christian Russia.


A bit of Gothic, Rome and Greece from Russia.

Vladimir Church. 1789, Ramensky district, Bykovo. Moscow region.

Novo-Nikolsky Cathedral. 1779-1812 Mozhaysk.

Moscow. Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

Triumphal Arch in Moscow. 1834 year.

Narva Triumphal Gates. St. Petersburg. Built in the years 1827-1834.

Arch of the General Staff in St. Petersburg. Built in the years 1819-1828.

Monument to Field Marshal A.V. Suvorov.

Sculpture on the monument to Nicholas I in St. Petersburg. 1859 year.

Rostral Columns. Figures. St. Petersburg, 1805 – 1810.

The figures symbolize the rivers of Russia.
But why was a trident taken from Poseidon and given a paddle (more like a shovel)?

Monument to Minin and Pozharsky. Moscow. 1818 year.

Pay attention to the shield. Who is it? Devil? Or the horned god Veles, one of the main gods of the Slavic pantheon?

Now a little about crosses on Russian churches. Engravings.


Engravings from the album.
Year of publication: 1839
Author: A. Duran
City: Paris

BlBaythCUAA3UtG (1).jpgBlBaythCUAA3UtG (4).jpgBlBaythCUAA3UtG.jpg

View of the church inside.
BlBaythCUAA3UtG (3).jpg

And is it a church? Or maybe something else?
BlBaythCUAA3UtG (2).jpg

Link to the album. Voyage pittoresque et archeologique en Russie. 1839 – Русское наследие – Каталог статей – ИстокЪ

I apologize for the long post, I forgot a little about the functions of the site.

Last edited: 8/25/19



Active member
A lot to take in here, but Gnosticism (enlightenment through knowledge) has won out in our day with the undertones of the other gods. The part I’ve quoted is a good example of this: renaming Jesus as Apollonius- the opposite face (in mythical terms, just like Janus as you said).

Also, it is just fairly recently that people do not know/understand the paganism of the Catholic Church. However not to the extent these articles bring up, of course (fake history). The actual message of the Bible is the negation of the gods, and the reason why the Catholic Church has long tried to get rid of Paul.

Gnosticism has never really prevailed, it is also likely that it the Gnostics were simply schismatics that initially accepted traditional philosophy, but ultimately rejected it. Their basis is generally the same but they also hold beliefs that are in general, peculiar to their immediate context like cosmic dualism. Only the Christian Gnostics believed in salvation and demonized the majority of the gods like their ‘orthodox’ counterparts. Pre- or non-Christian Gnosticism is rather elusive though, and it is probable that Gnosticism requires an anti-polytheist (and thus dualist) element to actually work. Otherwise it’s just Neoplatonism by another name. None of these things except the denial of the gods has prevailed.

<< I didn’t say anything about Jesus being renamed Apollonius. >> It is unlikely that Jesus would have been renamed Apollonius, it is more likely that Apollonius existed and that his life was the inspiration for Jesus. Apollonius would have had his identity spliced into two, and his legacy would later transform into that of Jesus and Paul. These two, Jesus and Paul, both carry elements that stem from the singular life of Apollonius. Rome was dealing with two fronts; the annoying, itinerant philosophers like Apollonius and the radical, violent Jewish nationalist insurgents like a certain Jesus named Barabbas.

Apollonius was reputedly popular among vast swaths of the world at the time, and this was causing trouble for Rome. If there was a historical Jesus, it probably would have been the figure in the Bible known as Barabbas. Hence why I cite the story of Pilate, where (Jesus) Barabbas was freed over (Jesus) the Nazarene. Of course in real life, Apollonius would have been dead by the time the Gospels were being authored, but the story is less a literal historical event moreso than it is a symbolic literary narrative. When one reads the story, one often wonders why the crowd chose Barabbas over the Nazarene.

If that is indeed the case, this is the one and only time that the historical Jesus is ever mentioned, and the literary Jesus goes on to be crucified. They ‘kill off’ the undesirable elements of Apollonius through ‘Jesus’, and then Paul pops up later to continue what was started, but in a way that is far more amenable to Rome. << I don’t think that the Catholic Church ‘hates’ Paul, since he is pretty fundamental to a lot of their teachings and in my experience it is the Protestants that are more inclined to dislike Paul. >> It is through Paul though that you get some of the most pro-Roman elements in the Bible.

I don’t think anyone has ever *not* understood the pre-Christian elements within the Catholic Church. At the least, we all surely know because the Protestants have made sure that we know. The Catholic Church, despite being festooned with ‘pagan’ decorations is fundamentally Christian in theology. Most conventional interpretations of the Bible do ‘negate’ the gods, but the gods feature quite prominently in the Bible. The authorship of the Bible comes from at least two (if not four) different sources; the Elohists (from Elohim, the plural of Eloah) and the Yahwist (from Yahweh, or YHWH). It is a mashup of mythology, theology, and national epic. The Elohim are very important, but they are eventually overshadowed by YHWH. Whilst other gods are mentioned by name, it is always in an unflattering and demonizing light and this seems to indicate that the Yahwist source prevailed. Eventually the use of the word Elohim becomes justified in a monotheistic context by suggesting it is a majestic plural (for Jews) or a reference to the trinity (for Christians).

It is YHWH that makes the wild claim (through his priests, his holy book, and his followers) he is the supreme ineffable god and that all of the others are false, and that they are tools of deceit, chaos, lies, etc.; but then the other gods are silent because they are denied (one guesses they accept human free will to deny them), and by doing so are unable to tell their side of the story. Who’s to say that the gods aren’t genuine, and that the one god that most people on this planet worship is really the troublemaker? There might be a lot of well-meaning people out there who are believers in said god, but there are plenty more who are dishonest, deceitful, disdainful, and one-track-minded. Especially since fear of damnation and the use of one’s intellectual faculties is discouraged (lean not, and all that stuff), not to mention countless instances where the other gods do come into conflict, they still respect each other at the end of the day. They also don’t threaten humans to worship them, nor do they claim that they are absolutely perfect.

The old order was destroyed (forced conversions by sword, Crusades, book burnings, document forgeries, calendar and dating reforms, etc.), but they still had the remains to deal with so they used the bones as raw material for their new setup and built things up from there. There is a lot of fake history out there, but it is much easier to make things up moving forward, than it is to try and turn the clock back, even artificially by changing dates. This is why it is more likely that ‘antiquity’ did exist, unlike the ‘middle ages’ and this is why Christendom had to go through the series of rampages, destructive wars, and conquests that it went through in order to suppress the past and leave a clear space for the future. A world which valued antiquity over novelty required the creation of 1,000 years’ fake history to give it credibility. It also had to reach the extremities of the globe under the guise of colonialism in order to have enough political control to ensure global continuity.

It was a wholesale rejection of the natural traditional Classical world, in favor of the novelty of a synthetic world dominated by a different ethos. This persists to this day, but instead of Abrahamic (mono)theism, it is being done with transhumanism, atheistic scientism, social darwinism, and religious-like political factions such as communism and fascism. Each successive wave of regime change becomes more and more synthetic, more fake, more detached and ‘separated’ from reality than the last wave. In this sense, the Gnostics were correct but this demonstrates that the Gnostics did not win out.

Last edited: 8/26/19


Well-known member

Global warming?:p There are many other potential short cycle catastrophes that the Vatican might know about that are “not” mankind influenced.

Meteors, Comets, Earthquakes, Deluges from the Deep, Solar events, Interstellar events, etc etc. Alien harvesting included



wild heretic

Well-known member
I will briefly summarize what’s to follow in this thread which is created in support of my hypothesis that the Ancient Rome is one and the same with the Holy Roman Empire. It appears that Vatican and Rome became visibly Christian only around the middle of the 19th century. The same, most likely, applies for the remainder of European territories. In other words Jesus existed in Europe along the likes of Zeus, Apollo and many other Gods until approximately 1850s. It was normal and it looks like we have multiple facts to back it up. Why our society chooses to ignore these facts is beyond me.

I can add to the party. :)

I was in Milan at the end of July baking in the heat on a sightseeing tour of that area for a few days. I tool a ton of photos with my phone camera of things that could interest members of this forum. There are two areas which point to Milan and the Vatican still being pretty occulted.

1. Milan Cathedral

Biggest Cathedral I have ever visited. Ridiculous in size. But one of the more interesting parts was the one eye in the pyramid (dollar bill, masons etc.) on the side of the Confession boxes.

all seeing eye milan cathedral.jpg

This apparently is par for the course. I saw a good website a couple of months ago on this, but I’ve lost it now.

2. Milan central station.

Holy Crappola. You will have never been inside a building with such high ceilings. 50 ft people would be far too small. Not kidding. It looks a fairly recent construction though, 20th century. There are pagan symbols everywhere adorning the walls from Apollo to the fiat logo of a snake eating a man. That logo was everywhere in Milan.


I could see a reworking of the top of station. If you zoom in to the roman numerals at the top middle, you might be able to see faded writing underneath. The roman numerals are new.


3. Next to the Cathedral, there was also a gigantic building shaped like a cross with “Arc de Triumph” size and style entrances (now a shopping centre for tourists). Truly amazing. There were odd paintings here too.


I’ll show those in the next post.


Arc entrance shopping centre

Last edited: 8/27/19


Well-known member
Milan Cathedral. Biggest Cathedral I have ever visited. Ridiculous in size.

I visited the Duomo there 20 years ago but didn’t appreciate it nearly as much as I would now. I remember gargoyles aplenty and the precarious walk up and onto the roof with all of the spires, did you get up there by chance? I remember thinking “How the heck did they build all of this?” but never thought too hard about it back then. Went to go see the Last Supper, but it was closed off as it was under “renovation“. 👎🏼



Well-known member
My Spanish wife and I were in Granada last year.
We went over the jaw-dropping cathedral with a fine comb. Truly megalithic. Massive. Like the mother of all Mack trucks hauling 800-ton blocks.

Here’s the funky thing: all the religious bits, statues, icons, and other stuff was tacked on, added willy-nilly, and tucked into niches. The building itself had no religious anything on it or carved into it. The images of people and shining pyramids were everywhere. To my mind, the PTB try in vain to attribute every oddball image, god or goddess, ancient symbol, and carving to the Bible. Doesn’t work. Especially when we drill down on symbology.

The Christian Cross is a very ancient symbol for resurrection, or more accurately, reincarnation.
The ubiquitous Maltese or Celtic cross–may–symbolize the creational proton of our cosmos, a sound vibratory pattern of such.
Cathedrals, Ive read, were originally about worshipping love, light, cosmology, human fellowship, the Divine Feminine, and nature. The Law of One, even. Whee!

But then…
Organized, hierarchical, nationalistic, patriarchal, monotheistic religions came later. Perhaps a desperate (350 AD) attempt to further control humanity when we get “uppity” at times in our history and need tighter consciousness bondage. The super-duper impressive churches and cathedrals were pressed into service as physical reinforcement of the confusing and misleading dogma. The buildings “wowed” us back then and still do!
(Even Buddhism is patriarchal. No women monks in Tibet. Male leaders only).

I’m all for religious freedom, it’s part of the colorful fabric of America and the Constitution, so apologies to everyone if this seems offensive in any fashion. That’s not my intention.

• Image 1874 is on the cathedral. Pyramids, random, and plenty of them. Is this sound wave technology? Why only on one side of the cathedral? Vibratory emitters of a kind? Any ideas?


• I believe the shining pyramid motif must have something to do with the attainment of higher spiritual knowledge. Its an occult symbol of many, many meanings.

• Image 1888 is of another building at the Al Hambra castle, but I thought it was intriguing. The huge rings are 6 1/2 feet off the ground. Horses? Why so high? Huge block facing. This looks “techy” to me. Any theories, y’all?



IMG_1881.jpgShining pyramid.jpgGrenada cathedral 3.jpegIMG_1883.jpgIMG_1858.jpgGrenada cathedral 2.jpeg