From Nazi gold to the Holy Grail: the world’s most hunted treasures

[franklin]

There were two silver chalices that caught the Blood of Christ by Joseph of Armithea and Nicodemas and they are the Holy Grail.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

A History of Mining on the Kenai Peninsula, Alaska - Grab it through Amazon!

[lokiblossom]

There were two silver chalices that caught the Blood of Christ by Joseph of Armithea and Nicodemas and they are the Holy Grail.

Nice story's anyhow, but you should use the word "alleged"!
Loki

 

[petetherocker]

Nice story's anyhow, but you should use the word "alleged"!
Loki

Make sure that you generously sprinkle that word "alleged" in your theory as well....

 

[Charlie P. (NY)]

Or "ostensibly purported" for most that are bouncing around here.

Perhaps "no evidence yet supports, but . . . "?

 

[Dave Rishar]

The preferred term in modern journalism is "...according to anonymous sources...". My preferred term for these theories (and other fake news and/or poorly sourced or unsourced speculation) is "horse apples," which while admittedly archaic is useful for getting the point across in a family friendly manner.

On less restrictive forums and in person, I prefer a cruder but more descriptive phrase. I'll not repeat it here, but it rhymes with "clucking woolspit."

We now return you to your regularly scheduled horse apples.

 

[lokiblossom]

Make sure that you generously sprinkle that word "alleged" in your theory as well....

I suppose I could if I thought that way, but unfortunately I think my theory is true so I will not use the word alleged!

Loki

 

[Raparee]

I suppose I could if I thought that way, but unfortunately I think my theory is true so I will not use the word alleged!

Loki[/QUOTE

Believing it true does not make it so. You can call your theory 'true' or 'fact' when you actually have something concrete to verify it (ie: not pointing statues). Until then, for reality's sake, you probably should use the word 'alleged'.

 

[lokiblossom]

I suppose I could if I thought that way, but unfortunately I think my theory is true so I will not use the word alleged!

Loki[/QUOTE

Believing it true does not make it so. You can call your theory 'true' or 'fact' when you actually have something concrete to verify it (ie: not pointing statues). Until then, for reality's sake, you probably should use the word 'alleged'.

I disagree, IMHO it is true and a fact. Believing something is true makes it a fact to that person. remember I have seen the fingers pointing in paintings as well as in statues. In all honesty to myself I cannot call it "alleged". You can call it alleged, fantasy or anything you like for that matter.
Loki

 

[Charlie P. (NY)]

it is a hypothesis until evidence appears. Then you can call it a theory until the evidence can be verified.

 

[Raparee]

I disagree, IMHO it is true and a fact. Believing something is true makes it a fact to that person. remember I have seen the fingers pointing in paintings as well as in statues. In all honesty to myself I cannot call it "alleged". You can call it alleged, fantasy or anything you like for that matter.
Loki

There is true and false, fact and fiction, real and imaginary. Someone believing that the world is flat doesn't make it so, even to them. It is roundish regardless of how deeply a person believes otherwise. Someone believing that Templars hid some magic treasure in NS doesn't mean it actually happened, even to them. Belief is irrelevant. What can be proven by concrete and verifiable evidence is all that matters. None has been presented.

 

[Charlie P. (NY)]

Believing something is true makes it a fact to that person.

Yes. But if they continually deny reality as it is presented we call those people "delusional" and usually try to medicate them.

 

[lokiblossom]

There is true and false, fact and fiction, real and imaginary. Someone believing that the world is flat doesn't make it so, even to them. It is roundish regardless of how deeply a person believes otherwise. Someone believing that Templars hid some magic treasure in NS doesn't mean it actually happened, even to them. Belief is irrelevant. What can be proven by concrete and verifiable evidence is all that matters. None has been presented.

Interesting that you brought up the flat earth thing. Galileo Galilei had evidence of and taught 'Heliocentrism' but because his evidence wasn't accepted he spent the rest of his life under house arrest.
We were talking about using the word alleged, right? Galileo knew he was right and I'm sure he didn't use the word 'alleged'. I know I'm right and I will not use the word 'alleged'.

Cheers, Loki

 

[Raparee]

Interesting that you brought up the flat earth thing. Galileo Galilei had evidence of and taught 'Heliocentrism' but because his evidence wasn't accepted he spent the rest of his life under house arrest.
We were talking about using the word alleged, right? Galileo knew he was right and I'm sure he didn't use the word 'alleged'. I know I'm right and I will not use the word 'alleged'.

Cheers, Loki

Galileo actually had evidence supporting his theory, though, and wasn't operating on mere faith.

 

[lokiblossom]

Galileo actually had evidence supporting his theory, though, and wasn't operating on mere faith.

That's the point, he had evidence but it wasn't accepted, mostly because mainstream thought was against his premise.
Cheers, Loki

 

[Ryano]

Dave's post "triggered" me to write: There's been attempts by public figures to discredit good reporting by calling a protected source anonymous; implying a lack of distinction between an anonymous source (reporter gets a phone call from a disembodied voice w/ "unknown number", for example) and a source who is a known entity (but their identity is kept secret from the public for valid reasons).