I hope you let me know when it gets published. Especially is there are documents that haven't been studied yet.

I don't see the connections claimed in the apocryphal version of history. I guess I'm just stubborn since I have read the orthodox version in school, there are just some points that don't fit:

"The Lucanian story of Hugo de Pagano is this; Hugo was the son of Pagano de Pagano and Emma, a noble Norman family of Southern Italy, who take off for the crusade with Boemondo D’Altavilla and Tancredi. He had written this letter to his uncle in 1103 speaking of the defending of the pilgrimages."

The Normans in Southern Italy were closer and numerous so if the early Templars were aligned with the Normans then why go to France to recruit? In the late 10th century nobody messed with the Normans in Southern Italy, why wouldn't they recruit from their power base? Later on this area would not be so Templar friendly but at this time period why wouldn't "norman" templars recruit normans.

"Goffredo of Santo Ademaro had probably arrived in Southern Italy with Eustachio of Boulogne in 1117, who would become king of Jerusalem (Ruciman,”Story of the Crusade”). In Jerusalem, they became known as a New Order frpm Baldovino II."

This might be have been just a misreading of Runciman but Eustache of Bologne, Godfrey of Bouillon and Baldwin of Bologne were all brothers. Baldwin became King Balwin I in 1100 after the death of Godfrey. In 1117-18 their cousin Baldwin of LeBourg who was ruling the County of Edessa at the time became King Baldwin II.

Also these men were French - Lorrainers, not Normans. Culturally this might be splitting hairs but when it came to the First Crusade these were separate armies: Normans(Bohemond,Tancred), Lorrainers(Godfrey, Baldwin) and Provencals/Burgundians(Raymond of Tolouse).

In fact there were two separate Norman groups during the First Crusade - the Norman French under the command of Count Robert of Flanders and Duke Robert of Normandy. These men, including Stephen of Blois would not take orders from someone of lower birth like Bohemond. Runciman's work is filled with examples of tempers flaring because of who would take orders from whom.

"Goffredo of Santo Ademaro was a liegeman from Eustachio of Boulogne, brother of Goffredo of Buglione and Baldovino I; the legit king of Jerusalem who had given up his throne."

I don't understand this statement - who gave up thier throne? Eustache was never offered a crown, Godfrey declined the title King but ruled as one. When he died his brother Baldwin had no problem taking the crown and title.

"Hugo was supported by the Order of our Lady of Sion, orders were principally formed by Benedictine Norman monks who came from southern Italy."

If Benedictine monks were supporting Hugo and therefore the early Templars then why did Bernard of Clairveaux write their Rule? The Cistercians, especially Saint Bernard were openly opposed to the Benedictine Rule. It sounds like a conflict of interest. Why wouldn't they have a Rule based on Benedictine order?

"Before the Templars, we can consider that an order called “the Knights of San Giovanni” had existed, founded by the people from Amalfi—in this way, pilgrims could be protected in the Holy Land."

The Knights of Saint John (Knights Hospitallers, Knights of Malta) were a hospital organization - they ran hospices for pilgrims and did not become a military order protecting pilgrims until the 1130's.

Make sure you include lots of images in when you publish the book.

The reason they recruited the new Templars in France as opposed to Norman Italy, is the same reason for which Boemondo went to France in 1105; he was looking for support.
The existing struggles between the Norman families and the Altavilla to dominate south Italy wasn’t possible—an easy recruitment for the Knights.
Ruggero II, in 1127, was hostile in the first Crusade, so it was easier to act in France. The alliance with France, Normandie and England born when Urban II was protected for 5 years by the Normans in southern Italy.
He resided for a long while at the Benedictine Abbey in Banzi, near Acerenza.
During these 5 years he was at work organizing the Crusade. The manner is simple: the creation of “marriage” alliances. From an easy research, you’ll discover that almost every French and Norman count who left for the Crusade, was interrelated with the Altavilla (ex. Raimondo Saint Gilles marries one of the daughters of Ruggero I, the count of Clermont marries the daughter of Ruggero I, Ruggero Borsa marries Alaina, daughter of Robert the Frison etc,.)

This was the mission of the monks of southern Italy who founded Orval in 1070. Besides you need to remember, that the Normans who have conquested southern Italy, have conserved tight relations with their places of origin for a long time.
Among them, there were many knights who originated from Flanders, Britain, and from other Frank Counts.
If you read the Orthodox story, no one really understands what Urban II did during the 5 years before his return to Rome, and his going to……Clermont to proclaim the Crusade. And no one understands well enough how it’s possible to mobilize riches and knights in just a few months—within departure for the Holy Land.

Was it because almost everyone was interrelated with the Altavillas?
Why does the Pope go to Clermont (A family that had possessions in Lucania, where they had founded a town called Chiaromonte?). In this case, many of the analysis’s made by historians are not so convincing.



The crown was momentarily offered to Stephen Eustache of Bologne who was the legit heir.
Eustache arrived with an army in south Italy, waiting to embark for Jerusalem. But while he was waiting in Puglia, the news arrived that his cousin Baldwin le Bourge became King Baldwin II—King of Jerusalem. Since Eustache wasn’t interested in the crown of Jerusalem, he leaves to follow his knights and returns in Boulogne (Ruciman: Book 1, II Part, Chap. I° “King Baldwin II”). Among these knights Goffredo di Santo Aldemaro was probably present. In Puglia, the meeting of Hugo de Pagani and Goffredo di Santo Aldemaro takes place.


On one occasion, the Crusade’s army reunites, on the orders of Boemondo: for the coquetting of Antiochia. A letter exists sent by Pope Urban II, a letter turned over by Boemondo and signed by every count in the crusade, where he asked the Pope to allow him to take direct command of the Crusade. In this letter, Boemondo simply signs “EGO BOAMOUNDUS”, while all the others qualify him with their noble titles. This indicates the intimate knowledge of Boemondo with the Pope. Boemondo was a strategy genius: it is sufficient to read the story written by Anna Comnena, the daughter of Emperor Bisanzio. Anna, enemy to Boemondo, described him as a conductor of a superior level compare to the others, and only describes him (there wasn’t one description of Goffredo di Buglione, Raimondo of Tolosa etc,)

Stephen Eustache gives up being King of Jerusalem after the death of Baldwin I, in favor to his cousin Baldwin le Bourge: this is written in every official story of the Crusade. (see Ruciman, Book 1, II Part, Chap. I° “King Baldwin II”; see also “History of Heracles) .


The Cistercians are a derivation of the Benedictines. The rule of the Cistercians is only an application more severe than the rule of San Benedictine. Saint Bernard is a Malachia institutor, an Irish monk who followed the rules of San Colomba. Saint Bernard was not opposed to the rules of Saint Benedict, but opposed to the way in which the Benedictines followed him. The Benedictine monks, who followed the Crusade, were principally Franks and Normans who originated from Saint Evroul sur L’Oche, who went to Italy with Robert of Grantmesnil, a cathedral builder. They came from a very strict school where the rules were implicated with the most rigour.
The Cistercians, born as a new Monastic Order, they were closer to the Benedictine Monks of St. Evoult than to the Benedictines of Cluny.
Benedictines were.The new Order of the Templars needed a prestigious acknowledgement and one of the Templars was the uncle of Saint Bernardo. This is how much has emerged from the story. The relations of Hugue de Peanz with Saint Bernard are only hypothesis. To write San Bernardo was Hugo Pagani says, not Hugue Peanz says.

It’s true: the Knights of San Giovanni become an unrecognized Knighthood Order only in 1130, but as the hospital organization for the pilgrims already existed from 1023, founded by Amalfian traders and serviced by Benedictine Monks. It’s difficult although to think that during the First Crusade that this order wasn’t defended and suddenly the monks became knights in 1130. It’s clear that they were already Monk knights and became known only in 1130 (and still exist). The monk knights were an existing reality who existed for a long time in south Italy. A great part of these monks were Normans and were called “Normans in Monk suits”

The information’s are so opposite from a convincing Apocryphal Story to the Official one. This story is unpublished, and much more consistent than the official one. Naturally, we’ll look to explain everything in the publication: we are aware that every official historian is against us!

Well it looks like your story has some logical tie-ins and without getting back to the history books I'm pretty much out of information. However I do believe there are subtle aspects to these events that could be explained by the more "orthodox" view of history. But as the two of you know there are some serious gaps in what was happening in the late 10th century, especially in the preparations for the First Crusade.

One part that I have always had a problem with is after the capture of Jerusalem and the knights deciding to vote for a ruler. It seems that the title of King of Jerusalem was not hereditary early on and both Godfrey and Baldwin I were elected. Also when Baldwin died without an heir they did offer it to Eustace, briefly. But from what I remember reading it sounded like the knights took another vote to have Baldwin LeBourg become King. Of course it seem pretty obvious that after this the title became hereditary - or at least available to the hightest bidder.

This also brings into question the idea of Theocracy - Papal legate Adhemar or LePuy and later Daimbert Archbishop of Pisa (who later made himself Patriarch) both seemed to have the idea that there shouldn't be a secular ruler in Jerusalem and were setting up the new territory as a "papal state". Did the knights go against the popes plan or was there supposed to be a king all along?

The intermarriage of the Hautvilles and the rest of European nobility is interesting, but I always assumed it was Urban II's plan to incorporate his new defenders of Catholicism into the families that were not so loyal, were on the wrong side of the Investiture Controvery, or worse they were loyal Antipope Clement III.

I always saw this as similar to how the Dark Age popes used the Franks (such as Clovis) as their tools to wipe out the Arian heresy. Gregory VII and Urban II used the Normans in their stuggle with the Holy Roman Emperors during the Investiture Controvery and to "re-catholicize" the former Greek and Muslim south of Italy.

-one more thing on the marriages: If I remember correctly, Urban's successor annulled Baldwin I's marriage to Adelaide on the grounds that his first wive was still alive.

One thing on the Abbey at Orval: I have talked to some of the brothers in the past and the current Trappist Cistercian abbey has no connection with the all-to-brief house that was set up by the Calabrian monks. Brother Lode van Ecke, a Cistercian historian and Orval brother stated to me in 2003 that their records only start when the monks took over the abandoned property.

I don't think you are alone in the belief that the first crusade was an "inside job". It does seem uncanny that they were prepared to march so soon, but even Malcom Barber admits that the events at Claremont were "stage-managed".

I would like to know your thoughts on the Council of Piacenza which took place months before Claremont and where it seems the crusade was originally
organized to help restore Greek lands lost to the turks (this was during the all too brief time when the two chruches were trying to reconcile). Well that's what the told the greek ambassadors at least...

What are your thoughts on the demise of Bohemond? The guy was arguably the scariest man coming out of Europe (he was named after a legendary giant). And yet after his defeat by Emperor Alexius II Comnenus he was a broken man that never attempted to return to the East. It seems that if the early tempars and Bohemond were both recuiting at the same time and same place and had a similar agenda why didn't the Templars help Bohemond?

Well that's about all I have left in the tank - maybe there are some other researchers out there who would like to chime in?

Justin, first, thank you from all of us for being so passionate, and taking the time to care what we have written, for your interest, and persistance--also for your badgering!

We have realized new things through your questions, and through our searching as to succeed in answering them.
Again thank you for your effort!

I have added the answer to your number two question on page one---- its alot of work to translate them, and relay them, have patience please!

We've enjoyed your many insights!

And hope that more interested researchers will find us too!

I'm glad my questions are helping your research. I know from my own experiences that sometimes we get too "close" to our theories and it takes a fresh set of eyes to get back on track.

I've read the answers to my questions on Bohemond on page 1. They seem in line with what I remember reading, but there are aspects of these events that should be noted.

Bohemond was certainly a shrewd leader and could have used his oath of fealty out of convenience to cross in the Byzantine lands. Tancred was against this idea and I don't remember he ever ended up swearing an oath, even after Bohemond's defeat by Alexius. However the Crusaders, before the seige of Antioch did give back recently lost territories to the Greeks. If I remember correctly it was after Bohemond took Antioch for himself that things got messy (again) with Emperor Alexius as well as with another enemy, Count Raymond ot Tolouse.

Out of all the Crusade leaders Count Raymond was the only one not to swear fealty. Well, actually he did give a lesser oath, privately to the Emperor after the other leaders had crossed the Bosphorus. Also, I'm not sure of this but I think Bohemond's nephew Tancred did participate in the capture of Jerusalem.

I have always wanted to visit Bohemond's tomb in Puglia, he is one of my favorite historical bad asses .

Justin, thank you for your genuine interest. Your perfectly constructed questions had forced me to critically review certain aspects of the story that we are in the process of constructing. I hope that one day you would come to visit Lucania—a great and fascinating land, abandoned in the course of time from the “official story.” To understand the difficulty of this research, the opinions of the official story is “Ironic” in its concern.
Very often, we are subjected to ridicule by skeptics, whom are the majority of the people. Only a television director had believed us after having evaluated the proofs found, and after having visited these towns many times. Nevertheless, we have obtained astonishing and concrete results.

Here’s a quick list:
1. The geometry of the cathedral of Acerenza does not contain the usual geometry based on the golden section proportions-- simply applicated to a sacred building. Instead, it has to do with a geometrical rule; the one which developed the entire cathedral in each of its every dimension. It’s a rule that describes the theorem of the sacred geometry. We have analyzed many churches in all of Europe, and we have never found anything even remotely equivalent. The Acerenza cathedral is of an Anglo-Norman style and has been studied by important historians and architects, many of which were French. And still, no one had ever been aware of this geometry, why? The answer is a simple one; we have arrived to developing an “Apocryphal research” the story that we had written you-- is evidence that we are on the right track.
2. Yet in Acerenza, we’ve were at a level in which to be capable in interpretating symbols for the first time-- of which no one had ever noticed. No one has ever been aware of the existence of the Celtic knots, and they couldn’t just be simple decorations, but again, nobody had realized the symbolic meanings contained on these bas relief’s sitting on the portal of the church. The woman is astonishing—the one picking grapes and being pecked in her vagina by a peacock at the same time –it has to do with an evident referment to Mary Magdalene; Jesus’ wife. It’s a fact that this is the only symbolic representation existing in 1080, which transmitted this message. Why hadn’t anyone interpretated this until the 21st century?
3. We had tracked down numerous rupreste chapels with amazing frescoes, many inspired by apocryphal angels. One of these chapels was found on the top of a mountain called “Monk Forte” outside the paths of the pilgrims and armies. We have come upon this in an interesting way—studying a geographic map, some triangulations are generated starting from Castel Del Monte, (a mysterious castle built by Frederick II) at the peak of a similar triangulation (I am a civil engineer). I had found the sanctuary of Monteforte. The hypothesis that I have been trying to verify was the existence of a Norman Knight Monk Order who came before the Templars, According to this apocryphal hypothesis, this order had created a web of sanctuararies (a vista) one after the other needed for surveillance of the territory—This plan continued for the positioning of these sanctuaries and was based on the sacred geometry. I have never heard anything spoken about Monteforte. To get to this place it’s necessary to proceed on foot—along a path in the middle of an oak forest. In the sanctuary there's a fresco from 1100, with a Templar cross on it. From Monteforte you can see CastleMezzano., the place that (even today) held a town symbol that is clearly a Templar symbol. It’s just another conformation for our historical reconstruction.
4. CastelMezzano is an extraordinary place. It is not located any where near a pilgrim route or one used by crusaders. Because it’s found on top of a mountain, almost inaccessible. The church was called “Church of the Thorn” and was dedicated to the Madonna of the Morning star. These names are reoccurring in Templar locations in France. On the antique entrance of the church, there’s a templar cross (an 8 point) inscripted in a circle. It had been created with masterful skill and could not have been sculptured by a pilgrim: it had been approved by the church and created by a professional stonecutter. The thorn church conserves the painting of this Madonna of the morning star with a phrase inscripted;” Hic Habitabo Quoiam Elegia” which was taken from Psalms:131 and written in the exact manner as the one of Psalter of Saint Albans. This is the same phrase that a Grand Master Templar must recite when he is given his position.
5. The symbol of Castelmezzano has always represented two knights: the sigil of the Templar. The tradition say s that it was Boemondo who gave that symbol to this place, in memory of the two twin brothers whom once departed for the crusade and never returned. Unfortunately proof of documentations does not exist to prove this story. But you know that the symbol of Castelmezzano existed at least from 1200 and has never changed. It’s the only place the world this as a symbol from 1200, the sigil of the Templar Knights. It has resisted all this persecutions of the Templars over time. The coincidences are numerous to be able to be casual. Why hadn’t anyone sunk deeper into the story of this place?
6. Several documents found in Lucania permit the tracking of a coherent story with the opinion of William of Malmesbury; it was Boemondo who pushed Pope Urban II into the crusade. The ideas of the crusade were anticipated by Gregory VII in a letter written by Robert Guiscard, calling the Normans of southern Italy “Christ’s military”. Urban II to avoid that Boemondo started a war to his brother Ruggero the Hunchback; he promised that it would have created the perfect occasion to conquest Bisanzio. This was the goal for the first Crusade: to create an opportunity for Boemondo and to profit from the situation by way of the Roman Catholic Church.
This design was developed by Arnaldo bishop of Acerenza. Marriage alliances were made with the Frank counts. The concentration of the Noman crusader forces in the south came from chiaromente (estate of Clermont) when Boemondo departed, Arnaldo was present and blessed the Troops. This ambient easily explains everything that had happened, and that the Orthodox story isn’t able to explain in a convincing way.

Justin, Boemondo was extraordinary character, a true Viking like his father Robert Guiscard, His nephew Tancredi was an optimum knight who had lived the fame destined to Boemondo as prince of Antiocha. Boemondo was betrayed by his ambitions and by the diplomacy of the Roman church. He went to Jerusalem with Daiamberto for Christmas when it was already conquested. Tancredi participated in the capturing of Jerusalem and was the first to be added to the wall. If you go to Lucania you can visit forgotten places in History. You can visit San Chirico Raparo, the town from where Tancredi departed: from Acerenza, Castelmezzano, and Forenza –where Hugo de Payens departed and the tomb of Roberto Guiscard.
In an unfinished abbey on the cuff of Venosa: a magical place if you’ll notice, you can still hear the silence of the hills, the terrorizing screams of Robert and Boemondo as they were thrown into battle. I believe there isn't a more adapted place in which to have conserved the tomb of Guiscard:
a magnificent unfinished and forgotten abbey ….the symbol of the story of these two knights…..

Gianni

Hello Gianni, It is nice to finally speak to you. I wish the two of you luck in your research, however I feel you have an uphill climb. It is fairly obvious that I hold more to the orthodox view of the history you are researching, but it was not always like that for me. I once was very much in line with your thinking on such subjects and I spent most of my college years studying both the crusades as well as the Ethiopian church and their claim to hold the Ark of the Covenant. After several years and hundreds of dollars in books I have found that most of these researchers have their own agenda, which is not to discover the truth but more often just to sell their story. By no means do I feel you are among them, but I have become skeptical of these theories. I am glad you are using my criticism constructively and I hope it steers your research in the right direction.

As I have told Jacqueline, I am not actively researching this time period anymore and so most of my post are done from memory - please forgive me if if I'm not 100% accurate. Here are some comments regarding your post.

1.I have only read one book on the Golden section/sacred geometry - by Mario Livio, so I am not qualified to prove or refute anything on the subject. However the very little I was able to look up on Acerenza's cathedral state that the structure is based upon a Greek Cross design - not unusual especially in former Byzantine lands. The Greek Cross, is similar but not exact to the Cross Patee the Templars would later use as one of their symbols. I also seem to recall seeing a webpage that claims the cathedral was designed in imitation of Cluny - the abbey of Pope Urban II. What I would be interested in is just what part of the structure is original and what has been added later on to give a unique design.

2. The Celtic knot decoration could just be decoration and makes sense to me considering the former homelands of the Normans. Normandy and Brittany still had many vestiges of the celtic past, especially after the arrival of Normans in England. Also the Viking tradition of raiding the Irish and Celtic monasteries for centuries ensures that once the Normans became Christians they would be heavily influenced by this style of artwork. The first generation of Normans in Italy were still cultually linked to the North and as time passed the architecure became more under the Byzantine and Islamic influences.

I'm not sure, but I believe I first read about the peacock symbolism in the work of Margaret Starbird - who I find to be a bad researcher who relies on feeling instead of fact. The only symbolism I recall for the peacock in christianity dates from the classical times and represents the resurrection.

3. Please explain what you mean by "apocryphal angels". Also I don't see the connection to this proto-templar order of Norman monks and the Castel del Monte, which is at least a century younger than the time period you are working with. Also Frederick II was no friend of the Templars, so why would his mysterious castle be included in this plan? In my opinion this has less to do with sacred geometry and more on the pragmatic need to have fortresses/watchpoints with good "lines of sight". Remember that in this time the land was contested by Normans, Byzanties and Muslim raiders - even monasteries and abbeys needed to be on high ground.

4. On the Castelmezzano cross: Templar crosses were not 8-sided.
However an 8 point Latin cross was often worn by crusaders and pilgrims- it does not mean that it was carved by a pilgrim. This is the origin of the term "Taking the Cross"

The so-called Templar Cross is a Cross Patee - an equal armed "greek cross" with slighly flared ends. The 8-pointed cross is the Maltese cross of the Knights Hospitaller, which as you already know was originally the cross of the Republic of Amalfi, and a powerful Maritime power in the years before the crusades. Modern Templar organizations have corrupted the symbols and now you can see artwork of Templar knights with the wrong cross on their tabards.

The coat of arms for Castelmezzano looks like the original Templar seal, but it is not exact. The town's seal on their webpage has two knights wearing full plate armor - not used until the late 14th century. Also the knights are wielding what look like swords, the templar seal shows the knights wielding lances - and makes more sense when you fight from a horse.

The town's symbol must have changed since 1200 since knights did not wear full plate armor in 1200 - do you have any charters or documents from that period with this symbol? I would need solid proof, otherwise it looks like the invention of modern (18-19th century) Templars or Freemasons.

Also I feel that Frederick II would never allow this - an obvious symbol of Papal authority in his lands would be wiped off the face of the earth.

A note on the town name: My Italian is bad but does the name translate into: Castle of the procurer? If that is the case it sounds like the location originated as a supply station. - this is just speculation on my part.

6. I feel the concept of the "Milites Christi" was Gregory VII's need for protection from the Holy Roman Emperor. The investiture controversy was still a major issue and if not for Norman intervention Henry IV would have had his own man as pope. Urban II was sure not to make the same mistake with the Normans, and allowed the Norman territories to appoint their own bishops -he needed their protection.

I also think you should look into the Council of Piacenza which predated Claremont and was attended by ambassadors of the Greeks. Bohemond probably did have ambitions to conquer Byzantium, but it does not mean Urban had the same goal - he was attempting to reconcile the East and Western Chruches at this time. Urban (through Papal Legate Ademar of LePuy) also threatened excommunication to anyone who fought their fellow christians, the Greeks. There were skirmishes, but most were caused by foraging parties looking for supplies.

Of course, Bohemond was barely tame - a vicious guard dog that nobody could truly control. Urban and Bohemond may have been on the same team, but I do not think they had the same agenda.

I don't know how much more I can contribute but I will comment as long as I have information. I do feel that your research should look into Islamic and Byzantine influences - especially with your theories on sacred geometry since these two civilizations were the inheritors of classical knowledge. I feel that the "hidden knowledge" crusaders picked up in the Holy Land was not located under the temple mount but was the rediscovery of the lost knowledge of antiquity via the Arab scholars who continued the traditions of geometry, astronomy, navigation and architecture.

Gianni, if I can ever get back to Italy I will certainly contact you. We might disagree on things, but I can tell that we share a love of this time period and our Southern heritage (my family is from Sicily).

Justin

Hello Justin, thanks again for your attention!
I was studying middle age Historyfor long time , to help me better understand the documents that I had found in the place where I was born: Acerenza. Many of these documents came from my Family. My far origin is from Cornwall and Ireland: It is a Gaelic family. I found a black hole in this history and this is the reason why I begun my research. I wish to give back its History to Acerenza; this is my goal,. There are no fantasies here, only a history based over documents, symbols, frescos, sanctuaries, caves, woods: every stone here seems to have something to tell, something of a forgotten past. Because this is a forgotten place. I'll try to answer to your questions, but only when you will visit the places and see the documents, will you believe and understand all this. The same thing happened to one of the producers of the documentary:-- a specialist in History.
In any case, I'll try to answer. To back me up there are; documents, places and symbols that are there.


1The Cathedral of Acerenza preserve the original plan built by Arnaldus in 1080. It never changed since that time, except for the towers: the original plan had two towers. In our geometrical research we found that the towers have to be two. Ancient documents preserved in the cathedral, confirm that the towers were two: one destroyed because of an Earthquake in 1500 and never rebuilt again. The original plan is an anglo-Norman church similar to some other in Normandy. The question is that this cathedral is older than most parts of the other cathedrals in Normandy. I don’t agree that it follows the plan of Cluny.
Concerning the sacred geometry, it is my specialization. I know the history of this knowledge, and I know very well the book of Mario Livio. The plan of Acerenza shows a geometrical rule based over the sacred geometry, without any doubt. The characteristic of this plan is the “deambulatorium”. In Italy only three churches exist with this plan, all of them are in Southern Italy.


The Celtic Knot of Acerenza is different: it is a not symmetrical chain of Celtic Knots. It is very difficult to do. It is a code: I’m sure about it. In this Cathedral everything is a symbol. The influence was from Ireland, the same place from where Cannion and Arnaldus (and my family) came from.


The only symbolism I recall for the peacock in christianity dates from the classical times and represents the resurrection.
You can find many peacocks in many medieval churches in Italy. It was the symbol of the resurrection. The question is that everywhere the peacock pecks the grape directly. In Acerenza it pecks the genitals of a woman harvesting grapes


There isn’t any connection between Castel del Monte and the proto-Templars. The reason why I was searching a geographic triangulation starting from Castel del Monte, is because Fredrick II had a deep esoteric knowledge, he drew this castle’s plan that is full of esoteric symbols, and in my opinion he choose the place in a relation with some holy places. The results shows that it was true.


We found red crosses 8-pointed in many Templar “Grancie and Sanctuaries” in Lucania. It was the original templar cross. Here, exist many ancient frescos that show it's: too old to be “corrupted” by modern templars or masons. Don’t forget that we are searching in a place that witnessed the birth of the crusaders, a place still uncorrupted and authentic.


From authentic documents we know that it was the symbol of Castelmezzano (Castro Medianum) since 1200 at least: no doubts: two knights on the same horse. The modern symbol is quite different from the original, because it was drawn again as the style of 1700. Original documents from 1200 tell about this symbol.




In 1089 there was a Council in Melfi, the city of the Normans beside Acerenza. We have documents that show that Urban II was talking around the Holy War and the Holy Convenience already in Melfi! More, I know also why Urban II choose Piacenza and Who was organizing this Council…..forgotten documents as I told you .


It doesn’t seem to be in accordance with the mission of Dainberto of Pisa. The first goal was Jerusalem of course, then Bysantium using Bohemundus. It was the true purpose of Urban II, from the documents that I have

Bohemundus was in accord with the Pope. His Father, Robert Guiscard promised him a kingdom, according with Gregorius VII. Urban II followed his plan.

This knowledge was known in Sicily during the kingdom of Roger I and Roger II. Don’t forget that Pythagoras and Archimedes were living in Southern Italy: the true place from where this knowledge was coming.

Hi Gianni,

Thank you for answering the questions I posed. At this point I figure I would have to see the evidence to sway me.

Considering that you actually possess the proof to your argument, I think you should try to get your work published in a scholarly journal, besides your book.

I also suggest that you find a way to translate your documentary into english since you will have a larger audience. Or at least find a way to get it onto youtube.

Feel free to keep the forum posted on updates and discoveries and good luck.

Justin

I see this topic is wroten only by two forum members. Well, I understand as sacred geometry is difficult science familiary only to someone.

In several years, since 1995 I made a lot of analzyes, mostly for Slovenia and towns there.

So international sacred geometrical postitons show me that Israel is located on some holly world area as it have support from Mecca and Vatican. But formula is much deeper and it is going all way to Tokyo. I believe by the time they will be in danger.

Andres