Talk:Laurence Gardner

message: What about this supposed panacea against age effects, illness, etc., "reputed" to be the "Food of Gods" and nutrition of souls?. Mr. Gardner appeards to be linked in any way to this stuff (http://www.whitepowdergold.com/). Anybody can scientifically say what really is this?.
Please email to malpy2004@yahoo.com
Enrique De Tomás —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.39.141.166 (talk • contribs) 
While I do not have easy access to sources on hand (all my books are packed away. My mother had a stoke and I was forced to move back home to help my dad with her, so everything I own - all 5 rooms of it, is spread through their house. It looks like we're hoarders! LOL)
 
I ingested Monatomic Gold (i.e., "White Powder Gold") daily for 7 years. What did it actually do for me? I'm not sure that I can easily explain that. I no longer sleep for long periods of time. I tend to stay up all night and sleep during the earlier part of the day. I was later told this was one of the side effects of ingesting it. Lovely. They couldn't bother telling me that beforehand? It has to do with the cycle of Melatonin & Serotonin production in the brain, but I don't know the science behind it - just that I've had a screwed sleep cycle since around 2002, which is when I officially began taking it on a daily basis. I most definitely seem to have a better grasp of things. What I mean is that I seem to find better solutions when problems arise. Like the sleep cycle issue - the easiest solution was for me to take a night job. As for it being an anti-aging thing, or any of that.
Perhaps in it's purest form, made directly from Gold - that may be true. What I was taking was not made from converted gold, it was made from crystals and minerals that had formed where a meteor struck the Earth.
(Look for a product called "Etherium Gold". That was the brand I took. The company has  quite a bit of the research on their website.)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thosewhocallemtim (talk • contribs) 12:43, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about the so called "White powder gold"? 

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

message: I just read the page, he is a real author, I have most of his books.  That is the neutrality dispute about? Chikanamakalaka 04:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please point me to scientific evidence that shape-shifting reptilian aliens once ruled our land.  If you think science is basically about footnoting everything you read, you need to educate yourself. --124.188.98.26 (talk) 07:31, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: POV

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

message: To be a conspiracy theorist is not necessarily to be a paranormalist, or vice versa; plenty of people who believe JFK was shot by a US government cabal roll their eyes at the notion of extraterrestrials...and likewise, vice versa. What connection is there to The Unexplained other than that? --Chr.K. 10:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see your qualms, but you'll note that he's not catted under paranormal.  I think the header is just there because the paranormal project decided they'd look over and maintain the page.  --notJackhorkheimer  (talk / contribs)  17:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paranormal tag 

message: This is an utterly paltry article for a fairly high profile author who writes detailed books on complex subjects. Whether you agree with his ideas or not you can't deny that there should at least be information here as to what they are. Deleting huge swathes of text on the basis that "Most of this article is nothing more than a cut and paste of Gardner's articles so I'm going to delete them" is not the kind of attitude to take at all. If you think something is unencyclopedic then either take the time to re-write it carefully or leave it alone. Sachabrunel 10:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I completely agree with Sachabrunel.  The sensorship and negativity directed towards this article is appalling.  The purpose of Wikipedia is to inform the reader about facts.  An article about an individual may contain description of the individual's beliefs.  It is a fact that the individual holds a particular belief and that fact should be presented on Wikipedia.  This does not mean that the belief is true or false.  The claim is not that the belief is a fact, simply that it is a fact that the person believes it.  It is up to the reader to decide for themselves what to think of the individual(Laurence Gardner)'s beliefs; not an over zealous Wikipedian deleting everything he/she dislikes.  sloth_monkey 09:35, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not good enough 

message: Does anyone have any facts on the author e.g. where/when he was born, working history etc?  I thought he was English but I'm reading one of his books and he uses the US English spelling of words instead of UK English.Burns flipper 11:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you are reading a US issue of one of his books it has likely been edited grammar- and spelling-wise for a US audience. Xanthippe 03:58, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Facts on author? 

message: Is Laurence Gardner the son of Gerald Gardner (as alleged here)? Theelf29 17:24, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Parentage 

message: I have read Laurence Garner's books, have gone as far as possible in verifying his numerous and valuable references, and have followed a similar path in examining the evidence of our history.
This has led me to conclude that Laurence Garder is as close to the truth on his many subjects as any other comparable researcher and author.
In attempting to cover so much ground, it is enevitable that some of his work has been subject to revision, which he has not hesitated in carrying out.
Over some twelve years I have noticed the same pattern of arrogant, repetitive and shallow critizism from a group of individuals who are clearly incensed by the revelation of truths, which deeply challenge established religious teachings.
The fact that Laurence Gardner attracts those who denigrate his character and smear his scholarship, without any genuine level of examination of the subjects he covers, tells the world that this books should be taken very seriously.
These works represent serious historical research, supported by a very large section of the informed book buying public as interest and sales of his books demonstrate.
The infantile statements and discriptions of Laurence Gardner and his scholarship, which imply otherwise on this website are a disgrace.
Edkidu  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edkidu (talk • contribs) 20:52, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Genuine examination of his work shows that his research is NOT scholarly.  Scholarship is about method, not volume. The fact that he present what are clearly forged documents (a high school Latin student could see flaws in the document) in support of "Michael of Albany" suggests further purports the notion that his methods are very dubious.--124.188.98.26 (talk) 07:38, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revising History - Recovering Knowledge 

message: The below 
Arizona Milder, which is interviewed in the movie "The Biggest Secret, tells that Laurence is one of the Humanoid Reptilians that conspire with the Illuminati controlling the politics and finance of the world..The Biggest Secret—Viddler, in the 14th of May, 2009 
I have today removed here, unless it can be fully substantiated in a comprehensible form -- SockpuppetSamuelson (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 08:23, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsubstantiated claim 

message: It's being reported in forums and Whitley Strieber's site, but not in the news. The Daily Mail gave him an award, but searching its site turns up zilch. Dougweller (talk) 11:31, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Why use reason why a personal attack will do? You're almost as bad as the person whose name you wisely removed from here. We've have this funny policy of wanting reliable sources for articles, particularly biographies. We've had our fingers burned before with fake death notices. This is an encyclopedia, no one will get hurt if it takes a few hours or even days to report a subject's death. It's a bit more insensitive to report a live person as being dead, wouldn't you say? We aren't going to take an IP's word for it. If his website has been changed, then you should note that here. Dougweller (talk) 19:26, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

text: Lol. I don't think it will have any more impact than any of his others, he's a niche writer. It may have an impact in his niche, and maybe that's 'worldwide' in one sense, but... And thanks for the compliment. I have taken this to WP:BLPN by the way for other editors to comment on. Dougweller (talk) 07:07, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Death 

message: What is there to discuss? Has anyone here actually read the works by Laurence Gardner? They will never be seriously entertained by any serious researcher. Take the first two statements in the article - Chevalier Labhran de Saint Germain was a Fake Title and the European Council of Princes never existed. His works certainly do not fall under the category of historical revisionism. Lung salad (talk) 20:47, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: He certainly did not write or lecture on historical revisionism or pseudohistory, He wrote pseudohistory (or 'bogus history'), I can find a cite for that, Damian Thompson's Counterknowledge. Is the 'historical revisionism' bit something we created? Dougweller (talk) 21:17, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Can everyone cool down and keep it non-POV. Garder's ideas may well not have been correct, but the venom displayed here is really something else. I've read a couple of his books, and while most of what he wrote is unsubstantiated by any evidence, and much is highly speculative, there is nevertheless a lot of interesting stuff in there, whether it's true or not. Compare this to Bill Bryson, for example, a fairly well respected and very popular writer who, if anything, does less research and makes more up. Is his page comprised of personal attacks? Obviously not. Save it for a 'criticisms' section. By the way, all this nonsense about "Fake Titles" - as if this matters! Who has the right to give out a title anyway? Who cares? Utterly irrelevant. Yours, Baron Bienfuxia (talk) 15:43, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Cheeseman and Williams, Rebels, Pretenders & Impostors, footnote 20 to Chapter 4 (Dreamers and Hoaxers). Lung salad (talk) 17:20, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: What is this? Are you expecting everyone to go and buy this book to find out? Bienfuxia (talk) 23:51, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gardner was pseudohistory 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Laurence Gardner. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100805011101/http://graal.co.uk/index.html to http://graal.co.uk/index.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:42, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Laurence Gardner. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070505103651/http://www.entropic-art.com/book.html to http://www.entropic-art.com/book.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101230151524/http://www.dashhousepublishing.co.uk/ to http://www.dashhousepublishing.co.uk/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110107094444/http://www.dashhousepublishing.co.uk/book_the_origin_of_god.php to http://www.dashhousepublishing.co.uk/book_the_origin_of_god.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:27, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

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

message: Could someone update the video link that is given in the article?
I am watching the original video now re-uploaded to YouTube. I found this by searching YouTube for these keywords... monatomic gold ark covenant secret
and found the video listed about the third or so down the YouTube search results. 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gLFytyjV7h4 ORMUS | Lost Secrets of the Sacred Ark | Laurence Gardner [FULL 480]
I recalled vaguely that sadly this man had died, so wanted to know more details about this so came to Wikipedia to get the unfortunate details and discovered that this video was linked in its very old form from de funked Google Videos link that should be replaced with its YouTube videos counterpart above. Thanks. Oldspammer (talk) 14:17, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stale Google Videos Link should be replaced