Revision as of 20:09, 8 December 2006

Actually, this page is the rare page that I'd say exists for a good reason. Before Bree had a picture of Crowley on the wall, she had a picture of what most fans believe was a Baphomet. It can be seen in the video Danielbeast. I'm not sure that the item deserves its own page, but that's mostly because I don't know the relation between Baphomet and other items in the LGpedia.--JayHenry 11:05, 8 December 2006 (CST)

Well, I just watched that video, did a screen capture, and zoomed in. I've uploaded the result here:

As you can see, that is DEFINITELY someone's face. They have a beard and moustache. It's a little ominous because you can't see the eyes in the photo, but it's definitely a person's face. Contrast that to a picture of Baphomet and you can see that it is in no way possible a picture of Baphomet.

As far as how Baphomet relates to anything, Baphomet was supposedly the diety that the knights templar worshipped...which they confessed to under EXTREME torture. Many of them later recanted after the torture was over. The rendition of Baphomet we have today was actually drawn by Eliphas Levi.

As you can see in Wikipedia, the claim of Baphomet ever being a real idol is very very dubious...and he really doesn't fit in anywhere --Tannhaus 11:41, 8 December 2006 (CST)

If the picture was believed by fans to be a Baphomet, then a wiki entry is useful to explain the truth more clearly. If we can conclude from Tannhaus' post that the picture was not of a Baphomet, then I think Tannhaus' analysis should be moved to the article itself so that the article 1. Explains what a Baphomet is and 2. Explains the relation between LG15 and "Baphomet"--it is a failed guess as to what the picture was? --Treefunk 11:56, 8 December 2006 (CST)

I'd echo Treefunk's thoughts. Back when the theory was first floated at the old phorum there were different visual analyses which made it plausible that it was a baphomet. From your comment, it also sounds as if Baphomet should be removed from the religion section and perhaps moved to speculation? The fact that it was such a major theory leaves me inclined to leave a page.--JayHenry 12:52, 8 December 2006 (CST)

I definitely knew nothing about Baphomet prior to this discussion... probably because the article explained so little about it and because it was there for the wrong reasons and the wrong section. Nice catch though guys... I agree maybe it's a fit for the theories and speculation section, but only a brief article along the lines of what Treefunk suggested. OwenIsCool 13:12, 8 December 2006 (CST)

I propose that the Deletion proposal template be lifted from this page as it now clearly explains relevance to LG15.

Editing conflict

Hey Treefunk,
I think we were both working on it at once because at one time it said there was an editing conflict. I copied the new content you'd written and incorporated it into the version that had the organization I put in. If you don't like it, just revert to your old version, no worries. OwenIsCool 14:09, 8 December 2006 (CST)