Rennes-le-Château

Smith's sole argument completely blown away here

Follow the links.

Along with him altering the facts of the case by saying Sauniere actually meant Secretaire when he actually wrote down SECRET and this getting completely blown away here, there is little wonder that the guy is now in FULL RETREAT and is now in hiding.

I'm currently spreading the fact that the principle debunker is a coward and has run away unto several websites in several languages.

Smith if you're reading this, running away doesn't win you respect. Defending your argument does.

ROSCOE

_________________
"In the Aude, the peasants rather believe in the malignant spirit, the fairies and the underground geniuses than with the Virgin and the Angels”

ANY NEWS ON THIS Smith?

_________________
"In the Aude, the peasants rather believe in the malignant spirit, the fairies and the underground geniuses than with the Virgin and the Angels”

Your website is the product of an abnormal mind....

You're absolutely terrified to enter into any kind of reasoned debate with me aren't you Smith?

_________________
"In the Aude, the peasants rather believe in the malignant spirit, the fairies and the underground geniuses than with the Virgin and the Angels”

THE NUTCASES GET THEIR FACTS WRONG BECAUSE THEY ARE UNABLE TO THINK PROPERLY

Tell us where we're going wrong then?

_________________
"In the Aude, the peasants rather believe in the malignant spirit, the fairies and the underground geniuses than with the Virgin and the Angels”

You are sick in the head man, you are mentally ill.

See Debunking for Dummies tip # 6

You're just another nutcase. Another example of distorted reasoning.
CAN GO AROUND AND AROUND WITH YOU AND IT WILL NOT GET ANYWHERE BECAUSE YOU DO NOT KNOW HOW TO THINK PROPERLY.

Tell us where we're going wrong then.

Don't you know?

_________________
"In the Aude, the peasants rather believe in the malignant spirit, the fairies and the underground geniuses than with the Virgin and the Angels”

JIM BECK'S TEN COMMANDMENTS

1. The Louis Lawrence Tomb was really the "Poussin Tomb"

2. Forget about Adrien Bourrel's testimony that the Louis Lawrence Tomb was built in 1933. That was a lie and Pierre Jarnac cannot be trusted.

3. Don't worry if you cannot find any independent references to the Louis Lawrence Tomb being the "Poussin Tomb" outside of Pierre Plantard and Philippe de Cherisey.

4. The parchments are genuine - don't worry if you cannot find any independent references to them outside of Pierre Plantard and Philippe de Cherisey.

5. None of Jean-Luc Chaumeil's documented archive relating to the "parchments" can be trusted because he once tried to pull Henry Lincoln's leg over a Rumanian treasure.

6. Believing that the Louis Lawrence tomb was a "Poussin tomb" without any evidence and ignoring the testimony of Adrien Bourrel is sensible and is not to be deemed pseudo-history

7. Believing that the "parchments" are genuine without providing any evidence and ignoring the archive of Jean-Luc Chaumeil is sensible and not to be deemed pseudo-history.

8. Quote the spurious and questionable statements made by people like Dan Brown, Henry Lincoln and Picknett & Prince as if they were historical facts. When their spurious statements are challenged and seen to be discredited, begin to rubbish the nature of debunking.

9. There is a Rennes-le-Chateau mystery. The source of Sauniere's wealth cannot be explained. The evidence of Sauniere's notebooks is to be ignored because it is impossible that he acquired his wealth from the selling of masses. It does not matter about the Trial between Berenger Sauniere and the Carcassonne Bishopric and what evidence that produced.

10. Keep repeating points 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 always rubbishing debunking in the process.

This is Jim Beck's continuous agenda on this Messageboard in a nutshell.
There is no longer any need to read any of his messages ever again.
Just keep looking this up for reference.

Irrelevent; There is no proof that a tomb did not exist there in Poussin's day.



You only have to look at it and of course it is overlooked by Rennes le Chateau.



De Cherisey admitted to finding a SOLUTION to the code. There is NO instance where de Cherisey admitted to writing BOTH the original parchments.




Jean Luc Chaumeil is KNOWN to have attempted to sell a fake document in the past. He can no longer be trusted.



You've already done this one . See answer to 1 & 2



The parchments can be deemed genuine if a solution can be made that leads to discoveries previously unknown. When they were made is smoke and mirrors and totally irrelevent. Watch this space.



You have discredited NOTHING of theirs. Examples please?



Even your other guru Pierre Jarnac disagrees with this.



You keep repeating the insults because we regard this as victory and an indication that all reasoned argument has been wrenched from you.


[/quote]

_________________
"In the Aude, the peasants rather believe in the malignant spirit, the fairies and the underground geniuses than with the Virgin and the Angels”

JIM BECK'S TEN COMMANDMENTS

1. The Louis Lawrence Tomb was really the "Poussin Tomb"

2. Forget about Adrien Bourrel's testimony that the Louis Lawrence Tomb was built in 1933. That was a lie and Pierre Jarnac cannot be trusted.

3. Don't worry if you cannot find any independent references to the Louis Lawrence Tomb being the "Poussin Tomb" outside of Pierre Plantard and Philippe de Cherisey.

4. The parchments are genuine - don't worry if you cannot find any independent references to them outside of Pierre Plantard and Philippe de Cherisey.

5. None of Jean-Luc Chaumeil's documented archive relating to the "parchments" can be trusted because he once tried to pull Henry Lincoln's leg over a Rumanian treasure.

6. Believing that the Louis Lawrence tomb was a "Poussin tomb" without any evidence and ignoring the testimony of Adrien Bourrel is sensible and is not to be deemed pseudo-history

7. Believing that the "parchments" are genuine without providing any evidence and ignoring the archive of Jean-Luc Chaumeil is sensible and not to be deemed pseudo-history.

8. Quote the spurious and questionable statements made by people like Dan Brown, Henry Lincoln and Picknett & Prince as if they were historical facts. When their spurious statements are challenged and seen to be discredited, begin to rubbish the nature of debunking.

9. There is a Rennes-le-Chateau mystery. The source of Sauniere's wealth cannot be explained. The evidence of Sauniere's notebooks is to be ignored because it is impossible that he acquired his wealth from the selling of masses. It does not matter about the Trial between Berenger Sauniere and the Carcassonne Bishopric and what evidence that produced.

10. Keep repeating points 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 always rubbishing debunking in the process.

This is Jim Beck's continuous agenda on this Messageboard in a nutshell.
There is no longer any need to read any of his messages ever again.
Just keep looking this up for reference.

_________________
"In the Aude, the peasants rather believe in the malignant spirit, the fairies and the underground geniuses than with the Virgin and the Angels”

JIM BECK'S TEN COMMANDMENTS

1. The Louis Lawrence Tomb was really the "Poussin Tomb"

2. Forget about Adrien Bourrel's testimony that the Louis Lawrence Tomb was built in 1933. That was a lie and Pierre Jarnac cannot be trusted.

3. Don't worry if you cannot find any independent references to the Louis Lawrence Tomb being the "Poussin Tomb" outside of Pierre Plantard and Philippe de Cherisey.

4. The parchments are genuine - don't worry if you cannot find any independent references to them outside of Pierre Plantard and Philippe de Cherisey.

5. None of Jean-Luc Chaumeil's documented archive relating to the "parchments" can be trusted because he once tried to pull Henry Lincoln's leg over a Rumanian treasure.

6. Believing that the Louis Lawrence tomb was a "Poussin tomb" without any evidence and ignoring the testimony of Adrien Bourrel is sensible and is not to be deemed pseudo-history

7. Believing that the "parchments" are genuine without providing any evidence and ignoring the archive of Jean-Luc Chaumeil is sensible and not to be deemed pseudo-history.

8. Quote the spurious and questionable statements made by people like Dan Brown, Henry Lincoln and Picknett & Prince as if they were historical facts. When their spurious statements are challenged and seen to be discredited, begin to rubbish the nature of debunking.

9. There is a Rennes-le-Chateau mystery. The source of Sauniere's wealth cannot be explained. The evidence of Sauniere's notebooks is to be ignored because it is impossible that he acquired his wealth from the selling of masses. It does not matter about the Trial between Berenger Sauniere and the Carcassonne Bishopric and what evidence that produced.

10. Keep repeating points 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 always rubbishing debunking in the process.

This is Jim Beck's continuous agenda on this Messageboard in a nutshell.
There is no longer any need to read any of his messages ever again.
Just keep looking this up for reference.