rennes17 a écrit:
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.
Irrelevent; There is no proof that a tomb did not exist there in Poussin's day.
rennes17 a écrit:
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.
You only have to look at it and of course it is overlooked by Rennes le Chateau.
rennes17 a écrit:
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.
De Cherisey admitted to finding a SOLUTION to the code. There is NO instance where de Cherisey admitted to writing BOTH the original parchments.
rennes17 a écrit:
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.
Jean Luc Chaumeil is KNOWN to have attempted to sell a fake document in the past. He can no longer be trusted.
rennes17 a écrit:
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
You've already done this one . See answer to 1 & 2
rennes17 a écrit:
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.
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.
rennes17 a écrit:
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.
You have discredited NOTHING of theirs. Examples please?
rennes17 a écrit:
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.
Even your other guru Pierre Jarnac disagrees with this.
rennes17 a écrit:
10. Keep repeating points 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 always rubbishing debunking in the process.
You keep repeating the insults because we regard this as victory and an indication that all reasoned argument has been wrenched from you.
Connexion
M’enregistrer
FAQ
Rechercher
