Rennes-le-Château

Notice only the first parchment is signed and they are of quite distinctly different paper.

So are you telling me that the back (shepherdess) parchment is also a Photocopy?

Why did de Cherisey make two parchments when one would have been adequate? Why did he fabricate two parchments? Or is the shepherdess one genuine and he only 'altered' the parchement with the D_a_g_o_b_e_r_t text?

You say that he traced the sixteenth century text directly, so how did he raise the letters that makes out the D_a_g_o_b_e_r_t text without this being obvious? Did the original text have the triangle in the corner, was the phrase Redis Bles separated in the original text? Basically he would have to have re-written the whole thing not merely traced it.

Why are these two parchments totally different in their context?

For example, one talks about treasure and a Merovingian king and Sion, a kind of paraphrase of what J Cholet says he discovered the other mentions none of these. What does de Cherisey say he meant by the phrase AD GENESARETH?

But the problem is you see we have known for a long time that de Cherisey altered the text of ONE of the parchments, there's nothing new here. It says on page 301 of The Messianic Legacy (first published 1996 by Henry Lincoln, Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh) the following words:

Quote:
In 1979 when we first met M. Plantard, we were told that both of the ciphered texts were in fact forgeries, concocted by the Marquis de Cherisey for a short television story. We challenged this assertion..... M Plantard conceded that the forgeries were based on the originals. In other words, they had not been 'concocted' by M Cherisey at all. They had been copied and M Cherisey had only made a few additions


You're telling us nothing we didn't already know.

Why did de Cherisey write in the magazine CIRCUIT a different solution to the phrase 'Cheval de Dieu' to the one that Chaumeil is touting as being from a confession by Philippe de Cherisey? Saying it was a reference to the Delacroix's painting in the church of Saint Sulpice?

Basically the document called Stone and Paper is de Cherisey's own attempts to try to solve the puzzle. with a rather strange and out of character "confession" appended by someone else in order to discredit the whole thing. Please prove this wrong?

Lastly you still haven't addressed the fact that Jean Luc Chaumeil has been noted to have tried to push fake documents before, so why should we believe him this time? Why has it taken him sixteen years to come out with this? Oh and I need proof that Jean Luc Chaumeil is the legal owner of this document called 'Stone and Paper.