Rennes le Chateau

Invité

You forgot to mention the Loch Ness Monster connection
Nutcase

Invité

From Circuit, by P. de Cherisey;

"But nothing can any longer stop Charlotte for whom the words jostle at the postillion gate. Poussin and Teniers are two painters who became famous by The Shepherds of Arcadia for one and The Temptation of St. Antony for the other. The Shepherds is for Poussin as The Temptation is for Teniers. If they could guard their key is it that there no longer exists the lock for this object and that the parchments were not there prior to the revolution and had no provenance with Anton Bigou. But they were from 1861, the era of the third painter (Delacroix)."

BTW, I hear de Cherisey was a fan of the Loch Ness monster.

Invité

GARBAGE

Inscrit le: 31 Déc 2005 Messages: 526

rennes17 a écrit:

GARBAGE

WHY?

Invité

GARBAGE FROM A NUTCASE WHO IS A MENTAL DEFECTIVE

Inscrit le: 31 Déc 2005 Messages: 526

rennes17 a écrit:

GARBAGE FROM A NUTCASE WHO IS A MENTAL DEFECTIVE

Yes but WHY IS IT?

DON'T YOU KNOW?

Invité

What about the Yeti connection, nutcase?

Inscrit le: 31 Déc 2005 Messages: 526

Gstar a écrit:

From Circuit, by P. de Cherisey;

"But nothing can any longer stop Charlotte for whom the words jostle at the postillion gate. Poussin and Teniers are two painters who became famous by The Shepherds of Arcadia for one and The Temptation of St. Antony for the other. The Shepherds is for Poussin as The Temptation is for Teniers. If they could guard their key is it that there no longer exists the lock for this object and that the parchments were not there prior to the revolution and had no provenance with Anton Bigou. But they were from 1861, the era of the third painter (Delacroix)."

rennes17 a écrit:

What about the Yeti connection, nutcase?

Statement too much for you huh?

Invité

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

Inscrit le: 26 Juin 2006 Messages: 251

rennes17 a écrit:

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

See Debunking for Dummies tip # 6

Invité

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.

Inscrit le: 31 Déc 2005 Messages: 526

rennes17 a écrit:

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.

Distorted reasoning?

What when we have ascertions from a guy who is KNOWN to have tried to sell a fake document in the past and from you who deliberately alter testimony from researchers (Jacques Cholet)

My reasoning is sound old chum.

Invité

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.

Inscrit le: 31 Déc 2005 Messages: 526

roscoe a écrit:

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.

Anybody agree that this looks like utter desperation on Smith's part.

Cutting and pasting an old argument that's already been blown away is the sign of a man struggling.

Invité

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.