Rennes-le-Château

Wikipedia is built on the 'Wiki' principle. Any member of the public can submit, edit or expand on an article. Wikipedia is NOT a researched encyclopedia. Anybody can create or change an article.

From Wikipedia's own explanatory page:



Since he attempted to debunk the Wikipedia site, it is clear that the concept of a Wiki (open collaboration) is anthema to all Smith believes. This is typical of Smith's knee-jerk leap of faith, assumption-ridden methodology.

Le Popol is as fraudulent as De Cherisey, Chaumeil and Plantard.

If anyone has read:

http://priory-of-sion.com/posd/lafosse/lafosse.html


You could be forgiven for thinking this was the work of PS (Le Popol). This is not the case. It was researched by both the Scottish and Irish Genealogical authorithies, and what he presents (as per the 'by Le Popol' subtitle) is the work of others.

NOWHERE on http://www.priory-of-sion.com is it claimed that
the content to
http://priory-of-sion.com/posd/lafosse/lafosse.html
is the "work of Le Popol" --- further demonstrated by the reproduction of Jack S MacDonald's Report, that strangely enough is signed "Jack S MacDonald" and not "Le Popol". The sources have been provided and nothing is "lifted".

Further evidence that Mark Hempenstall is unable to think properly.

It seems that Mark Hempenstall is now posting other people's messages.
People that are every bit as bogus as Pierre Plantard and Michel Lafosse.

I am not posting messages on behalf of anybody else.

snicker

Just back from the pub, then, Paul?

Just a simple question, Le Popol : do you realize you write and justify like Plantard and Cherisey did before ?
You hate so much these persones that, now, you're becoming like them.

I prefer to read honest and serious posts. I just want to collect the local history of RLC, not to read inventions.
So sorry.

_________________
Quia vidisti credidisti. Людмила

There is nobody more like Plantard than Ludmila, Mensior, Jauclin, Daffos, Beecham, Hempenstall, Tull, Ettinger, and all the other ignorants who know nothing about the history of the fakery of the Priory of Sion (Plantard and de Cherisey).

You are all ignorant.

The ignorance (in every respect of the word) is all yours, rennes17.

Such an accusation can only be levelled against me by a Rennes-le-Chateau mythologist.

Le Popol (rennes17) behaves in an abrasive manner quite deliberately:

His aim is to goad researchers into revealing what they are working on, thereby keeping him on what he believes to be the leading edge. This saves him the effort of doing any actual research of his own.

Give him nothing. Challenge him on every point - he is a compulsive liar, and peddlar of mis-statements and demi-truths.

Or, perhaps, by someone who is more objective regarding this matter than you.

Mark Hempenstall does not know anything about the subject matter that he is interested in --- his "sources" are merely the junk found on the Mind Body and Spirit bookshelves. There is not a single historian or scholar anywhere that takes this subject matter seriously --- to historians and scholars this subject matter is pseudo-historical claptrap on the same level as the Bermuda Triangle and Ancient Astronauts and the Face on Mars.

Perhaps Mark Hempenstall regards Picknett and Prince, Margaret Starbird, Henry Lincoln and the like as "historians and scholars"?


LOL

Le Popol does not understand the full nature of the subject matter that I am interested in. In fact Le Popol has only the tiniest inkling of a very small sidebar to the subject matter.

My sources are largely works far older (or based thereon) than anything that is concerned with Le Popol's narrow little field of interest. I don't believe I ever purchased a book from the "Mind Body and Spirit" bookshelves.

Since Le Popol does not understand the subject matter that I am interested in, his comments regarding historians and scholars can only be, at best, facetious, otherwise indicative of an enduring and deep-rooted ignorance manifesting as a need to confine, or at the very least, relate back, any debate to the scope of his knowledge.

As for the people mentioned, I can honestly say, I have never read any of their work, and therefore am not in a position to venture an opinion on the merits, or otherwise, thereof. Just as Le Popol, being ignorant of the nature of the subject matter that interests me, is not in a position to offer anything resembling a valid opinion on its nature.

Perhaps Le Popol regards himself as a historian and/or scholar? Perhaps nobody else does, and that is the root of his self-isolation and anti-social behaviours?