Rennes le Chateau

Invité

Some would have us believe that the "Shepherdess, no temptation, that Poussin, Teniers hold the key, peace 681, by the cross and this horse of God I complete this guardian daemon, at midday blue apples" (originally in French) message from the Rennes-le-Chateau mystery was not existent prior to the 1960's when Philippe de Cherisey claims he himself composed it. There are some serious problems with this theory, however, such as de Cherisey's woefully inadequate explanation of how he supposedly came to write those words. This explanation is contained in a document called "Stone and Paper". This document was previously shown on Le Popol's "Smith Papers" website until I pointed out the ridiculousness of this explanation on several Rennes-le-Chateau forums. Realising that I had pointed out a huge and obvious weakness in his "Rennes-le-Chateau hoax theory", as I call it, Mr. Smith deleted that entire webpage. For instance, de Cherisey claimed that he used the word "Poussin" not as a reference to the painter but for its literal translation "small chicken". It doesn't take a genius to see that the resulting phrase "that small chicken, Teniers hold the key" is laughable.
I focus on Mr. Smith's website because it has been held out by people trying to denounce my solution of the two paintings implicated in the shepherdess message as holding the key to the Rennes-le-Chateau mystery. They cite this website as "proof" that the Rennes-le-Chateau mystery was cooked up in the 1950's or later. As I will show, they are as wrong about that as they are about my solution being in error. By the way, nobody ever has, and I maintain never will, prove my solution untenable. Why am I so sure about that? For the simple reason that I can easily prove that every single angle in that solution is mathematically correct to at least nine decimal places when calculated trigonometrically (as many of the constituent angles are long decimal numbers owing to the unique method employed to originally derive it, while others are simple whole numbers).
Furthermore, the part of the solution geometry which I show on my website (linked in the next paragraph) is only the tip of the iceberg. There is much more which I am presently holding back until required for a book or documentary project (which I invite anyone to undertake in cooperation with myself, as I have no experience in such matters) and it is ALL equally accurate and all tied together with mathematical precision.
No person has ever presented any proposed Poussin solution even approaching this degree of detail and provability and when it is all revealed you will see why. It is so complex that one would at first think it impossible to have been arrived at by pure deduction. You would think that I must have been "tipped off" about it or that I am somehow privy to "inside information". As time goes on and this story emerges into public awareness, you will find that the solution of the Poussin shepherdess painting (and thus, the Rennes-le-Chateau mystery itself) must be recognised as one of the greatest feats of sheer mental processing power ever recorded. I know that this statement will bring charges of "arrogance" or "conceit" from the unknowing general public, it is nonetheless a simple statement of fact and I really can't think of any other way to explain it.
Trust me when I tell you that nobody else on this Earth was anywhere close to the true solution to this painting, and had I not done so, it is quite possible that it would NEVER have been solved, at least not in any of our lifetimes. The solution came about by such a unique series of events, much of it through pure chance discoveries, that it is extremely unlikely that it coud ever be replicated. I think the sheer seeming "impossibility" of the solution is one of the main reasons for the failure of its acceptance by the public who have so far seen it. That, and the fact that it is of such a complex nature that the viewer would themselves need to be a near genius just to comprehend it even when it is right there in front of them.
As the website shows, the actual geographic location which the Poussin geometry represents is not even on the same continent as Rennes-le-Chateau, but in a part of North America that was under French control for a time and even referred to as "New France", and prior to that as "Arcadia" which is part of the inscription on the tomb shown in the Poussin painting, "Et in Arcadia Ego". This being what is now known as "Nova Scotia", and the precise location being none other than the infamous Oak Island. Before you start snickering and saying "he has linked one hoax with another", I assure you (as a resident of Nova Scotia) that the Oak Island mystery has in no way been proven to be illegitimate, nor has it ever been convincingly solved. NOW are you starting to grasp the depth of my solution theory?
If you can provide a BELIEVABLE alternative explanation for the graphics shown on my website, you will be the first. I maintain that the odds of my discoveries being attributable to fluke or coincidence are so astronomically low that to use this tired explanation only illustrates one's utter lack of comprehension of mathematical probabilities. If that is the best you can do, please don't waste my time. Incidently, you'll find that if you take measurements of the two lines of the geometry which precisely pinpoint the Oak Island "treasure pit" location, they produce a trigonometrically perfect three degree angle where they converge at the Pit. The diagram is not simply a rough approximation, and it perfectly conforms to the Poussin geometry.
Now you will say that mankind could not possibly have mapped out the Oak Island region with sufficient accuracy for this to have been done. The Knights Templar, and their later incarnation the Knights of Christ, had amongs their ranks the greatest mapmakers in the world at the time, and Mahone Bay is a small area. It could have been, and most definitely WAS, mapped out to extreme accuracy. Such maps were highly guarded as military secrets and we still know next to none of the most prized secrets of these shadowy groups. They would have taken them to their graves rather than reveal them to outsiders. Do you really believe that Columbus sailed blindly westward in 1492? Consider the fact that his father-in-law was a member of the Knights of Christ!
The first line of the shepherdess message is so clearly a reference to the two paintings which I show the solution to on my website http://www.geocities.com/avalon1398/Main.html that de Cherisey was at a total loss to provide a believable alternative explanation for it. He didn't even attempt to explain how he supposedly came up with the rest of the message. Had he truly composed it, he would have been eager to show how he cleverly originated every word and phrase thereof. As it happened, he lacked even the cleverness to contrive a believable explanation for ANY of it.
Mr. de Cherisey also claims that the second Marie de Blanchefort gravestone inscription shown in de Sede's and Lincoln's books (containing "P.S. Prae-Cum") was also faked by him, and Mr. Smith uses this to strengthen his hoax claims. Mr. de Cherisey provides no explanation for how he produced any part of the second gravestone inscription that I know of, nor has he ever submitted to a polygraph examination to prove his claims of authorship of this or the shepherdess message. Were I in his position, this is the first thing I would do to avoid being labelled a boldface liar, as I am hereby doing and he is welcome to sue me for libel if he thinks he can prove me wrong.
Now to continue, nobody disputes that the first gravestone actually existed and is shown in a 1905 publication by Elie Tisseyre. This document, with its depiction of the gravestone, is shown on Mr. Smith's website and several others which anyone can easily find. There is no question that this document is genuine. There is also no question that this gravestone is rife with anomalies. It is obviously not an ordinary gravestone inscription and the engraver would have been fired for making such glaring mistakes in his work, including the total omition of the letter "t" in the word "Hautpoul" which is unforgivable (this had to be done to make the anagram work out properly). The "mort epee" part of the key to decoding of the shepherdess message is easily identified in the inscription (as explained in Henry Lincoln's books). Why put something like that on an ordinary gravestone? I defy anyone to explain these anomalies if they are not related to the Rennes-le-Chateau mystery!
Now here is the thing which blows away de Cherisey's claims to authorship of the shepherdess message- the letters of the inscription are a perfect anagram for the entire shepherdess message, with the only missing letters being "P.S. Prae-Cum". Incidently, the P.S. part of the missing letters stand for "Pecunia Sua" (valuable deposit) rather than "Priory of Sion", a group supposedly founded by mass murderer Godfroi de Bouillon, the "Butcher of Lorraine" as I like to refer to him, shortly after hacking his way into temporary possession of Jerusalem in 1099 during the First Crusade. I happen to be descended from the Ashkenazi Jews he slaughtered in France and across Europe, as well as those in Jerusalem itself, thus my glowing admiration.
Even if the second gravestone never existed we still have 119 of the 128 letters from the shepherdess message (French version), this is 93 percent, on the first gravestone. It is significant that the number of missing letters is nine, an obvious reference to the nine original Knights Templar who looted the Temple Mount for de Bouillon. This is a clue to the nature of the treasure involved. Nine degree angles are also key parts of the Poussin geometry shown on my website, and the right shepherd in that painting is making the "medieval hand numeral" for the number nine to indicate this fact (left index, middle and ring fingers folded at the knuckles, index finger pointing, thumb raised-ref. "The Kingdom of Infinite Number, a Field Guide", by Bryan Bunch).
The missing letters need not even have been conveniently located at the same Blanchefort gravesite on a second stone, in fact this would have made it a little too easy. The missing part could have been contained in the parchments that Sauniere found (probably in a church crypt rather than the pillar he is pictured next to in several books) or some other safe location, maybe Marie de Blanchefort is clutching it in her grave for all we know. The key to descrambling the anagram may also have been in the original parchments. Think about it, why would anyone make up such a convoluted story of a specific priest, Berenger Sauniere, discovering a specific number of parchments contained in "wooden rolls" and taking them to a specific place, the Seminary of St. Sulpice, at a certain point in time? The key to concocting a sellable "lie" is in keeping it sufficiently simple that it can't later be contradicted by researchers.
Mr. de Cherisey maintains that the parchments seen in de Sede's and Lincoln's books are his own fakes, and they may well be fakes being that parchment one is ridiculously easy to solve and makes reference to Merovingians and Sion which would be beneficial to Pierre Plantard, but the parchment two message was obviously known at the time of the making of the Blanchefort gravestone which must have been prior to 1905, although possibly later re-encoded by someone in modern times to produce the fake parchments. How de Cherisey came to possess that message is anyone's guess, as is how he obtained the required "P.S. Prae-Cum" part of the anagram. Apparently these facts were known to someone in France whom de Cherisey had contact with. Perhaps he stole them from someone, being a self-confessed con-man. One must admit that it is beyond coincidence that the missing letters from the gravestone anagram actually arrange into a comprehensible phrase, P.S. Prae-Cum.
So in conclusion, the Tisseyre document proving the existence of the very anomalous and anagram containing Blanchefort gravestone proves beyond reasonable doubt that the shepherdess message is genuine and predates de Cherisey and the rest of the Plantard gang. Thus, this gravestone is more than the gravestone of Marie de Blanchefort, it is also the gravestone of Le Popol's Rennes-le-Chateau hoax theory, which is quite dead thanks to it and my total solution of the Poussin and Teniers paintings themselves!
I compliment Mr. Smith for helping to expose the Plantard gang's reprehensible activities however, and making several valuable documents readily available on his website. He certainly put a lot of work into it. Although most people currently involved with the Rennes-le-Chateau mystery write him off as a lunatic due to his crude and profane posts on countless internet forums (such as once referring to me as "a sheepshagger", though in truth I don't even like lamb), I think he deserves credit for compiling those obscure documents.

copyright Brian Ettinger 2003

Invité

I found a good webpage which shows where the missing "P.S. Praecum" part of the Blanchefort gravestone anagram could be found. The page is here-http://www.insolite.asso.fr/rennes/RLC-011.htm , this is in French but I was able to get the first part of the page translated by google search engine, unfortunately it didn't do the whole webpage for some reason. Anyway, the first part of the page is Corbu's account of the Sauniere story, but further down it has a part about the Dalle de Coumbe Sourde. It states that it was discovered in 1928, well before de Cherisey came along. It says that although it was defaced, they were able to reconstruct it from accounts by local inhabitants. The reconstruction shows both the "Reddis Regis, Cellis Arcis" phrase which de Cherisey claimed HE wrote, and also P.S. Praecum. So the second Blanchefort gravestone didn't even need to exist in order to obtain the required letters. Also at the bottom part of the page it has some possible interpretations of these words. For instance it says the Praecum part is a Templar reference. Apparently an abreviation of Praeconum, whatever that means.

Invité

Oops, wrong page, try this one- http://www.insolite.asso.fr/rennes/RLC-015.htm .

Invité

"Praecum" is a real word, but it is almost impossible to find a direct translation for it. "prae" means "before" and "cum" has several meanings including "with" or "after". So Prae-cum with a hyphen could mean before-after or before-with. So it may refer to the treasure having been previously with. Previously with what? Presumably whatever the P.S. stands for. If it stands for Pecunia Sua, then I guess it means a "valuable deposit" that was "before with" the Blanchefort family. I found the word "praecum" (without hyphen) contained in a few webpage documents. Here are some snippets -(1)- Hic est e saeculis praecum resolutio, que quer dizer: Eis o resultado de séculos de orações, porque Estado on-line sem uma religião-científica que nos transporte no Tempo, não há no mundo encantamento. -(2)- . Liber praecum Gertrudis, zawierający modlitwy do św.- (3)- Wegen der Worte: 'per . . . manus impositionem absolutione sacerdotalium praecum' s. oben zu 1, 128. - Zu 'communionis catholicae gratiam recepturi' vgl. Felicis III. epist., oben 1, 135 fin. - Der Herrenspruch am Ende steht Ev. Joh. 8, 11. (end of snippets) Since it always seems to be hyphenated in regard to Rennes-le-Chateau, I assume that my first interpretation is probably correct-a valuable deposit previously with the Blancheforts, Templars, or whoever.

Invité

Hello,
Good work sir,
My only comment would be to try not to be so cocky about your work, perhaps this is why people are not allowing you the credit you deserve?
Anyways, good job.
--Megan

Invité

hello Megan
I just write of private reasons: my grandmother came from a village called Blumenthal which is located in the east of Austria.
funny coincidences,
best wishes
Hannes, Vienna, Austria

Posté le: Dim Aoû 31, 2003 7:54 pm

M. Blumenthal a écrit:

Hello,
Good work sir,
My only comment would be to try not to be so cocky about your work, perhaps this is why people are not allowing you the credit you deserve?
Anyways, good job.
--Megan

I agree, I sounded too cocky in that article. I made it sound like it was the most difficult puzzle to solve that there ever was and that I was a genius to have done so. Fact is, it was ridiculously easy. It took me a lot longer than it should have. the connection between RLC and Oak Island had been tossed around for quite a while before I bothered to look at a map of Mahone Bay and picked out the very obvious pentagonal formation. It is very clear that the same shape would fit into the Poussin painting. The fact that there were two, instead of one, star in the geometry made it tricky, but that was about the only sticking point. Figuring out how the precise geometry was derived was pretty lucky though. It is far from obvious how the pentagon and hexagon were combined. I got lucky when I happened onto that. I was looking for an easy way to draw a pentagram and i noticed how similar the dimensions of a triangle are to part of a pentagon. I initially thought they were identical but then later found that there was a slight variance. Since I had already produced the alterred pentagon by this process, the rest fell into place pretty quickly. It is rather amazing that one person deduced the whole thing, but compared to mysteries like Giza it is a pretty simple puzzle. I'm very surprised that nobody solved it before me. Nonetheless, I am in the fortunate position of having the full rights to the Poussin/Oak Island geometry. Eventually somebody is going to have to pay me some money in order to use it, or there won't be many books or programs made about RLC or Oak Island. If anyone does do one without my material, I will simply point out how ill-informed they are on numerous public forums and their projects will be ridiculed. Thus, I am sitting on a gold mine, of sorts. They can either pay and use my material or suffer public ridicule. Either that, or the whole RLC/Oak Island book industry will have to shut down completely. Pretty sweet huh?

Invité

how did you obtain the full rights to a sacred geometry?
i am wondering.
other folks can have the same ideas like you.
ever heard from the theory-of-the-one-hundredst-ape?
it is happening.
mun, you appear like americans who bought the rights of some peruvian plants and then want to sell the use of this plant to the indians who already used the plant für centuries.
congratulation.

Invité

How did I obtain the rights to the Binary Star of Arcadia? Very simple, nobody can prove that it existed before I produced it, thus, it is my original design and my intellectual property. By simply publishing it (in this case, on the internet) and stating that I assert my exclusive rights to it, nobody can reproduce it or produce anything extremely similar to it in published form without violating my asserted rights, thus, opening themselves up to a lawsuit. Now, you may say that this figure must have been designed by someone else, Poussin for instance, but it does not actually appear in any publication or artwork, even in the painting itself. I contend that it fits perfectly into the features of the painting, nonetheless, it does not appear in visible form. As far as the law is concerned, I am the only person on Earth ever to actually present a drawing of that figure. Since its angles are very unusual and consist of long decimal numbers, it cannot be maintained that it is simply a common geometric form (like a triangle or circle, for instance) and, thus, not copyrightable. This is a very unique design, and therefore it is copyrightable, whether or not you may consider it a "sacred geometry". Indeed, if this is a "sacred" item, one must wonder why it only revealed itself to me while being completely hidden to everyone else in the entire world even though many have specifically analysed the painting. One might theorise that it has something to do with the fact that I am a Davidic descendant (being descended from the Talmud scholar "Rashi", who was himself a Davidic descendant), but of course that is mere speculation. I contend that if ANYONE has the rights to that figure, it is me. Of course, if you can suggest someone else more worthy of that right, then you may have a point of contention. So just who might that be?

Posté le: Mar Sep 23, 2003 4:31 pm

Brian Ettinger a écrit:

... Since its angles are very unusual and consist of long decimal numbers, it cannot be maintained that it is simply a common geometric form (like a triangle or circle, for instance) and, thus, not copyrightable...

...and therein lies the flaw in your argument - any deviation from these 'long decimals' make a completely different figure, according to your own definition. And since you used straight lines and angles, aren't you violating the intellectual property of Pythagoras?

Posté le: Ven Sep 26, 2003 11:38 pm

Anonymous a écrit:

Brian Ettinger a écrit:

... Since its angles are very unusual and consist of long decimal numbers, it cannot be maintained that it is simply a common geometric form (like a triangle or circle, for instance) and, thus, not copyrightable...

...and therein lies the flaw in your argument - any deviation from these 'long decimals' make a completely different figure, according to your own definition. And since you used straight lines and angles, aren't you violating the intellectual property of Pythagoras?

Sure, a deviation from those angles is a different figure, but if it is so close that a judge can notice a marked similarity then I have a basis for a copyright infringement lawsuit. Being that Pythagoras did not originate either straight lines or angles, I would not be violating his rights. He did not coordinate lines and angles in the same manner that I did. I am the first person ever to publish that particular coordination and I defy you to prove otherwise.

Invité

BE, you are forgetting the mention one important fact when arguing your theory - that you are God.
What a load of dribble.