Rennes-le-Château

Since nobody has insulted me on this forum, and Torkain hasn't deleted any of my posts, I am going to post the full details of the Poussin "Binary Star" geometry, as well as the hexagon/pentagon which is required to produce it with full precision. I also like the date, as it is the 1st day of the 7th month, and the digits of the day/month/year total 13. Here is the article, it is directions for drawing the solution geometry into any good print of the Poussin painting. Of course, you would need some basic comprehension skils to actually carry it out. This article should devastate all naysayers and competetors........ To prove that my ‘binary star’ Poussin solution geometry is legitimate, I will now explain how to draw the geometry shown on my website, as well as the rest of the geometry that gives birth to the Binary Star. It consists of a combination of a perfect hexagon/hexagram combined (or ‘married’) with a pentagon/pentagram. The unusual thing about this ‘marriage’ is that in order to facilitate this particular combination, the pentagon must be every slightly shortened in one area. This results in a pentagon that still retains all five of its internal 108 degree angles, but when the pentagram is drawn within it, that pentagram has all of its angles altered from those of a true pentagram to varying extents.
We’ll begin by drawing a rectangle perfectly containing two overlapping equilateral triangles, one pointing up and the other down. The center of the top edge of this rectangle will be at the top of the left staff in the Poussin painting, and the upper right corner of the rectangle will be at the top of the right staff. Thus, parts of the rectangle will be outside of the painting’s left and lower edges.
Now we draw a horizontal hexagon within the rectangle, one point touching the center of the left edge and the other touching the center of the right edge. We must also draw a vertical line down the center of the rectangle, joining the top and bottom edges thereof.
We must now introduce the pentagon. The pentagon will be oriented horizontally, with one of its points oriented directly to the right. We do this by drawing lines from the two right corners of the rectangle, in toward its vertical centerline, at angles of 18 degrees from the top and bottom edges thereof (make the upper one go all the way across the rectangle), then drawing lines from the same two rectangle corners, out to the right, at angles of 36 degrees from the right edge, to meet and form a point. We now have a conjoined hexagon and pentagon, the pentagon being only slightly altered as I mentioned previously.
We could draw a full pentagram within this pentagon, but it won’t be required for our purposes. We will, however, need to draw a line from the exact center of the upper 36 degree line that we drew in the previous step, down and leftward to intersect the vertical centerline at the same point where the lower 18 degree line had intersected it. We may as well complete vertically oriented hexagram that fits inside the horizontal hexagon also, by drawing two horizontal lines across the rectangle ¼ way in from the top and bottom edges.
Now comes the part where the binary star is produced. Draw a line from the center of the top edge of the rectangle, down and rightward at 18 degrees from the vertical centerline. This will be the centerline of the large star, make it as long as you think you will need, to the bottom of the rectangle is convenient with plenty to spare. Now mark a point to the left of this 18 degree centerline, on the upper 18 degree pentagon line you drew across the rectangle, the same distance from the 18 degree vertical star centerline as the upper right corner is from the right of it. A compass is the easiest way to do this. That point you just marked will be the left arm point of the large star, and the upper right corner of the rectangle will its right arm point.
Now then, the line that runs diagonally from the top right corner of the rectangle, to its lower left corner, will be the lower arm line of the right arm of the star. In order to produce the left lower arm line, simply draw a line from the now established left arm point, down and rightward to pass through the intersection of the star’s centerline with the rectangle’s diagonal line which joins its upper right and lower left corners. Continue drawing this line until it touches the pentagon diagonal that we drew from the center of the upper 36 degree line. This touch point at the pentagon diagonal is where the right leg point of the star will be established. Now draw a line, from that now established right leg point, up to the center of the top edge of the rectangle (which is also the top point of the star). Now simply mirror this line, to the left side of the star’s centerline, to complete the left leg. The large star is now complete. The angles at the tips of the arms and legs will be long decimal numbers, and the angle of the top point of the star will be 66.0057724 degrees. Thus, by this convoluted procedure, we have obtained a star whose top angle is a perfect 66 degrees to two decimal places, a remarkable chance result of the marriage between the hexagon and pentagon. The inaccuracy is, therefore, only about 1/180th of one degree. The long decimal numbers of the arms and legs are of sufficient magnitude to actually be observable when taking precise angle readings from the features in the Poussin painting. This, then, provides a mathematical proof, if you will, of the Binary Star part of my proposed Poussin solution. I contend that no other possible solution can explain these anomalous readings. This is done by taking readings of the angles between the line connecting the tops of the left and right staves, and either the vertical tomb line (pointed at by the right shepherd), or the centerline of the right staff. The tomb line is obviously a more precise reference, as it is much finer. Both will be off from whole angle readings by 0.18189111505 degree. The tomb line is at exactly 6 degrees to the right staff, by the way.
The small star is exactly ¾ the size of the large star, its centerline passes through the right ‘shoulder’ intersection of the large star and is angled at exactly three degrees toward its centerline. To position its arm line, extend the right half of the top edge of the rectangle rightward for a distance Phi (1.618etc) times the length of said right half of rectangle edge. Then draw a line leftward from the right end of that extended line, at an angle of 3 degrees down from it. All the angles of the small star are identical to those of the large one except its vertical centerline is angled at 21degrees leftward, rather than 18.


Copyright Brian Ettinger July 1, 2003

I fixed the typos and added clarifications to the article, on my weblog July 1 entry at http://avalon1398.easyjournal.com . It is an interesting puzzle to try to figure out how to calculate all the precise angles of the geometry. The key is that the rectangle you start with has known dimensional ratios. Once you assign particular measurements to the sides of the rectangle in this ratio, being the height to width ratio of an equilateral triangle, you can then use trigonometry to calculate all the angles of the star and its surrounding pentagon.

I made a mistake in the directions for positioning the arms of the small star, in the last paragraph of the article. The corrected version is now on my July 1st weblog entry at http://www.avalon1398.easyjournal.com . I also now specify the arm and leg angles of the star. Sorry for any confusion the original version may have caused. Please report any other flaws to me at cos36x2@mail.com .

I shouldn't have put a "www" in the weblog link in that last post. Use the link in the post right before that one.

Hey, have you noticed that the "Rennes-le-Chateau Hoax Theory" promoters have been struck dumb? I guess my total solution of Poussin and Teniers presents a bit of a problem for them, not to mention my thorough trashing of Le Popol's website. Le Popol, of course, being the apparent hero of the "RLC Hoaxers". Seeing that I reduced him to speechlessness must have been a little jarring to their confidence. The producers of the BBC "History of a Mystery" show are going to look a little less than brilliant now also. As is now clear, it wasn't the believers in the RLC mystery who were the gullible dupes, it was the believers in the "debunkers" of said mystery who, in the end, were seen to be gullible ones. True, they did show Plantard to be a con-man, and Lincoln to be easily misled, but they made the naive mistake of concluding that EVERYTHING about the RLC mystery was equally unreliable. What I have done is provided the "surprise ending" that nobody could have foreseen. I guarantee that neither the BBC, Le Popol or anyone else on this Earth is EVER going to be able to successfully denounce my solutions, the details are simply unassailable. Therefore, I have successfully "resurrected" the Rennes-le-Chateau mystery and launched it into a whole new phase. Now it is not a matter of whether the mystery ever existed, it is a matter of analysing the astonishing solution thereof and trying to figure out just what the whole thing means and how it was actually done.

Although this is not about RLC, it is important enough that I thought you might want to hear about it. I have just solved the Giza Pyramid layout mystery and it involves a Star of David. This may explain how the Jews came to revere this symbol, their religion being based on Egyptian and Caananite religions. The webpage is at http://www.geocities.com/avalon1398/hex2.html .

My Giza Solution may not be as precise as the diagram on my website suggests. There are slight differences with the actual pyramid layout as described in survey data from Flinders Petrie. The geometry may still be the basis for the layout, it just may have been alterred slightly for whatever reasons. Even if my Giza Solution turns out to be less than perfect, It gave me the idea of trying a double hexagram with the Poussin geometry, rather than the single one I originally described, and it turned out to have some interesting correlations with the Binary Star. For instance, the line from the top point of the small Star, to its right arm point can be seen to pass right along one of the points of the second hexagram. This, and other correlations, may explain how the positioning of the small Star came about. It definitely appears that a double hexagram was used at the center of the horizontal hexagon. The fact that these correlations exist, though I have only just now discovered them, shows that my proposed Poussin geometry is genuine and even more complex than I first supposed.

Giza Solution now corrected to accurately match Flinders Petrie survey data, and Great Pyramid slope angle now accurately solved. http://www.geocities.com/avalon1398/hex2.html

A final footnote. My Giza solution turned out to be fatally flawed after all. By making a very large version of my diagram, I was able to establish once and for all that there is no convenient way to precisely reference the Great pyramid's position and dimensions from the double-hex geometry. the closest I could get would have produced a Pyramid with side lengths of 443.55 Royal Cubits, more than 3 cubits over the true dimensions, and this would also foul up all the distances between it and the other pyramids. I believe that the true basis for the Pyramid layout was correctly deduced by John Legon- http://www.legon.demon.co.uk . The ironic thing is that the true basis is simply a conglomeration of squares and rectangles whose dimensions comprise the values of the square roots of 2, 3 and 5. While these are key mathematical values, as the basis for such a mysterious site as Giza this basis is rather disappointingly simple. I was able to produce a few different versions of a very similar Pyramid layout from the double-hex geometry, any one of which would have been much more impressive than the actual layout, at least in my opinion. So much for my little aside from the Rennes-le-Chateau mystery. My Rennes-le-Chateau solution is much more gratifying than the actual Giza solution. You can really sink your teeth into that one. It is doubtful I will ever be able to top that in regard to any other subject. Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be much more I can do with it. Nobody has ever approached me about using it in a book or program (except a couple flakes who soon fell by the wayside), even though it is hands down the most astonishing thing I have ever encountered. I think it would be a great subject for a somewhat fictionalised movie, but apparently either Hollywood has never heard of RLC or they just prefer to do movies about boring and repetitive subjects. I'll probably end up having to write a book myself, as tedious as that would be. Apparently Henry Lincoln has dropped off the face of the Earth, or he still thinks the treasure is in Bornholm of all places, so somebody else will have to pick up where he left off. I guess the BBC isn't interested in the true solution, only Lincoln's puttering about. Nobody wants to fund the Oak Island project, so we know for certain that Christianity is only concerned with fleecing the flock, as we all had guessed long ago anyway. The Freemasons? Why would they care? All they care about is weird handshakes and pointless ceremonies, at least that's all I have ever seen any evidence of. That leaves basically nobody except me, and what chance does one person have of digging to the bottom of a 200 foot shaft? I would give it a shot, but the island is under the control of a bunch of people who have no chance whatsoever of comprehending the true facts behind the Oak Island and Rennes-le-Chateau mysteries. Thus, the treasure will stay exactly where it is, probably for eternity. Actually, it for the best because there is not one person in the entire world who is worthy of it. This I know for an absolute fact by direct experience over the last few years.

It turns out that my theory is not quite as dead as I had thought. I just discovered a very precise way of setting up the Great Pyramid square based on the double-hex geometry. I can now set it up with dead-on accuracy for both size and position. This referencing method is indirect, meaning a dimension must be transfered from one part of the hex geometry to the required area of the Great Pyramid square. It is nonetheless so accurate that it is very plausible indeed. I discovered it on the 2 foot diameter version of my diagram, so it is very precise. Its indirectness also tends to explain why it took this long for me to discover. I also made a new discovery in regard to the Third Pyramid. It turns out that there is a particular 'alignment' with the other two Pyamids. It is very simple. If a circle is drawn within the square of the Third Pyramid's base, a line drawn across the southeast corners of the other two Pyramids will perfectly pass along the edge of this circle. I think this is a new discovery, I have never heard of it being reported previously. I used one of Legon's precise Giza diagrams to check this and it was dead on. I still have to check it by mathematical calculation though. These new developments are now shown in the diagram on my webpage- http://www.geocities.com/avalon1398/hex2.html . As they say, it ain't over till it's over!

Even the version of my Giza layout geometry now shown on the webpage is too far from the actual survey data to be supportable as the true layout basis. The only usable thing that came from it was that I discovered that a double hexagram conforms very nicely with the Poussin geometry. I wouldn't have thought of trying that figure otherwise. I also have a better appreciation of my Poussin solution. Unlike the Giza data, the features of the painting are sufficiently precise that the geometry could be back engineered with a high degree of certainty.
With Giza, none of the Pyramids have all four sides of equal lengths. None have casing stones with consistent slope angles. There is really no way to pinpoint what the actual intended slope angles were, or the intended heights or widths. Even John Legon's theory has weak points, such as the sides of the Great Pyramid not being 440 cubits as his theory calls for, but actually 339.8 cubits. The whole thing is just a nightmare to try to make sense of.
I'm removing the Giza webpage. I'll probably keep doodling with Giza, but I won't present anything publicly until it is sufficiently solid, unlike my previous attempts. It may not even be a solvable mystery. Fortunately, Rennes-le-Chateau was. The odd angles of the Poussin geometry were certainly a fortunate feature. It makes my solution provable beyond any serious doubt whatsoever, and eliminates all competing theories at the same time. Now if more than a handful of people ever take an interest in the subject, it may be of some benefit to me.

Nothing like alittle enlightened self-interest, is there?

There are many ways of "interpreting" data and imagery. Neither way is correct, nor incorrect.

If there were anything remotely comparable to my work, then I might have some competition for my interest, but we all know that is not the case. You can interpret things however you want, but I know for an absolute fact that I have solved Poussin, Teniers and the Oak Island Cross. If there were any flaws, I think I would have picked up on it by now. Of course, YOU are welcome to try to identify one. Get back to me when you do huh? I invite Mr. Torkain to delete any or all of my posts if he finds them in any way offensive. So far, all I have gotten out of solving the world's greatest mysteries is bragging rights. Therefore, I will take great joy in utilizing those rights whenever I get the chance, like on this forum for instance. I really don't care what you, or anyone else thinks about me. I am actually pretty tired of people commenting on my personality rather than my work. I could be the biggest jerk in the world, and some may say that I am, but I have done something so incredible that it will probably never be equalled. Nobody can ever take that away from me, no matter what. My name will be recorded in history forever. I wonder if YOUR name will be there, Chris!

See webpage for opening of final seal of Poussin geometry- http://www.geocities.com/avalon1398/grailpage.html

Technically, I don't believe anything here is mentioned about your personality except for your own comments.

I made no claim that there was any flaw to your work, only that it is but one of many possible interpretations. To deny that statement as fact is to invite lunacy, as all "solutions" are open to interpretation.

Enlightened self interest is one of the traits that makes us human, afterall.

Bragging rights aside, your opinion is also but one of many, as is mine.

Sometimes I wonder if indeed the authors of the geometrical anomaly in the paintings isn't turning in his grave with laughter at how many people he's hooked in.

Not that the geometry is a herring, red or otherwise, but it'd certainly be an interesting thing if all the trouble we go to with deciphering formulae, cryptic geometrical shapes, latin phrases, french phrases, etc., it were all for nothing.