Rennes-le-Château

[quote="rennes17Who cares by what means De Cherisey converted the letters and planted them into the Latin text [/quote]

The means is not the point - de Cherisey's lack of understanding of the means he himself supposedly devised is. If it was just an anagram, then why did de Cherisey, incorrectly, try to explain how he, himself, devised an encryption based on Vigniere and the Knight's Tour? Why not just say it's an anagram?

It is obvious that the supposedly self-confessed creator of the parchments did not understand the true nature of the "code". He mumbled, he fumbled, but did not know how the "code" was constructed.

That's pathetic, Smith. You got nothing. You have been beaten so badly all you can do is keep posting the same post that did nothing to help your case in the first place. Your done Smith. Now leave before you embarrass yourself further.

Oh, you must mean the anagram on the gravestone that has been proven to exist before de Cherisey was ever born. The all important (AOM) PS PRAECUM, huh? You have in no way established that it originated with Plantard.
You can NEVER make a credible case for de Cherisey authoring the parchments or their encoded messages because all anyone has to do is show that page from CIRCUIT or Stone & Paper and de Cherisey is POSITIVELY proven not to have understood what he claimed to be his own code. Nor will you be able to explain why he used different handwriting for the two parchments, if he alone had written them.
De Cherisey never came close to providing a reasonable explanation for how he could have been responsible for all that. He gave some very vague and woefully inadequate EXCUSES for explanations, and that's it. The only hoax in this whole thing was de Cherisey's claim to have been behind it all.

The encoding and decoding technique is superfluous!!!
The Viginere and Knight's Tour do not mean a thing!!!

Everything begins and ends with the anagram - that is the hub of everything. The rest follows. You need the anagram FIRST. Who cares by what means De Cherisey converted the letters and planted them into the Latin text --- merely reversing the encoding technique to arrive back to the message that is the anagram that includes the all-important Plantard PS PRAECUM

What is this gibberish? "The encryption technique is irrelevant, because you need the ciphertext and keys for it to mean anything". Uuuhh, D'oh. That is true of every code. That's why they're called codes. That's why there's a whole section of Mathematics devoted to it, and why the military branches of hundreds of governments spend so much money on it.

This rubbish is a shallow and transparent attempt to confuse casual readers into believing the issue is more complex, thereby whitewashing the fact that de Cherisey DID NOT understand the encryption technique he himself supposedly devised. The issue isn't whether the Knight's Tour or Vigniere substitution tables are in themselves relevant - the issue is that de Cherisey was completely clueless as to the process involved.

Paul WISHES the encryption/decryption was irrelevant. Problem is, it is VERY relevant. Paul's whole thesis is that de Cherisey created fake parchments and pretended that they were the ones said to have been discovered by Sauniere. If anything casts serious doubt on that claim then we are left with photocopies which could very well be of the real Sauniere parchments. I don't believe for a moment that de Cherisey ever possessed the actual parchments themselves, but I do believe he had a copy of them.
Well, de Cherisey's description of the workings of the code in CIRCUIT and S&P clearly demonstrate that he completely missed a key step, changing three erroneous letters as first extracted from the parchment. He didn't do that so he obviously didn't know all the details about the code. Therefore, it could not have been his own code. Therefore, he did not create the parchments. Case closed.

Quick note:

I'm away from my desk at the moment. I have read your post on the graham hancock forum (Can't remember the password) and will answer you as soon as I get back.

_________________
"In the Aude, the peasants rather believe in the malignant spirit, the fairies and the underground geniuses than with the Virgin and the Angels”

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.

Yup, Le Popol has no defense at all.

You try doing it.

Try and construct 'Bergere pas de tentation Poussin Teniers gard le clef' etc from the anagram alone. The words Poussin and Teniers and Cheval de Dieu will be particularly difficult to guess at using the anagram alone. The successive coding stages arranges the letters into the correct order.

PS PRAECUM merely makes the code work, it's meaningless otherwise.

However MORT EPEE does appear to have some meaning that is relevant.

As he said Philippe de Cherisey WAS the author of BERGERE PAS DE TENTATION etc. i.e. He was the author of the SOLUTION to the code and tried to protect his discovery through an injunction. He was NOT however the author of the original code and he has NEVER admitted this.

He has failed to explain what AD GENESARETH means.

Ladies and Gentleman this has been a reasoned argument production

_________________
"In the Aude, the peasants rather believe in the malignant spirit, the fairies and the underground geniuses than with the Virgin and the Angels”

I don't even believe de Cherisey figured out the decryption himself. It's too complicated. Nobody could figure that out. It had to be given to him or he stole it.
He mentioned in an interview once something about a town hall or something burning down and the records lost, which he said gave him the opportunity to make up some fake stuff. Maybe he just robbed the place and then burnt it down himself to hide the evidence. Maybe the parchments and the decryption procedure were on record somewhere in the RLC area. Only there is still a part missing, explaining how to change the three letters O,H and X to the proper ones. It has also never been explained why there are several tiny letters inserted in the P2 text. The first is between the d and u in the second line. I can't really make out what it is, maybe an N. Then there's a tiny E in the third line and a tiny x in the fourth. Later there's an M,U,N, A and I all in the last few lines. So we have NEXMUNAI, in tiny letters, which has never been explained. There's also a question mark after GENTES at the beginning of a line about halfway down the text, again unexplained in any way.

Oh, I guess that's supposed to be REX MUNDI. I forgot about that. The question mark is still unexplained though.