Rose Croix Veritas

 Rennes le ChateauA French MysteryThe Holy GrailShugboroughMary MagdaleneFrench FreemasonryPoussinThe Rose LineThe debunkersLandscape Geometry    Zodiac de RennesTeniersGRAIL COUNTRYMegalith StudyGeometryPriory of SionSauniereDe Cherisey ConfessionRebuttal AnsweredInterviews17th JanuaryDossiers SecretLobineau DocumentLe Serpent RougeNoel CorbuThe London ConnectionLa Vraie Langue CeltiqueEt in Arcadia EgoThe Da Vinci Code    Henri BoudetParchment 1Parchment 2Otto RahnMartinistSaint MichaelTarotDa Vinci CodeLuciferGisorsRLC Treasures


IT IS ALL SOLAR

MEGALITH STUDYCeltic Cross Mystery

DisclTHE FORUMaimer

Fake Parchments?
 

NO!!!

Firstly we have a copy of the original page shown in yellow to distinguish it from my rebuttal remarks.

***********************

Here is the article that maintains the Priory of Sion Parchments are fake.

 

There now follows a rebuttal of the above webpage

 

The key to understanding the apparant series of 'confessions' stems from this document.

 

This is a letter from Philippe de Chèrisey to Pierre Plantard showing his concern that the Priory documents had been stolen during a burglary from de Chèrisey's Paris premises at 37 Rue Saint Lazare.

It says:

I still do not have the answer to my letter of the 17 January nor the sum of money. I must use it in six days. Thus only one word to warn you that Gérard de Sède is in possession of the case of files of the Priory of Sion stolen to the 37, street Saint Lazare and with its contents he means prepare a book against us. He is in possession of the file of George Monti, as well as photocopy of your contract with Rene Descadeillas or you 65% of the rights for the work: Rennes and its last Lords. Worse still, in this case was your (original) manuscript of Circuit! What can one make of it? To acknowledge before the publication which the work CIRCUIT isn't me. Want you me to give an answer?

On the origin of the Priory of Sion, my research recoups a  hold on them, all the publications of Philippe Toscan come from one [who] is delirious under the effect of drug, the truth according to the files of the Order held by my uncle Saint Hillier with the Chateau de Lys, it is on September 19, 1736, which François d' Hautpoul and Jean Paul de Negre founder of the Priory of Sion, the 2nd Grand Maitre is well Andre Hercules de Rosset (Limoux/Stenay). The continuation does not have any error: Charles and Maximilien of Lorraine, finally after the revolution; Nodier, Hugo, Debussy (with Monti) and Cocteau. I received threatening letter of insane, his name Roger Dagobert, he declares [to be] the descendant of general Dagobert, and Dagobert Saint, therefore heir legitimate to the gold mines that are in your grounds of ROCK NEGRE has Rennes, moreover pretender to the throne of France. Soon

Philippe de Chèrisey

Note

At the moment here there is mail and still a letter of this [ancestor] of Dagobert which has gone to the dustbin. He pretends now to link his name and quotes like [an] owner of the treasure of Rennes in one of the parchments (that of my manufacture) the human stupidity does not have limit. Example: All the acts of Hautpoul, included that of Blanche de Castille and that until 1337 were carried out on order of the king Louis XIV by Charles Rene d' Hozier de Serigny, judges weapons and certificate gives on 30 April 1781. made reproduction at Montpellier in 1911 to 1913

 

Here de Cherisey is concerned that Gérard de Sède is about to use some stolen documents in order to write a book. These are what he calls 'The files of George Monti'. It would be in de Chèrisey's interest to rubbish these documents and discredit de Sède and this attempts to do so by seemingly confessing to have written them. 

However look at the last paragraph above. Here de Chèrisey explains that he has received a letter from someone claiming to be a descendent of Dagobert II and how stupid he is because here he admits that he manufactured the Dagobert parchment. But he specifically says ONE of the parchments here and specifically he uses the words "celui de ma fabrication" (That of my manufacture) i.e. the one that contains the Dagobert text. He does NOT admit to manufacturing the other Shepherdess parchment.

But notice in the treatise above from Paul Smith there is no mention of him manufacturing the Dagobert parchment.

Let me take his so-called confessions one by one.

  •    "Yes, I am the author of the message "BERGERE PAS DE TENTATION" quoted on pages 20-21 [cf, in Elizabeth Van Buren’s book, The Sign of the Dove]. My conclusions have been registrated at an attorney at law and by my novel "Circuit" deposited in the Bibliothèque Nationale".

He says he is the author of the SOLUTION not the encryption.

  • "…my grid decipherment has only 25 letters whereas the French alphabet has 26 – I have left out W. Was I cheating? No, not at all, as I drew up Documents I and II in semi-uncial handwriting to give the impression that they dated from an historical period when the letter W was unknown to the Western world as U and V were used instead."

Why would he do this? Don't forget he then goes on to explain that the BERGER PAS DE TENTATION text refers to Delacroix's painting in St Sulpice not Poussin or Teniers, a time when the French used a 26 letter alphabet. Why is he complicating things by using a 25 letter alphabet? But probably more to the point, if he was in collusion with Gerard de Sède why did allow de Sède to make a glaring error in his book by letting him decode a code made using a 25 letter alphabet by using a 26 letter alphabet? A decryption that produced errors. If he leaves out Poussin but then goes to Delacroix, where does ET IN ARCADIA EGO fit into his scheme? Don't forget he presumably manufactured this also complete with the phrase needed to make the final text i.e. PS PRAECUM:

What for?

What has ET IN ARCADIA EGO got to do with Philippe de Chèrisey's little hoax now he is using Delacroix's Horse of God chasing Heliodorus out of the Temple as the real meaning?

His hoax only makes sense if he uses Poussin's 'Les Bergere d'Arcadie'. This tombstone may be fake presumably de Chèrisey invented this too. Although you should note that a lady of nobility like Marie de Blanchefort must have had at least two tombstones, one vertical the other over the grave. Why invent this only to change your story later so that you don't need it?

This confession is decidedly fishy and has come out the blue in 2006. Or to put it another way since the blockbuster book The Da Vinci Code sold millions. That in itself should explain a few things. The words 'Wagon' and 'Band' seem appropriate and don't forget the source of this has tried to peddle fake documents before.

  •     29 January 1974
    P.S. Do you know that the famous manuscripts supposedly discovered by the Abbé Saunière were composed in 1965? And that I took responsibility for being the author?
    Yours sincerely
    Philippe de Chérisey.

    • Self explanatory "He took responsibility for being the author" in other words by 1974 he wanted to discredit Gerard de Sède who was in possession of his documents and had used them in his book.

  •   The so-called manuscripts presented by Gérard de Sède are false. The original was fabricated in 1961 by Marquis Philippe de Chérisey and deposited in May 1962 with Maître Boccon-Gibot. Also, Gérard de Sède only possesses a photocopy reproduced in his book L’OR DE RENNES. Better still, this same marquis spiced up his joke by publishing in June 1971 (with a legal deposit in the National Library) a work on Rennes, with the decipherment of the original. This work bears the name CIRCUIT."

Here is the confirmation that he and de Sède were enemies and that he wished to discredit him. However again de Chèrisey shoots himself in the foot here. First he says he composed them in 1965 then he says he composed them in 1961.  You have to remember too that all of this hoax needs to go hand in hand with the Dossiers Secrets and these included the Lobineau document and the name Jean Cocteau who was still alive at this time when de Chèrisey was apparantly making his hoax . Did Cocteau agree to be included in de Chèrisey's little game?

  •  Then we have this nonsense from Smith:

During the 1970s Pierre Plantard and Philippe de Chérisey made the acquaintance of Jean-Luc Chaumeil, and they both entrusted him with the original "parchments" that were used in Gérard de Sède’s 1967 book L’Or de Rennes – together with the handwritten document by Philippe de Chérisey Pierre et Papier that contained the encoding and decoding technique to the large "parchment" – as well as the confession that de Chérsiey was the creator of both "parchments". This material was given to Jean-Luc Chaumeil because of a book that he was preparing at that time – Le Trésor du Triangle d’Or, published in 1979 – Plantard and de Chérisey were hoping that Jean-Luc Chaumeil would use their material in his book as part of their revenge campaign against Gérard de Sède. Jean-Luc Chaumeil, as it happened, failed to publish any of this material in his book – but he did produce transcripts of several interviews with Philippe de Chérisey where he admitted again that he was the creator of the "parchments".

What Smith fails to mention here is that Jean Luc Chaumeil and Gerard de Sède had together attempted to scam Henry Lincoln and the BBC with a fake document and that far from being in collusion with Plantard and de Chèrisey, Chaumeil was in collusion with de Sède. The question remains why would Philippe de Chèrisey give his documents to a man who was a friend of a man who was in possession of their stolen property?

This is fantasy aimed at people with little knowledge.

  •     

    And later, in L’Enigme de Rennes (1978), Philippe de Chérisey wrote:

    • "When I visited Rennes-les-Bains in 1961 and learned that, after the Abbe's death, the town hall of Rennes-le-Château had burned down (along with its archives), I took advantage of the opportunity to invent a story that the Mayor had made a copy of the parchments discovered by the Abbé."

            Philippe de Chèrisey had visited Rennes les Bains in the 1960s because of an illness he had. He hints that his initial discovery was indeed Rennes les Bains.  He later said something interesting after his visit he said:

    "The doctors prescribed me a cure in Rennes les Bains, obsolete thermal spa located on the meridian line zero. I was going to discover over there that if I had a duty, it was to avoid the attention of others whilst moving evasively and secretly"

    "Two contrary desires share my heart, glory to publish all that the great day and to jealously keep the treasure without saying anything. My whole life needs to hesitate and I awake in the same moment that I die.........By the celibacy which is imposed on them the priests are the best guards of treasures than one can conceive ........A priest, because he is concerned with Sky and Earth, must meditate on the relationship of astronomy with the geography....With the difference in the phenomena which should still be seen to believe, Cromleck of RLB [Rennes les Bains] is seen only when one believes in it, nothing is really proven there, not even the Roulers or hones it posed which will appear readily to the whims of nature"

    The question is which story did de Chérisey choose to invent? It is now clear that the inclusion of the Dagobert story is an invention of Plantard and de Chèrisey, but the passage above seems to suggest that whilst at Rennes les Bains de Chèrisey discovered something to do with astronomy and geography. It will be proven that the second shepherdess parchment has connections to astronomy and geography.

     

  •   Also in L’Enigme de Rennes :

    "What happened next far exceeded my wildest dreams! Today visitors to RENNES-LE-CHATEAU are encouraged to admire, at the home of Monsieur BUTHION, the restaurateur who keeps the Hôtel de la Tour, two superb enlargements of photocopies of MY ENCIPHERED TEXTS!"

Easily misconstrued this. It was indeed de Chèrisey who bought to us these documents and so they could indeed be termed as his. This however does not mean he constructed them, only that he found them.

  •    

    Photocopy – this is the "original" Philippe de Cherisey "fake document" that Gérard de Sède reproduced in his book L'Or de Rennes.

    The believers make a lot out of the word "Photocopy" – but the words "original" and "fake document" are also included in the annotation. The original "parchment" is essentially a photocopy and a fake – the original "parchments" were the pieces of Tracing Paper that Philippe de Chérisey took with him to the Bibliothèque Nationale in Paris with which to copy the Latin Uncials from the Merovingian Period and then to try and place them into correct order when copying the Latin texts found in the books by Fulcran Vigouroux and John Wordsworth & Henry J. White – there never were any "original parchments" to begin with – and the pieces of Tracing Paper have naturally not survived for various obvious reasons – not least the fact that the "parchments" were originally presented as genuine in the earliest Priory Documents and in Gérard de Sède’s 1967 book, L’Or de Rennes. There never were any "original parchments" in the first place as the believers claim.

Well a photocopy cannot be made to prove anything. The fact it's a photocopy makes the whole exercise null and void. What Jean Luc Chaumeil neither proves nor disproves anything and is therefore totally useless. However looking at the history of de Chèrisey's dealings with Henry Lincoln it does appear that de Chèrisey only ever had photocopies himself.  One does wonder why de Chèrisey seemed to confess so many times but never actually produced anything to prove what he said was fact.

 

We can clearly see from this that the two parchments are yellowed differently, the top shepherdess parchment is clearly older than the bottom Dagobert parchment. Also we need to ask why two parchments? Why make the hoax so complicated that two parchments are required?

  •     Latin texts found in the books by Fulcran Vigouroux and John Wordsworth & Henry J. White

    This slight of hand is typical, this in no way proves that documents of an older vintage were not in existence. It only suggests that they were bought into the public domain on these dates and that nobody had found a prior copy or bothered to publish it before Vigouroux.

     

  • Codes are intended to be broken as they are passed on – but only one person can possibly break the code in the large "parchment" and nobody else: its creator. As cryptography expert Professor John Gordon commented, when informed that the decoding/encoding technique required the discovery of 128 random letters and their subsequent transformation by five successive ciphers – two of which used keys, fragments of inscriptions on obscure gravestones; in effect, the message was encoded six times: "Nobody is going to discover that, are they? That sort of settles it in my mind – if you can find anybody who'd have anything to gain out of decoding this, then my suggestion would be it’s a hoax on their part". (Featured on The Discovery Channel documentary, Conspiracies On Trial: The Da Vinci Code, broadcast on 10 April 2005.)

A wholly incorrect statement.

They aren't going to discover it he's right on that score, however the fact remains that we do have the key and the method what more do we need? The person who has something to gain is the very person who holds the key and the method as indeed we do. But at the end of the day the final message is still not clear so there was no point in encoding it in the first place. Unless of course you wanted it made public in the first place and it has certainly succeeded on that score.

Remember the letters were found on a tombstone that was documented in 1906. The creator then added the letters PS PRAECUM - What for? Why not make up a text with the correct number of letters in the first place? Remember you are trying to make up something that's nonsense so all you need to do is make up something with an esoteric feel with the correct number of letters i.e. 119. The only reason you need 128 is in order to make 2 x 64 =128 and you only need this in order to use the Knights tour.  So why include PS PRAECUM? Why not simply use all the tomb letters and ditch the BLUE APPLES on the end? Or , if you're not going to use him anyway, why not simply ditch the word Teniers and make a new date instead of PAX DCLXXXI to make up the difference?

Why make it more complicated than it need be?

The problem is that the BLUE APPLES are indeed a phenomena in the church at Rennes le Chateau. They do indeed hit the altar at midday on 17th January, but why should this be secret? On the contrary it would make an interesting attraction into the church for Sauniere and in no way compromises the religious dignity of the church. What we will also find is that the Teniers painting carries some meaning as does the Poussin painting. In fact what we find is that the entire phrase

BERGERE PAS DE TENTATION QUE POUSSIN TENIERS GARDENT LA CLEF PAX DCLXXXI PAR LA CROIX ET CE CHEVAL DE DIEU J'ACHEVE CE DAEMON DE GARDIEN A MIDI POMMES BLEUES

yields a result.

However here's what Gino Sandri said about the coded parchments:

 

GS: Forgive me to repeat myself, the drafting of these parchments answered at the time a precise goal. There still, it was a question of diverting the attention in order to protect from other documents. As you know it, since 1956, a series of publications diffused under various pseudonyms is put in circulation. We are in the presence of a true campaign which aims at a character or a company which acts in the field of the occult one. This exchange does not concern that a restricted circle. Forty years after, these documents became without interest if it is only historical. It is at the very least amusing to raise that a "dispensary" installed at the time with Rennes-le-Chateau produces quantity of documents of identical invoice as well as the papers or correspondence allotted to the Abbé Boudet or to the Abbé Bigou. These writings are then the juicy trade object which, it appears, continued. Unfortunately, the authors implied in the history of Rennes are victims of this swindle in which the Priory of Sion does not have any share and no benefit draws any.

More to follow